X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:20:16 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.64] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTP id 4427686 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:55:22 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.30.64; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from omta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.36]) by qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id tDh41e0020mlR8UA7GumK2; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 04:54:46 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.4] ([24.17.111.171]) by omta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id tGuk1e0083hvfg88XGulTN; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 04:54:46 +0000 From: John Hafen Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-140-486489967 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Builders' advice to the Lancair Factory X-Original-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:54:44 -0700 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <1B75C6E0-6F16-42BB-B7C3-8EB31C09DB03@comcast.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) --Apple-Mail-140-486489967 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Scott -- With all respect, you don't get to vote. If Lancair was making money hand over fist on the IVP, do you really = think they would abandon that product line? I love my IVP and think it is the most beautiful plane in the world -- = by far. I love to fly it. And I plan to fly for many years to come. But if you want to resurrect the Lancair IVP line, bring a detailed = business plan and tens of millions of dollars. Otherwise, it's dead. = Lets not kid ourselves. =20 The IVP has some serious aerodynamic problems and isn't your father's = Olsmobile. Not everyone should fly it. If you stall it the pattern you = will not recover. And it's heavier than it should be. And it balloons up and cracks after = numerous pressurizations. =20 And the kit parts never did fit. It is too hard to put together. The = molds were hand made, and are now worn now so too much sanding is = required to finish it up nicely. And the cockpit is a little tight. And etc. and etc. And, because of the crash rate, insurance will continue to be a problem. = Expensive if even available. In a perfect world, and because we love them, the IVP could be brought = up to "state-of-kit-plane-manufacturing-art," made ever-so-slightly = bigger, as well as lighter, with parts from new computer designed molds = that snapped together quickly to make a great plane (much like the parts = of the Evolution come together). But that would essentially be creating a new airplane, which would take = a lot of cash. Lancair has to do what it has to do to stay in business. If they can't = make money selling the IVP because of some of the issues above, then = they need to sell Legacys and Evolutions to keep the lights on. Respectfully, John Hafen IVP 413AJ 250 hours On Aug 11, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Scott E Keighan wrote: > I agree with Fredrick, > The non P is a wonderful airplane and cannot be beat. I could not = believe that Lancair would > stop selling such a fine airplane. Not everyone wants or can afford = an evolution but still likes a > retract that is resonably priced. > =20 > I vote to bring the IV back into the active lineup. I love the plane = and it does give great performance. > Buf to Melborne FL in 4hrs 15min at 16,000 burning 12.3gph. Average = speed of 215kts. > =20 > Scott Keighan > LIV non P, 130hrs > =20 > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:24:45 -0400 > From: frederickmoreno@bigpond.com > Subject: [LML] Builders' advice to the Lancair Factory >=20 > George wrote =93If you agree with me I urge you to lobby the "powers = to be " at Lancair to get the 4-P's back in their promotional and = advertising schemes.=94 > =20 > It is good for the Lancair community to make their concerns and = recommendations heard to the new management at Lancair. Some clarifying = statements about continuing production and support of all the = currently-produced aircraft would be most welcome. > =20 > Let me make the case for the =93plain vanilla=94 Lancair IV, = non-turbo, non-pressurized which normally resides in the shadow of the P = versions. It is a truly unique aircraft, totally unappreciated by = many. I recognize the =93plain vanilla=94 version may not scratch the = primal urge itch to go FASTER!, HIGHER!, FASTER!, HIGHER! > =20 > But setting primal urges aside, consider the following for the = non-turbo non-P Lancair IV > =B7 65% LOP cruise speed at 8500 of 220+ knots on 13 gallons = per hour, the same speed as a Piper Malibu at 25,000 feet at less than = one third of the price and two thirds the fuel flow. > =B7 50 knots faster than a new Cirrus SR-22 at one half the = price. > =B7 Empty weight of 1980 pounds meaning you can put 700 pounds = in the cabin and full fuel, takeoff weight of about 3200 pounds, and = maintain good runway and climb performance while getting 1300 NM range = with reserves. > =B7 Transcontinental, one day, one stop. > =B7 Fuel costs, maintenance costs, maintenance reserve, and = insurance costs are all at least 30% below the piston P versions. > =B7 Above 160 knots IAS, the plain vanilla LIV has lower drag = and thus lower fuel flow than an RV-6! And carries twice as many people = while doing it. > =B7 95% of the speed of the Legacy with the same engine, but = with four people on board. The 5% speed deficiency costs about three = minutes per hour. > =20 > Like the IVP, the plain vanilla IV is in a class by itself in terms = of performance, efficiency, and cost effectiveness. There is a market = for this package of benefits that compliments the market for HIGHER and = FASTER provided by the P versions. It is overlooked too often, but = makes a lot of sense for old retired guys like me that like to watch the = landscape pass by close enough to be interesting. I have flown the = flight levels, and find them boring. > =20 > Fred Moreno >=20 --Apple-Mail-140-486489967 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Scott --

With all respect, you = don't get to vote.

