Lancair Legacy

[Joaquin]

Check out my Lancair Legacy at:

http://www.geocities.com/bwbpilot/

There's a link to my gyrocopter page too. Have fun. I did a test
flight today in this Lancai I flew from Las Vegas to Lake Tahoe and
back in a couple hours. At 8000 feet in this normally aspirated
Continental IO-550-M, burning 13.5 gallons/hr, my TAS was right at 230
knots or 265 mph. I had Martin Heisler and Pat O'Brian help me build
it. Martin is the builder of record. The, the more I fly it the more
I love it. Once you see this website, you will realize how hard it's
going to be to part with it and go back to my RV-6 which is right at
80 mph slower and almost the same gas mileage.

This Lancair burns 13.5 gal at 265 mph or about 20 miles per gallon.
Of course I can back all that off to 11 gal/hr at about 240 mph or
21.8 miles/gal.

The RV-6 goes 185 mph with one mag replaced by Klaus's plasma.
ignition system and burns about 8 gallons through an O-320-E2D. That's
right at: 23 miles per gallon. That's hard to justify in my mind ...I
mean slow down by 55 mph to save 2 miles per gallon.

I fly the Lancair at about 22 inches, and 2350 rpm at 8000 msl to
10,000 msl. That puts me in the range of 260-270 mph TAS. Of course
you play the winds and today I was flying at 10k msl and the Garmin
430 was reading out 260 knots...right at 300 mph on 21.5 inches MP and
2400 rpm with a fuel burn of right at 13.5 gal/hr. My real mpg today
was: 22.2.

The RV-6 and the Lancair are so similar in fuel burn per mile it's a
non issue really. It's just that the RV-6 is a $60,000 airplane and
the Lancair is a $315,000 airplane, full IFR, autopilot, with all the
whistles and bells.

I love this airplane. You'll see from the webpage I spared no money
in hiring the people I did to do the interior, paint, polish the parts
and put the right instruments in it. I love that S-Tech autopilot. I
was flying it today listening to the Opra music of Evita of Argentina
as I flew over 300 miles in an hour-hands off through clouds and
rainbows over the Sierra Nevada Mountain range to Tahoe and back.

Juaqin Murrietta

[Ed Sullivan]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:16:08 -0700, Joaquin > wrote:

>
>Check out my Lancair Legacy at:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/bwbpilot/
>
>There's a link to my gyrocopter page too. Have fun. I did a test
>flight today in this Lancai I flew from Las Vegas to Lake Tahoe and
>back in a couple hours. At 8000 feet in this normally aspirated
>Continental IO-550-M, burning 13.5 gallons/hr, my TAS was right at 230
>knots or 265 mph. I had Martin Heisler and Pat O'Brian help me build
>it. Martin is the builder of record. The, the more I fly it the more
>I love it. Once you see this website, you will realize how hard it's
>going to be to part with it and go back to my RV-6 which is right at
>80 mph slower and almost the same gas mileage.
>
>This Lancair burns 13.5 gal at 265 mph or about 20 miles per gallon.
>Of course I can back all that off to 11 gal/hr at about 240 mph or
>21.8 miles/gal.
>
> The RV-6 goes 185 mph with one mag replaced by Klaus's plasma.
>ignition system and burns about 8 gallons through an O-320-E2D. That's
>right at: 23 miles per gallon. That's hard to justify in my mind ...I
>mean slow down by 55 mph to save 2 miles per gallon.
>
>I fly the Lancair at about 22 inches, and 2350 rpm at 8000 msl to
>10,000 msl. That puts me in the range of 260-270 mph TAS. Of course
>you play the winds and today I was flying at 10k msl and the Garmin
>430 was reading out 260 knots...right at 300 mph on 21.5 inches MP and
>2400 rpm with a fuel burn of right at 13.5 gal/hr. My real mpg today
>was: 22.2.
>
>The RV-6 and the Lancair are so similar in fuel burn per mile it's a
>non issue really. It's just that the RV-6 is a $60,000 airplane and
>the Lancair is a $315,000 airplane, full IFR, autopilot, with all the
>whistles and bells.
>
>I love this airplane. You'll see from the webpage I spared no money
>in hiring the people I did to do the interior, paint, polish the parts
>and put the right instruments in it. I love that S-Tech autopilot. I
>was flying it today listening to the Opra music of Evita of Argentina
>as I flew over 300 miles in an hour-hands off through clouds and
>rainbows over the Sierra Nevada Mountain range to Tahoe and back.
>
>Juaqin Murrietta

Kind'a cute,hoss, but can you even see the roses much less smell 'em.

Ed Sullivan

[Joaquin]

>
>Kind'a cute,hoss, but can you even see the roses much less smell 'em.
>
>Ed Sullivan

Ed:
I thought you were dead.

