Alan please
aadamson said:
Odd...
I just don't know where some of this comes from.... So let me set the record straight *one more time*.
If you search under my username, you will find lots of comparitive info on the RV6/7 vs. the Lancair Legacy FG. Net-Net. The FG will cost you the difference in kit cost only. The engine options are the same as the RV, the avionics options are the same as the RG. The Kit is very complete and requires only engine/prop and avionics. Last time I did the comparision, it was a 9K difference for the Legacy FG vs. the RV's (Fast build to better compare build times).
Negative, the two seat RV's are designed for O235's (118 hp), (I)O320's (150 hp / 160 hp), (I)O360's (180HP) and the IO360 (200HP).
Engines listed for current Lancair's are IO550 ($44,000 reman) TSIO550 ($75,000 reman) Continentals and the smallest listed a big 4-cyl IO390 Lycoming (210HP) or TIO-360 Lycoming(?) for the Legacy FG. XIO390? Turbo charged? Another $11,000 to $20,000 more than a IO360 (180HP engine) and much heavier. Weight on the nose affects handling and "feel". A light plane is more fun to me. I fly a big plane at work, RV's are more fun. A Lancair Legacy FG is 400 lbs MORE than a RV!
Lancair's are designed around a high HP or Turbo charge engines for a heavier plane, period. I guess you could put a small 160/180 hp engine in the Legacy FG, but it would be under powered and fly the same speed or slower than a RV but still have that higher stall. No thanks. You can find use 150/160 hp engines, not XIO390's.
aadamson said:
Also, there are 2 types of Legacy's there is an RG and an FG. The RG uses the IO-550 6 cyl engine, is Retractable, is an carbon fiber constructed airplane. The FG can be had in either Carbon (more money) or eglass (the reference 9K difference).
Who cares if its "Carbon!". I know that impresses you and you mention it every chance you get, but what does that have to do with FUN? It does help keep your overweight plane's empty weight down. Listed Weights, Legacy FG; 1,450 lb empty, 2,200 lb gross. OUCH
That is fat, a +350-400 lbs more than a RV! Heavy means heavy controls, longer take off, higher stall speed & less climb. I fly a 255,000 lb plane at work. A light RV is a delight to fly.
Alan he is talking about a Glasair I/II or Lancair 360, not a Legacy FG ala-carbon btw. Early Lancair's with Lyc 235, 320 and 360's are more efficient than current Lancair models which are bigger and DO use bigger engines.
aadamson said:
The RG cruises at about 240KTS at 13 g/hr, the eglass fg, which can only take a 4 cyl engine, cruises at 175KTS at about 8-9 g/hr.
So say you, prove it. I doubt your real world speed or fuel flow or both.
The FG calls for a IO390 (210 hp). At 75% power it's sucking more than 8-9 gal/hr. A (I)O360 (180 hp) at 75% sucks 9.5-10 gal/hr, so a 210 hp engine will be 16% more like 11.6 gal/hr. May be a turbo charge TIO-360 flying in the teens with oxygen would get that speed/FF. WOW, fly real high, dry nostrils, boring and uncomfortable. Cost of turbo engine? More than justified for fun flying 100-150 hrs a yr.
A RV-8 can cruise at 204 mph (177 kts) at 75% power on a 180 hp engine. A RV is FASTER than your Legacy FG! You want to go real fast a RV-8 with a IO360 (200 HP) can cruise about 184.4 kts, top speed 193 kts (222 mph)!
I don't get it, a "FG" 4-cyl cost way more, is not faster and does less. If all you want to do is "cruise" cross country, I guess its OK, but why give up the FUN? (loops, rolls and little grass strips)
aadamson said:
Lancair has never had *financial* problems. The company was sold *once* when Columbia sold off the experimental group. The sale kept the Lancair name. Glasair has been sold, out of business, etc a few times, still around today, but probably more focused on the sportsman than the II or III.
Yes Lancair has had financial problems. Just Google "lancair financial problems". Most issues are w/ the commercial side, granted. The kit side? I'm sure Lancair kits will be around. However the 360 parts may be harder to get as an orphan. Just saying, parts for either the older Lancair's and Glasairs may be an issue down the road.
aadamson said:
One advantage to the Legacy's - they are extremely fast build airplanes. about 600 hours to complete an eglass FG, about 800 to complete a carbon RG and 1200 to complete a carbon RG. This gets to to a flying state, but smoothing and contouring body work may still be required before paint. The factory used to offer a 10wk from kit to flying program.
ha ha ha ha ha, 600 hours, ha ha ha ha ha,
that is ridiculous. May be 600 hours just on the paint job. I have too much experience around homebuilts to believe that. Your factory help program free? Please they are complex planes. Typically factory estimates are off. The problem Alan is you make these statements you can't or don't back up. Are you flying YET? How long have you been working on it? Right.
Building the airframe is only half of the job. Even a RV QB (quick build) will take time to wire, plumb, major systems (engine, prop, instruments, brakes, controls and etc...), interior, exterior, etc.... Lancair's kits are less likely to be simple VFR, fixed pitch, basic.
aadamson said:
Georga and I have gone round and round about the merits of "glue and string" vs. Metal. I'm not going to try to do that again. To each their own.
Its Mr. George to you. Alan, facts: cost, weight, power, wing area, stall speed and ability of structural to deform (ie absorbed energy). Deal w/ it.
Lancair didn't find new "magic". RV's are good because they are light w/ a low drag flush riveted smooth fuselage. I know swoopy fuselage curves turn you on, but is more aesthetically pleasing than aerodynamic. There's some aerodynamics to a smooth glass surface, but a well built metal RV has near the same "wetted" area and similar Cd (coefficient of drag). In the past, early Glass planes (Glasair I/II/III & Lancair 235/320/360) had low Cd because the pilot was made to LAY DOWN flat on their back to reduce frontal area & gain speed. It works but it's not comfortable. RV's allow you to sit upright. New Lancair's appear to have a normal seat position but give up some "efficiency".
Alan, stick to facts. You say each to his own. Well I say undoubtedly & inescapably, but you also seem to need or want your posts about your Carbon Lancair on "Van's air force dot net" to be met with ohhhh, ahhhhs. Don't take it personally. Bottom line Carbon fiber and compound fuselage curves are cool but does NOT make it more FUN and they COST WAY MORE MONEY, fact.
If going 175 kts w/ 210 hp engine makes your whole world, bully for you. A RV-7 with 180 hp goes 173.9 kts. WOW 1.1 kts faster with an engine that makes 30 hp more & burns more gas.
I love metal and rivets. Easy to work on, maintain, repair, inspect and paint any color you want.
aadamson said:
As for which to do. If you just want a fun flyer, that you can get into small places, then go for the RV. If you want a "touring" airplane then you can't beat the Lancair's.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN IF YOU JUST WANT A FUN FLYER GET A RV & THE LANCAIR FOR TOURING?
You make it sound like RV's are not great X-C planes. BULL. After flying 1/2 way across the country, a RV will arrive may be 20-30 minutes later (w/ less fuel burn) than a Legacy FG. So what? In the mean time RV's go into short grass strips and do loops and rolls.
Alan, a sport plane for FUN is what he was asking about, not a fly straight & level for hours at +8,000 ft, see nothing & be bored. However if you want to ONLY do that, a Lancair is great. Yawn for me.
I think the RV is the best kit planes in both value and overall performance on the market. Most folks can't afford a $400,000 Lancair IV-P or need one.