A safer Lancair "record"?
  I would think that - by now - it would be obvious that what is needed is a
  safer "Lancair." We all know that Lancairs are neat planes, but they are
  also very hot to fly, with virtually no allowable margin for error.
  One only has to look at the statistics and the independent research to know
  it is an issue with the plane. In fairness, this is not unique to
  Lancairs... My very first plane (which I still have) is a Piper Comanche
  that is very difficult to insure because it doesn't have a good record (with
  cause)... And there are many others, both certified and experimental. It all
  comes down to static and dynamic stability and controllability designed into
  the plane during engineering - something that the Lancair series (and most
  experimentals) have never done. Probably the same reason that the Columbia
  was so difficult to certify.
  When all is said and done, design stability (verified by proper flight
  testing) is the only way to make a plane safe with great performance... It
  is difficult, but not magic.
  An incredible example of that (if it ever gets built) is the Phoenix by
FlightSciences.net (of which I am not a part of).
  Again, the Lancairs are a neat plane, and though maybe not "un-safe", they
  are definitely "not-safe", a reality that everyone that buys or builds one
  should recognize and be comfortable with.

Rienk,

 

Ahhhhh, not quite right.  Normal certificated GA aircraft, designed to FAA standards and rules, contain design provisions to be somewhat forgiving of pilot error - especially in the low airspeed regime.  I believe that a stall warning device is required.  Columbia was not difficult to certify after the design had to succumb to rules that necessitated leading edge cuffs in the aileron region, thus making it spin resistant.  Other things were done to make it meet the low speed stall requirements.

 

On the other hand, experimental Lancairs were designed to efficiently extract real high speed performance on less horsepower - at a low speed flight regime compromise while adhering to the placard that appears in each plane stating that it was not built to FAA standards.

 

Although similar, no two Lancairs are the same.  The pilot is always a test pilot.  The builder/pilot frequently realizes that fact while the remote builder/buyer usually does not.  These are not spam cans and they don't fly like spam cans either.  Lancair's are not unsafe if the plane's high performance characteristics, and the lack of low speed performance ones, are respected.

 

I knew David as a skilled pilot and friend, having met him twice in trips to the Sebring High Performance seminars.  So far all we know is that the engine sputtered on takeoff and an attempt was made to turn back to the airport.  They didn't make it.  I hope we can find out the cause of the sputtering engine.  We may never know why the decision was made to return to the airport rather than to find a suitable landing site ahead (if any).  It does appear that a low speed stall occurred in the turn.

 

For others, please do not try to tell me that an AOA is a crutch.

 

Scott Krueger