What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-6 vs. Lancair vs. Glasiar

unclecameron

I'm New Here
Hi all,

Okay, okay, okay, I know this is probably flamebait or something close, buuut, after poring over the myriad specs floating around, I'm wondering which is just plain more fun to fly, the RV6, Glasair I/II or Lancair 320/260? Looking for someone's who's butt has darkened the seat of more than 1, preferrably all three that can tell me which will yield the biggest stupidest grin after flying. The goal: take wife unit and I out of SoCal and do some touch-n-go's, er wait, let's go to Arizona for $100 hamburgers, and hey, look, clouds, no problem (my dream). Anyway, would appreciate input besides "go away you sniveling glass beast."

Love reading the forum, keeps me from working for a deliciously long time :)

Thanks,
Cameron
San Diego
 
I have flown RV-4s, RV-8s and been passenger in an RV-6a and an RV-7. I have also been a passenger in a Glasair I TD and a Lancair 320. While the Glasair have extremely light elevators, I concider them cross-country aircraft. I just don't see much fun in sucking the gear up and screaming around the area for .8 hrs. (95% if my flying is local flights, loops, rolls and stopping to see friends at other local airports)

As Van's advertises, the RVs are total performance. They are aerobatic, good cross-country aircraft that also will take-off and land in reasonably short distances, on somewhat rough terrain. I will take my RV to many strips that Glasairs and Lancairs won't even consider.

The other factor is the cost. The fast glass is probably twice the cost of a Van's QB.

Good luck, Karl
 
Rv for sure

Hi Cam,
As Karl pointed out, we can go into short strips that Glassairs and Lancairs can't get into because their landing speeds are quite a bit higher than ours.
Then again, if you plan mostly long cross-countries and the absolute maximum speed is a major priority, go for a Lancair, accompanied by a much higher price tag. You still only gain maybe 20 MPH unless you go really big bore with the retract Lancair and don't mind landing at high speeds.

I fly a few 250 to 400 mile cross countries and a lot around 100-150 miles so either of the other options wouldn't save much time over the RVs. We really do have a bigger bang for the buck IMHO.

Regards,
 
Flown all of them

I've had the opportunity to fly the Glasair II and the Lancair 360. In order--

Glasair. Nice plane, good speed, fairly simple with fixed gear. I did not feel comfortable in the plane at all. I'm not exactly Jockey size (5'8", 230) which didn't help. Anyone in the 6' range is going to be uncomfortable for sure. One of the things I didn't like was the rudder pedals. The pedals are offset to the right slightly. Didn't care for that. Also I was continually interacting with the brakes. This could be rigging.

Similar flight characteristics to the RV6/7. Faster landing however that will limit some of the flexibility. Similar baggage capability. I'd be a little concerned with the long term financial stability of the company.

Lancair 320/360. Much more complex with retractable gear. Definitely not for someone too tall or overweight. Very cozy inside. Faster than RV with similar range. Much more limited on baggage and where you can land.

Higher landing speeds but fairly easy even with the higher wing loading. Touching down feels like landing a go cart. Very firm even with a 'greaser.' Same long term company concerns.

I have a 7 and feel it is the perfect two person plane. Fairly roomy even with my size, fast, economical, easy to build and most importantly, your resources when building are unlimited. No issues with stability of Van's.

You definitely can't go wrong with the RV.
 
Good Advice

You already got about the three best opinions you can get for a fast 2 seater, can't add much except: One is made of METAL and the others are made with GLUE & STRING. :D

Seriously I think you'll find the RV best suited for your mission, fun, fast, safe, easy to build & maintain w/ great resale. You didn't indicate if you are building or buying, but either way you'll have more help and support with RV's.

It's some what moot talking about building the other models since they really don't make a Lancair 360 or the Glasair I/II (fixed gear) kit any more (I think?). If you could buy a new Lancair 360 or Glasair I/II kit it will be WAY more money than a RV kit.

Glasair is still selling the IIS/III according to their site. The IIS is about $40,000 for the kit and the III $50,000. Both are retracts. Van's kit is about $18,000.