Nope, can't smell em or see em at 15,000 msl and 300 mph. All you
smell and see is clean, clear air rammed through the vents.

BWB

[Ed Sullivan]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:16:08 -0700, Joaquin > wrote:


>Juaqin Murrietta

You may not be able to smell the roses, but I bet that leather
upholstery smells great. Beautiful airplane. Now what do you have to
buy the wife?

[TigerPilot]

On Oct 29, 4:37 pm, Ed Sullivan > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:16:08 -0700, Joaquin > wrote:
> >Juaqin MurriettaYou may not be able to smell the roses, but I bet that leather
> upholstery smells great. Beautiful airplane. Now what do you have to
> buy the wife?

A life insurance on HIS life. :-)

Yoram

[abripl]

Joaquin,

Wonder what the "average" overal MPG is for both your Lancair and RV-6
- including climbing and descending?

For example my 4 seater canard (SQ2000) does about 8gph at 200mph which
is 25mpg but the overal average is close to 20mpg - when I include
taxiing, runup, climb and descent, etc. Of course, I rarely go over 400
miles between fillups for safety.

Would a lower HP engine be more efficient overall?

Joaquin wrote:
> Check out my Lancair Legacy at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/bwbpilot/

The above site seems to be unavailable.

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.abri.com/sq2000

[Jim Logajan]

Joaquin > wrote:
> The RV-6 and the Lancair are so similar in fuel burn per mile it's a
> non issue really. It's just that the RV-6 is a $60,000 airplane and
> the Lancair is a $315,000 airplane, full IFR, autopilot, with all the
> whistles and bells.

How much fuel can you buy for the RV-6 at that $255,000 difference? ;-)

[Dale Alexander]

That's the same question I ask new Prius owners when I compare their pride
and joy to a 4 cylinder Camry. How would you like 100K miles of free gas?
Buy a Camry instead of that Prius.

Dale Alexander
Ex-Velocity 173 RG Elite
Hopeful RV-7A builder soon...

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Joaquin > wrote:
>> The RV-6 and the Lancair are so similar in fuel burn per mile it's a
>> non issue really. It's just that the RV-6 is a $60,000 airplane and
>> the Lancair is a $315,000 airplane, full IFR, autopilot, with all the
>> whistles and bells.
>
> How much fuel can you buy for the RV-6 at that $255,000 difference? ;-)

[abripl]

Hey Bill,

Do I detect some humor here?

Most of us are concerned with general fuel savings - not just for our
own
immediate savings. But you know that higher general consumption results
in higher prices at the pumps which means the poor guys (most of us)
indirectly pay for the "enjoyment" of those with lots of money. So
let's have
prudent enjoyment.

Badwater Bill wrote:
> Oh come on you guys, you can't justify any of this. These modern,
> expensive airplanes are no different that owning a boat or even a Lear
> Jet.
>
> It's not a neccesity, it's not something required to enjoy life. If
> you can't own it and just go burn all the gas you want to burn through
> it, you shouldn't even get it. Anyway, that's the way I feel.
>
> I didn't buy it so I could get 20 mpg out of it. It's just
> interesting that I do. ...............

[abripl]

Hey Bill,

Do I detect some humor here?

Most of us are concerned with general fuel savings - not just for our
own immediate savings. But you know that higher general consumption
results in higher prices at the pumps which means the poor guys (most
of us) indirectly pay for the "enjoyment" of those with lots of money.
So let's have prudent enjoyment.

Badwater Bill wrote:
> Oh come on you guys, you can't justify any of this. These modern,
> expensive airplanes are no different that owning a boat or even a Lear
> Jet.
>
> It's not a neccesity, it's not something required to enjoy life. If
> you can't own it and just go burn all the gas you want to burn through
> it, you shouldn't even get it. Anyway, that's the way I feel.
>
> I didn't buy it so I could get 20 mpg out of it. It's just
> interesting that I do. .............

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 30 Oct 2006 21:38:13 -0800, "abripl" > wrote:

>Hey Bill,
>
>Do I detect some humor here?
>
>Most of us are concerned with general fuel savings - not just for our
>own

I bought the Deb to play. I'm building the G-III to play.
The only time it runs under 75% is when maneuvering, practicing,
rought air, or landing.

>immediate savings. But you know that higher general consumption results
>in higher prices at the pumps which means the poor guys (most of us)
>indirectly pay for the "enjoyment" of those with lots of money. So
>let's have
>prudent enjoyment.

I leave the 18 mpg SUV home and drive my wife's 48 mpg Prius. I only
drive the 4 Runner when I need to haul something messy, or she's gone
with her car. So even if I take a trip and run the Deb for all she's
worth I still save gas.