If Lancair was making money = hand over fist on the IVP, do you really think they would abandon that = product line?

I love my IVP and think it is the = most beautiful plane in the world -- by far.  I love to fly it. =  And I plan to fly for many years to = come.

But if you want to resurrect the Lancair = IVP line, bring a detailed business plan and tens of millions of = dollars.  Otherwise, it's dead.  Lets not kid ourselves. =  

The IVP has some serious aerodynamic = problems and isn't your father's Olsmobile.  Not everyone should = fly it.  If you stall it the pattern you will not = recover.

And it's heavier than it should be. =  And it balloons up and cracks after numerous pressurizations. =  

And the kit parts never did fit. =  It is too hard to put together.  The molds were hand made, = and are now worn now so too much sanding is required to finish it up = nicely.

And the cockpit is a little tight. =  And etc. and etc.

And, because of the = crash rate, insurance will continue to be a problem.  Expensive if = even available.

In a perfect world, and because = we love them, the IVP could be brought up to = "state-of-kit-plane-manufacturing-art," made ever-so-slightly bigger, as = well as lighter, with parts from new computer designed molds that = snapped together quickly to make a great plane (much like the parts of = the Evolution come together).

But that would = essentially be creating a new airplane, which would take a lot of = cash.

Lancair has to do what it has to do to = stay in business.  If they can't make money selling the IVP because = of some of the issues above, then they need to sell Legacys and = Evolutions to keep the lights = on.

Respectfully,

John = Hafen
IVP  413AJ  250 = hours


On Aug 11, 2010, at 4:21 = PM, Scott E Keighan wrote:

I = agree with Fredrick,
The non P is a wonderful airplane and cannot be = beat.  I could not believe that Lancair would
stop selling such = a fine airplane.  Not everyone wants or can afford an evolution but = still likes a
retract that is resonably priced.
 
I vote = to bring the IV back into the active lineup.  I love the plane and = it does give great performance.
Buf to Melborne FL in 4hrs 15min at = 16,000 burning 12.3gph. Average speed of 215kts.
 
Scott = Keighan
LIV non P, 130hrs
 
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: = Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:24:45 -0400
From: frederickmoreno@bigpond.com
Subject: [LML] Builders' advice to the Lancair Factory

George = wrote =93If you agree with me I urge you to lobby the "powers to be " at = Lancair to get the 4-P's back in their promotional and advertising = schemes.=94

It is good for the = Lancair community to make their concerns and recommendations heard to = the new management at Lancair.  Some clarifying statements about = continuing production and support of all the currently-produced aircraft = would be most welcome.

 

Let me make the case for = the =93plain vanilla=94 Lancair IV, non-turbo, non-pressurized which = normally resides in the shadow of the P versions.  It is a truly = unique aircraft, totally  unappreciated by many.  I recognize = the =93plain vanilla=94 version may not scratch the  primal urge = itch to go FASTER!, HIGHER!, FASTER!, HIGHER!

 

But setting primal urges aside, consider the = following for the non-turbo non-P Lancair IV
=B7 65% = LOP cruise speed at 8500 of 220+ knots on 13 gallons per hour, the same = speed as a Piper Malibu at 25,000 feet at less than one third of the = price and two thirds the fuel flow.=B7 50 = knots faster than a new Cirrus SR-22 at one half the  price.
=B7 Empty = weight of 1980 pounds meaning you can put 700 pounds in the cabin and = full fuel, takeoff weight of about 3200 pounds, and maintain good runway = and climb performance while getting 1300 NM range with reserves.
=B7 Transcon= tinental, one day, one stop.=B7 Fuel = costs,  maintenance costs, maintenance reserve, and insurance costs = are all at least 30% below the piston P versions.
=B7 Above = 160 knots IAS, the plain vanilla LIV has  lower drag and thus lower = fuel flow than an RV-6!  And carries twice as many people while = doing it.
=B7 95% of = the speed of the Legacy with the same engine, but with four people on = board.  The 5% speed deficiency costs about three minutes per = hour.

 

Like the  IVP, the  plain vanilla IV = is in a class by itself in terms of performance, efficiency, and cost = effectiveness.  There is a market for this package of benefits that = compliments the market for HIGHER and FASTER provided by the P = versions.   It is overlooked too often, but makes a lot of = sense for old retired guys like me that like to watch the landscape pass = by close enough to be interesting.   I have flown the flight = levels, and find them boring.

 

Fred = Moreno