Lancair has replaced the older 360 model with a Legacy two seater FG and a "ES" 4-seater. Lancair kits start at $40,000 and go up to $78,000 ($117,500 IV-P). That is just for the kit mind you. You can count on say another $60,000 to $90,000 to finish, at least. The Lagacy FG uses a more expensive ($11k more) and bigger IO-360/390 Lyc. The 4 seat ES uses an expensive (very) Continental IO550 6-cylinder. Hey they are nice but you will burn more fuel to go a little faster. Who would not want a big plane with a big 6 cylinder for cross country, but its a totally different deal from the RV FUN mission. Also if you never owned a plane check insurance and state tax. I CAN SAY WITH OUT FEAR OF DISPUTE THE RV IS THE MOST BANG FOR BUCK.


If you are frugal and have some bargain hunting skill you can build a RV for $50,000 to $60,000 (total). You can buy an older RV like a RV-4 for that price flying. The panel may be dated panel and there may be some wear and tear but it's still a RV. A nice flying RV-7's and 8's will be newer, more up dated and cost closer to $80,000 and up. Like I said you can build one for less than you can buy it. Many Lancairs and Glasairs sell for less than what the builder put into the airframe.

Lancair and Glasair both have had financial problems so be aware.

You can buy a RV, Lancair 360 or Glasair I/II for about the same money. You will probably pay more for a nice RV with the same engine, prop and avionics than a Glasair I/II or Lancair 360. The engine/prop/avionics drive price and they can vary widely, but RV's are just more in demand & popular (I think).

A BIG deal is the RV's LOW stall speed, which is a real safety feature. The difference in energy of say of 55 mph stall vs. 70 mph is a factor of 1.62. More energy = more hurt. Also metal structure will deform and absorb more energy than than ridged composite structure in an accident. I am not saying the other planes are not as safe as the RV, just that they may demand more of the pilot. Nothing wrong with them, but they are "hotter over the fence". Also with the higher stall and structure you have a greater risk in an off field landing, at least on paper.

Last is the subjective subject of "FEEL". I have very little time in Glasairs and Lancairs from long ago, so I can't make comment. I recall the ailerons where stiff. I do know a few guys who built and flew both types extensively who now have RV's. They say the RV is more fun to do aerobatics in and has better feel. Landing? I can say the RV is the most docile taildragger I have flown and I have time in many TG's, including cubs. A RV is like a Cub, just a little faster. :) For straight and level going cross country on auto-pilot "feel" is not that important. What is feel. Well you will have to fly a RV to know.

Suggest you fly each and decide. Get hooked up to the grapevine for the other makes. You will hear fanatical rants on all sides. Of course people here are RV fanatics, but I think the info you got is pretty fair and balance. Of course we all think the RV is better, or we would have built something different. It does it all, fast, fun to fly, acro and lands on fairly short fields and less expensive (to build).

Even the "slow" RV is going near 200 mph in cruse. An extra 10 or 20 mph is not going to make much difference. Also to go those extra MPH's is going to cost more gas and cash. The RV is VERY efficient and gets very good miles per gallon. A long-EZ is better but than EXZ needs long slab runways almost exclusively and the cockpit is coffin like.

Van's Aircraft calls it "Total Performance", short fields, soft fields, fast cross country, aerobatics and general sport flying. The RV has the best balance and therefore accounts for its popularity. Here is the thing, if you buy or build a RV, you will be able to sell it for more then what you have into it. You can always go to fast "glue-N-string", I mean "glass", if that's your dream. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Not All Glass is Fast

There are two well built Glasair fixed tricycle gear airplanes in our local chapter. Both are beautifully done pieces of work and both are slower than my RV-6A by 5 to 10 kts.

Bob Axsom
 
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).

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). 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.

Lancair has never had *financial* problems. The company was sold *once* when Columbia sold off the experiemental 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.

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.

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.

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 Lancairs.

Anyway, hope this helps, if you have any questions, feel free to drop me an email aadamson at highrf dot com.

I'm the stranger in the group and they say, as I'm building a carbon FG with IO-550. (see my signature below)
 
Alan...remember where you are. You're asking a huge group of RV'ers which one they prefer.

What did you expect?
 
ohiopilot said:
Alan...remember where you are. You're asking a huge group of RV'ers which one they prefer.

What did you expect?

Oh, trust me, I know where I am. I know it each day I drop in this forum. However, what I just don't understand is *why* those that like something else, when ask for comparative comments, create myths or urban legends. If you don't know, then don't comment. You don't find me telling people how to build their RV, or how bad the company is or why Metal is bad vs. composites.