>
>Badwater Bill wrote:
>> Oh come on you guys, you can't justify any of this. These modern,
>> expensive airplanes are no different that owning a boat or even a Lear
>> Jet.
>>
>> It's not a neccesity, it's not something required to enjoy life. If
>> you can't own it and just go burn all the gas you want to burn through
>> it, you shouldn't even get it. Anyway, that's the way I feel.
>>
>> I didn't buy it so I could get 20 mpg out of it. It's just
>> interesting that I do. ...............
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[abripl]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> I leave the 18 mpg SUV home and drive my wife's 48 mpg Prius. I only
> drive the 4 Runner when I need to haul something messy, or she's gone
> with her car. So even if I take a trip and run the Deb for all she's
> worth I still save gas.

Now all I need is to buy a second larger plane for ocasional larger
hauling or when my wife wants to fly separately at same time. Otherwise
of course I will use my smaller canard for most flying.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:37:40 -0800, Badwater Bill >
wrote:

>
>In the RV-6 it would have
>been an hour and a half. No big difference on that short trip. But,
>if I fly the RV-6 from here to Seattle to visit my buddy John Ammeter,
>I'm looking at about 5.5 hours. I'm going to be pretty tired after
>that. In the Lancair, it's only about 3.5. That makes a big
>difference.
>
>Badwater Bill



You currently own an RV-6?
Didn't you sell the one you owned a few years ago?
Something to do with how you couldn't cost justify keeping it?

IIRC -
The time frame was about the same time you were telling us about your
adventures in Viet Nam - complete with confirming pictures on your web
site. You know... the ones that you finally admitted were taken in New
England or some such stateside place. :o)

[Gary]

Well if I didn't know better I'd swear that Taduz Lemke brushed your
cheek and said "Faster".

Very nice!


Joaquin wrote:
> Check out my Lancair Legacy at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/bwbpilot/
>
> There's a link to my gyrocopter page too. Have fun. I did a test
> flight today in this Lancai I flew from Las Vegas to Lake Tahoe and
> back in a couple hours. At 8000 feet in this normally aspirated
> Continental IO-550-M, burning 13.5 gallons/hr, my TAS was right at 230
> knots or 265 mph. I had Martin Heisler and Pat O'Brian help me build
> it. Martin is the builder of record. The, the more I fly it the more
> I love it. Once you see this website, you will realize how hard it's
> going to be to part with it and go back to my RV-6 which is right at
> 80 mph slower and almost the same gas mileage.
>
> This Lancair burns 13.5 gal at 265 mph or about 20 miles per gallon.
> Of course I can back all that off to 11 gal/hr at about 240 mph or
> 21.8 miles/gal.
>
> The RV-6 goes 185 mph with one mag replaced by Klaus's plasma.
> ignition system and burns about 8 gallons through an O-320-E2D. That's
> right at: 23 miles per gallon. That's hard to justify in my mind ...I
> mean slow down by 55 mph to save 2 miles per gallon.
>
> I fly the Lancair at about 22 inches, and 2350 rpm at 8000 msl to
> 10,000 msl. That puts me in the range of 260-270 mph TAS. Of course
> you play the winds and today I was flying at 10k msl and the Garmin
> 430 was reading out 260 knots...right at 300 mph on 21.5 inches MP and
> 2400 rpm with a fuel burn of right at 13.5 gal/hr. My real mpg today
> was: 22.2.
>
> The RV-6 and the Lancair are so similar in fuel burn per mile it's a
> non issue really. It's just that the RV-6 is a $60,000 airplane and
> the Lancair is a $315,000 airplane, full IFR, autopilot, with all the
> whistles and bells.
>
> I love this airplane. You'll see from the webpage I spared no money
> in hiring the people I did to do the interior, paint, polish the parts
> and put the right instruments in it. I love that S-Tech autopilot. I
> was flying it today listening to the Opra music of Evita of Argentina
> as I flew over 300 miles in an hour-hands off through clouds and
> rainbows over the Sierra Nevada Mountain range to Tahoe and back.
>
> Juaqin Murrietta

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 31 Oct 2006 17:42:26 -0800, "abripl" > wrote:

>
>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> I leave the 18 mpg SUV home and drive my wife's 48 mpg Prius. I only
>> drive the 4 Runner when I need to haul something messy, or she's gone
>> with her car. So even if I take a trip and run the Deb for all she's
>> worth I still save gas.
>
>Now all I need is to buy a second larger plane for ocasional larger
>hauling or when my wife wants to fly separately at same time. Otherwise
>of course I will use my smaller canard for most flying.

