Greg
I don’t have experience with the Lancair 200, but have
many years flying my 235. The 235 is only slightly more powerful than
your friend’s aircraft. Sounds to me like the airframe and engine
are all performing to spec. TO is typically performed with flaps lowered
to match a down deflected aileron. In this configuration and standard
seal-level conditions, I have usually exceeded 100-110 mph by the time a pass
the end of a 2600 foot runway. ROC is typically 1400 fpm at 100 mph and 2700
RPM. I pull the gear up as I accelerate through 85 or so. Even with
flaps left in the takeoff position, acceleration to > 100 is expected.
In normal operation, once the gear is up, I pull the flaps into reflex before
crossing the departure end of the runway.
If you were climbing at > 400 fpm, I don’t
understand why you didn’t lower the nose, to maintain altitude and
accelerate. Was the Ivoprop adjusted to achieve full rpm on
takeoff? Even with a fixed pitch cruise prop, while the initial acceleration
is slow and TO roll is extended, there should be no problem acceleration to
100-110 for climb. Typically static RPM is 2400 for a fixed pitch prop,
reaching perhaps 2500 during climb.
Questions:
What RPM were you getting from the engine-prop?
What was the density altitude?
What is the empty weight of the aircraft?
Tom Low
N31CD
A close friend has a pristine Lancair 200 that he has asked me to fly
and then render opinion on the aircraft's performance. It looks
great and has obvious excellent workmanship in its construction. After a
thorough annual condition inspection, I flew it and found that it was seriously
lacking in power. In fact, with just 10 degrees of flaps and gear
extended, it never accelerated beyond 60 knots (though it was
simultaneously rising at about 400 ft per minute). I didn't immediately
retract the gear because I was concerned that the plane was flying just above
stall. In the traffic pattern, I retracted the gear and got just 78 knots
- still with 10 degrees flap. I landed uneventfully. There was
no abnormal balance or control of the airplane and, in fact, its construction
symmetry is nearly perfect. Jack test of the landing gear showed
completely flush retract of gear and doors - not likely that something was
dragging. This plane has an 0200 engine with 9 to 1 pistons
producing some extra horsepower; perhaps a total of 115. Its prop is
a light weight (27 lbs) cockpit adjustable, electric IVOPROP.
Does performance sound right for such an early version
aircraft? Who has had experience in these underpowered planes? What
performance numbers should we be seeing? Without more power and speed, I
would be reluctant to take on a passenger for flight. Greg Nelson