The best one I heard the other day - from an RV flyer too, is that "You don't want to own/buy a Lancair because they have problems with their tail feathers failing" - Good grief, where does this stuff come from? To the best of my knowledge and the FAA's as well, there has *never* been an accident that was caused by a tail failure. Just the opposite. The couple of inflight breakups were evaluated by NASA and the NTSB and the airframe was found to have failed "significantly" after VNE. The problem with the accidents wasn't the airframe it was the Category 5 Thunderstorm that was flown into.

I guess it's the Chevy/Ford debate (substitute what ever brand you like), it will always exist. I just try to keep the facts on the truth path :)...
 
gmcjetpilot Even the "slow" RV is going near 200 mph in cruse. [/QUOTE said:
This is stretching it a bit I think. I think the average RV is cruising in the 195-199 range but the "slow" ones are not. The slow ones are low power, fixed pitch climb proped, unfaired, improperly rigged and overweight.

Bob Axsom
 
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! :eek:

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 :eek: 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, :D 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? :eek: 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.
 
Last edited:
As someone who builds a composite airplane....

Composite Advantages:

-Cleaner lines (easier to have compound curves)
-kits have higher speed potentials (Glasair III and Legacy RG)
-You can make a composite airplane PERFECT...it only takes body filler and sandpaper.
-(debateable) easier for building errors/easier to redo parts

Metal Advantages

-Easier/faster to build (debateable)
-Less mess when building (no dust, less acetone, etc.)
-Easier to prep for painting/finish work
-much cheaper
-RV's are great airplanes!


I've been building a 4 place composite for a while now, and can tell you that the basic airframe on glass planes go together pretty quick. The headache comes when it's time to prep the whole thing for paint...it takes forever to sand the whole thing! That in itself makes metal airplanes so appealing to me...I can't tell you the countless hundreds of hours I've spent sanding and filling and sanding and filling (repeat forever!) The next time you see a really nice glass airplane, ask the builder how many hours they spent prepping for paint. It's not uncommon for builders who want a good job to spend more time in paint prep than basic a/c construction.

The good news is that, if you have the time and patience for it, you can make the finish on a glass plane perfect...all it takes is time. It's easy to see why so many Glasair III's were Grand Champion Kits throughout the last 15 years. It's also easy to see how it took 5,000-9,000 hours to do it. On the other hand, I know of several RV-6 builders who have put 5,000-6,000 hours into building their planes, which is very high as well.

In the end, there's one other huge point that I don't believe anyone has made yet, and that deals with builder networks. You'll find that the RV community is without compare...everyone is very willing to lend a hand, and chances are, if you run into a problem, there will be someone very close by to offer a hand or let you see their airplane! The airplane I'm building has been around since the late 80's, and there's maybe 100 flying. Think about how may RV's are flying, and you'll see why it's such a good idea to go RV and never look back :)
 
Yes and no

Bob Axsom said:
gmcjetpilot said:
Even the "slow" RV is going near 200 mph in cruise.
This is stretching it a bit I think. I think the average RV is cruising in the 195-199 range but the "slow" ones are not. The slow ones are low power, fixed pitch climb proped, unfaired, improperly rigged and overweight. Bob Axsom
I agree typical 150/160 hp may be lower, however 180/200 HP RV's, list 75% power solo cruise at approx 200 mph and up to 212 mph.

My 150 hp RV-4 did a tad over 190 mph all day long at WOT 8,000 ft w/ FF less than 8 gal/hr (which is about book speed). If my RV-4 had a 180 hp I have no doubt it would cruise at 200 mph. We RV'ers all know a typical RV does book or close.

I agree weight, rigging, poor prop pitch and fit and finish have an affect. However I'd say it does not take super human building skill to get book.

Any way my 200 mph number was apples and apples. If comparing to 210 HP Legacy FG, a 200 HP RV-8 or RV-7 makes a good comparison. These models with 200 hp do well over 200 mph cruise on 200 HP. I don't think that is in doubt.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the info., but really the question was grinability, not the specs :) I know they can all outrun my Ducati (er most, and CHP would definitely vote: plane), I just wanted to know which one was simply the most fun for what we're doing. If I spent 10 minutes trying to find my keys in the cramped flight bag full of snickers wrappers and questionable food remnants, I would've offset the difference in speed, I want to grin like a fat 6 year old...and my wife like...a 6 year old :)

Thanks again,
Cameron
San Diego
 
gmcjetpilot said:
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.