Hmmm... I only have one and a quarter airplanes. I'm not even half way
there yet and the G-III will have a larger engine than the old Deb.
OTH it should go a lot farther on the same gas.

BTW I see some environmental groups are pushing for the elimination of
lead in Avgas. Then I won't be able to use either engine.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Darrel Toepfer]

Joaquin > wrote:

> Check out my Lancair Legacy at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/bwbpilot

So Bill, you didn't opt for one of Martin's superchargers? I wrote to you
in another post that Martin was supposed to share his boudin and crawfish
stuffed deboned chicken with y'all that I brought out there from
Louisiana...

[Capt.Doug]

>"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
> BTW I see some environmental groups are pushing for the elimination of
> lead in Avgas. Then I won't be able to use either engine.

Reset the timing and use different power settings. Some parts of the world
already don't have avgas (and no FAA to stifle experimenting).

D.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:28:45 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
wrote:

>>"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
>> BTW I see some environmental groups are pushing for the elimination of
>> lead in Avgas. Then I won't be able to use either engine.
>
>Reset the timing and use different power settings. Some parts of the world
>already don't have avgas (and no FAA to stifle experimenting).

With that high compression engine? You can't even get an STC for an
alternative fuel.


>
>D.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[jmk]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:28:45 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
> wrote:
>
> >>"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
> >> BTW I see some environmental groups are pushing for the elimination of
> >> lead in Avgas. Then I won't be able to use either engine.
> >
> >Reset the timing and use different power settings. Some parts of the world
> >already don't have avgas (and no FAA to stifle experimenting).
>
> With that high compression engine? You can't even get an STC for an
> alternative fuel.

Time to get GAMI back on the stick and get PRISM certified. Then your
engine would run on Jet-A okay. Trouble is, with their new contracts
with Cirrus, I'm afraid PRISM is small potatoes on the back burner.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Roger (K8RI)" < wrote in message
> With that high compression engine? You can't even get an STC for an
> alternative fuel.

Where STCs are not a consideration, high RPMs and less than full MAP can
allow the use of autogas. Performance may take a hit, and sometimes timing
must be retarded for the turbocharged engines, but it works. I ran autogas
in my first Aztec (NOT US registered!!!!!!) for years. The only difference
was that I had to turn on the boost pumps on above 7000' for vapor lock.

D.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:58:44 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
wrote:

>>"Roger (K8RI)" < wrote in message
>> With that high compression engine? You can't even get an STC for an
>> alternative fuel.
>
>Where STCs are not a consideration, high RPMs and less than full MAP can
>allow the use of autogas. Performance may take a hit, and sometimes timing

To me performance is paramount.
I'm building the G-III to go as fast as possible. Long haul and some
serious play.

I don't even run the Debonair under 75% except for maneuvers, a rough
ride, and landing. That engine IO-47N (260 HP) doesn't qualify for an
STC either. My goal is to get similar HP to the one shown in
KitPlanes this month.

>must be retarded for the turbocharged engines, but it works. I ran autogas
>in my first Aztec (NOT US registered!!!!!!) for years. The only difference
>was that I had to turn on the boost pumps on above 7000' for vapor lock.
>
>D.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Capt.Doug]

>"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message > To me performance is paramount.
> I'm building the G-III to go as fast as possible. Long haul and some
> serious play.

What influenced your decision to go with the G-III as opposed to another
fast type like Lancair, Venture, or SX300?

D.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:40:45 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
wrote:

>>"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message > To me performance is paramount.
>> I'm building the G-III to go as fast as possible. Long haul and some
>> serious play.
>
>What influenced your decision to go with the G-III as opposed to another
>fast type like Lancair, Venture, or SX300?
>
Wellll...When I started the G-III Lancair was relatively new, but I'd
still choose the G-III due to the aerobatic capability. It's a much
more rugged design, but I have to admit the IV, IV-P, and Legacy are
the prettiest go places airplanes built.

Venture was a great plane even if they did look a bit like a tadpole
but they weren't around long. The SX 300 is also a good traveling
plane, but as I recall the tail is a bit small. I'm even going with an
extended rudder and ventral fin for better low speed control and less
tail wag and high speed and altitude. (IF I ever get it done)

The G-III is heavy for its size and it is over engineered. I like
that. I never flew a Venture or an SX 300 but I liked the control
harmony and feel of the G-III the best. I also liked the response and
vertical penetration. I also liked the idea if I want down in a hurry
I can just roll inverted and pull. <:-)) Depending on my location...

What I don't like about the older G-III kits is the amount of labor
involved. They take as much or more labor than some plans built
planes which probably makes it one of the most labor intensive kits on
the market. OTOH getting what they call a "jump start" kit which
removes a lot of hours also removes a lot of money from the budget.



>D.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com