Good morning all,
It looks like a slow "Newsday" on the Lancair list --so I thought I would
make a few comments about articles in the latest flying magazine (July issue).
It might spark a little interest in those who hold opposing views.
Richard Collins in his "On Top" column, Training for Life, he makes this
statement "I wrote a while back that the insurance requirements for recurrent
training on such complex single engine airplanes as the Cessna P 210 and the
Piper Malibu/Mirage have done exactly no good. The airplanes actually appear to
have a worse accident record since more recurrent training has been mandated for
owners to be able to buy meaningful insurance."
As we attempt to entice insurance companies to lower our rates by adding
training requirements (hours-in the traffic pattern and practice area--ground
school classes), we may be in fact not concentrating on the elements that are
the most problematic, in our training. With the Lancair emphasis on training are
we going down the same path that Richard speaks of?
Could it be that training for actual cross-country (with flights IFR) would
be a better scenario?. Looking for ways to improve judgment in regards to
preflight preparation, which would include, preflight planning, weight and
balance, weather, approaching uncontrolled airports etc. etc. etc. would be more
applicable to the Lancair IV?.
This type of training is done with the airlines with a training/check Captain
after the simulator (which by the way is capable of doing all check out training
to include the rating ride). But this is called Initial line experience.
Maybe our training should be broken into two sections also. Aircraft
check out/cross-country training.
------------------------------------------------------
Another article that caught my eye was "Left Seat" by Mac McLellan. "There's
life left in piston engines". I couldn't help but notice that the Lancair IV
bests every figure cited.
He says "SFC in airplane piston engines is phenomenal, approaching .40 in
cruise." Approaching??
Well, the Continental TSIO 550 is 41.3.
Nautical mile per pound is NMPP. NMPP at 75% (262 HP) using 108.22 LB/hr is
52.
Or stated as 2 1/2 miles per pound of fuel. Or 22cents
per mile. ($3.25 per gallon at 5.85 pounds per gallon)
The article states that "high-performance singles typically get more than two
nautical miles per pound of fuel even at high speed cruise".
The Continental powered Lancair IV P is 25% better than that figure.
But with aviation fuel now over three dollars a gallon, heading for four
dollars this summer, we can take some measure of relief that we are at the top
of the envelope.
And we should all be cheering on George Braly at GAMI for the PRISM. It will
increase these figures and will allow us to use unleaded premium auto gas and
increase horse power.
Charlie K.