Whatever...
 
Price not everything

I'm building an RV7A mainly because I felt more comfortable about building a metal plane with a lot of internet builder support and a large base of third party vendors. There are other reasons, of course, but those were the main ones.

Much has been made in this thread about the difference in price of competing kits. However the reality is that the cost of any kit is just a fraction of the final project price. It is possible you could spend as much money on just a new engine as on the entire Vans kit...ditto for a well presented instrument panel. So of course it is not all that relevant to worry about small amounts of kit-cost dollar difference in the context of the big picture.

Also I took a good look at a friend's Glassair recently and I was generally impressed with the quality of the components in the kit. For instance there is no comparison between the pedals supplied with the Glassair and those that come with the RVs...same with many other components.

In fact I have thrown out much of the Vans kit including the pitot system, the static system, the fuel caps, the fuel selector, etc etc.

Don't get me wrong here. I love RVs...and I like the way they fly. I think they're a very good all purpose type of plane. And the matched hole superstructure components produced in house by Vans are excellent...but when it comes to buying subcontract products Vans are more motivated by price than quality (or quality control). For instance have you ever heard of any builder replacing the Vans kit supplied tyres and tubes with the same el-cheapo Chinese brand when the first set wore out.

So the Vans kit is cheap relatively speaking...but a lot of the supplied components are of marginal quality. On that basis I'm not sure that simply comparing kit prices is all that relevant.
 
Last edited:
Bang for the buck, hard to beat an RV. Too bad Lancair no longer offers the 320/360 kits. 190-195 knots TAS was pretty common cruise on the 320s on 8.5-9 gph. Cramped a bit, yes. Nice looking airplanes for sure.

If you want to step up in speed, Lancairs are the next obvious step above RVs. This always comes with a price in $ and complexity plus some other low speed compromises but Lancair guys are generally into long cruises.The Legacy FG with the turbo Lyco is good for 220-225 knots with affordable fuel flows. This is quite a bit faster than than most RVs which are realistically cruising at 160-175 knots in most cases. Is 20-50 knots more worth it? I guess that depends. It's like the old King Air vs. Citation vs. Lear thing. On short trips, the King Air is going to be within minutes of the other two. Lengthen the trip and quickly the extra speed of the jets makes big difference. On a 4-5 hour trip, the Lancair will might save a full hour or more because they carry more fuel too. That is worth it to many who are doing long trips.

600 hours to finish a composite airplane is unrealistic in my view. I have a good friend who builds composite aircraft for a living and have seen what goes into making a nice Glassair or Lancair or Legend. Way more than 600 hours. I know of one fellow who spent over 1000 hours just finish sanding alone.

If you have the bucks can't beat Lancairs for performance. I'd like a IV-P with a turbo LS-2. :cool:

My friend who has a 6A is working on his wife now to release funds for a Legacy. I think airframe choices depend a lot on mission and disposable income. We have a bunch of guys around here with $500K turbine Lancairs and Legends. Hard to wipe the grins off their faces when they come down from a flight. Yes, you will be flying off 3000 foot plus paved runways with these aircraft and need to be up on the flight characteristics but that simply goes with the territory of high performance aircraft.

Lancairs are higher up the food chain than RVs but certainly cost more and don't do everything better.
 
Last edited:
Comparison?

I hope to be able to supply some proper comparisons soon as I just bought a part built 320/360 Lancair kit.

I am still flying my 4 and it's great. I will finish the rebuild of my 9 too soon, so my update will probably be a year or so away.

I fail to see why one poster in particular became almost aggressive to another person who posted, both RVs and Lancairs are on my hit list! Great aeroplanes are just that, whether made of wood (Falco), aluminium (RV's) or composite (Lancair/Glasair).
 
Odd...

I just don't know where some of this comes from.... So let me set the record straight *one more time*.

The company was sold *once* when Columbia sold off the experiemental group.

Once? As a long time vendor to Lancair I know of least 4 owners and if you count Evolution they are headed for 5.

  • Lance Neibauer
  • Joseph C. Bartels
  • Bob Wolstenholme
  • Mark and Conrad Huffstutler,

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/october/19/evolution-aircraft-co-appears-to-have-shuttered

Rob Hickman
N402RH RV-10
 
FYI all, this thread was resurrected after about 11 years of slumber. So please don't expect responses from the original participants.
 
I used to fly a Glasair 1 FG, Fixed Pitch and a Glasair 2 RG IO360, CS prop. I've got time in RV-4 (both 320fp and 360cs) as well as RV-6 (360fp). The Glasair make a nice cruising machine if you want to point it in one direction, and go fast. They do aileron rolls nice, but I noticed they can buffet when you pull a little too much or get slow. The RV in my opinion loops and rolls better. The RV is just a lot more fun for carving around and chasing your friends in whatever planes they have. It might be a little slower on the top end, but can be a lot slower on the bottom end. I could practice landings all day and not get bored. The Glasair, after a few, I'm bored with them. I'm not knocking the Glasairs that I've flown, but I prefer the RV. Also previously stated, in the event of an engine out landing, I feel the RV is more survivable. You can't just compare stall speeds, the RV can glide (especially the FP versions or if you pull the prop back to coarse) where the Glasair have a really high sinkrate.
 
I've built and flown a lot of composite aircraft (see sig below). I've also co-built an early RV-4 and have 200+ hours in it. I have access to an RV-6 on our airport, and after years of being frightened of again riveting metal, will build a 14.

I personally didn't like the Lancair 320, was frightened in the small tail Lancair 235, enjoyed my hours in the Glasair I & III, and still fly my trusty 1983 LongEZ. I'm not going to bash any homebuilt; some of it's the mission and some of it's blondes vs brunettes.

I now live in Montana; my mission has changed and I need a taildragger that is more survivable in an off-field landing than the fast glass birds. I've steered a friend away from a used Lancair 360 as he's a GOOD friend, and I want him around for a long time. My best suggestion to anyone contemplating any homebuilt is get some time in type before deciding - but it's pretty hard to go wrong with an RV.
 
Last edited:
Lancair 320/360. Much more complex with retractable gear. Definitely not for someone too tall or overweight. Very cozy inside. Faster than RV with similar range. Much more limited on baggage and where you can land.
I built my Lancair 235 and it's smaller than the 320/360 - 8" shorter in length and 4" shorter in height. I'm 6'1" and weigh 260 lbs. and I fit just fine. I accounted for my size/weight when I built the plane. First, my seat back is reclined 4" from "normal" and I pushed the seat pan (bottom of the plane) down as far as it would go. I have only 1" of padding under my butt. My battery is located in the passenger side footwell for CG purposes. I'm limited to carrying full fuel or a passenger, but not both. I can carry a 200 lb. passenger, but only enough fuel for 2 hrs. My baggage capacity is limited to 50 lbs, an there's not much room back there. I've flown solo across the Country with clothes for two weeks, sleeping bag, canopy cover, tie down stuff, and spare parts. The tool bag and spare tire were stored in the passenger footwell. That's about it.

The Lancair has only one mission: Go long distances real fast on not much fuel. For example, last October I flew 622 NM from Page AZ to Oklahoma in 3.75 hours. Average speed from gear up to gear down was 165 Kts. Fuel consumption was 19.2 gals which works out to 32 MPG. (Sure, I had a tailwind, but still...) I was burning 5.3 GPH most of the way at 11,500'.

As others have pointed out, I can't land on runways <2,500', and don't care to land on turf. My retractable gear are much more fragile than the RV gear.

I love the RV series. They're great all around airplanes. Not quite as fast but they can go more places with more load and do aerobatics. Also, the resale value is much greater. We're all brothers!
 
I've built and flown a lot of composite aircraft (see sig below).
I'm not going to bash any homebuilt; some of it's the mission and some of it's blondes vs brunettes.

I love this comparison, my preference is brunettes (RV's), but I would like to play with a blonde (Lancair) occasionally!

Variety is the spice of life!
 
Throw in the Venture..(a little thread stray)

If you want to stay metal, throw in a Questair Venture..REALLY fast, and acro capable, but not too good for grass. I have a little time in one, and a friend a has one based at our field. I'd have one as a second plane for the X-country capability for certain, but the RV-4 spoils me for all around versatility.
 
Back
Top