Lancair International Inc Sells all legacy models

[1964-M20E]

FYI Just stumbled upon this.

Maybe Sierra Ind. will start producing the IV again.

 

Effective February 8, 2017, composite kit-plane pioneers Lancair International Inc. and Kit Components Inc. announces the sale of all Non-Evolution Aircraft assets to another aviation pioneer, Mark Huffstutler, founder of the Texas-based aircraft modification firm Sierra Industries and his son Conrad Huffstutler. The sale includes all assets, intellectual designs, and ongoing support business opportunities for all “out of production” Lancair aircraft kit models, including 320/360, IV, IV-P, ES and Legacy aircraft.

[Alain B]

Maybe Mooney will buy the Evolution line ? Who know ?

 

[chrisk]

I'd like a IV-P.  Got to love speeds like:  at 24,000 feet as 291 knots, 17.5 gph, and 282 knots, 16.8 gph,

[1964-M20E]

11 minutes ago, chrisk said:

I'd like a IV-P.  Got to love speeds like:  at 24,000 feet as 291 knots, 17.5 gph, and 282 knots, 16.8 gph,

Would be nice and just a fast calculation I'd burn pretty much the same amount of fuel from New Orleans to Orlando and get there in 2 hours instead of 3.5  Sweet.   Still not sure I want  to spend tha much but it would be nice. 

I'd produce just the IVP air frame  and let the user decide to pressurize or not saving money on components if desired.  That way you only need to produce one fuselage.

 

 

[thinwing]

Doesn't the IV-p have a doubtful safety record and are hard to insure

[KSMooniac]

Doesn't the IV-p have a doubtful safety record and are hard to insure

Extremely bad, and just about impossible to insure.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[chrisk]

1 hour ago, thinwing said:

Doesn't the IV-p have a doubtful safety record and are hard to insure

Yes.  On the other hand, we fly Mooneys!   --In all seriousness, I'm under the impression that the safety record is due the high wing loading and touchy characteristics at slow speed.   Low and slow might be a difficult recovery with lots of altitude loss. Everything I have read says these planes should be flown by the numbers.   I'd like to think that Mooneys are more demanding of being flown by the numbers too, so a transition might be easier. But maybe that is wishful thinking. 

[Guest]

They should include AoA in the kit.

Clarence

[thinwing]

After reading all the accident reports..lots of mechanical failures,cartwheels down the runway,it's a little rocket for sure but surviving an engine out at 100 kts hmmm

[Hank]

4 hours ago, chrisk said:

Yes.  On the other hand, we fly Mooneys!   --In all seriousness, I'm under the impression that the safety record is due the high wing loading and touchy characteristics at slow speed.   Low and slow might be a difficult recovery with lots of altitude loss. Everything I have read says these planes should be flown by the numbers.   I'd like to think that Mooneys are more demanding of being flown by the numbers too, so a transition might be easier. But maybe that is wishful thinking. 

They're sleek, fast and land at 90-100 knots. Used to know someone with one, then I moved and he rolled his truck . . . .

[Marauder]

I had a chance to fly in Bob Wolstenholme's IV-P when he picked me up for a fly-in at Quakertown. I also took the controls for a bit on the ride over. The plane is a speed demon. I have never been in a piston single that you had to watch that you didn't break the 250 knot speed limit. It is also extremely crisp in roll control.

The pattern speeds were uncomfortably fast. Certainly not for an inexperienced pilot. But in the hands of Bob, it was impressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[FoxMike]

I have flown several Lancer IVs.  Qualifications for a success as an owner include excellent piloting skills, excellent mechanical skills, very knowledgable about mechanical engineering and aeronautical engineering, able to suffer large financial setbacks without undue concern, able to do without the airplane for extended periods of time.  This airplane does best as an object of hangar flying discussion.  Stick with a Mooney at least it is semi reliable transportation.  

 

 

 

[bradp]

Mate the IV-P fuselage to the mooney wing and tail design and I bet you'd have a winner. Wing loading wouldn't be so high, still have laminar flow and rudder authority with all the "can't ever pressurize a mooney fuselage" limitations addressed. Winner.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yooper Rocketman]

The sale, as explained to us at the Lancair Banquet at Oshkosh last summer, had a stipulation the IV / IVP / IVPT could not be put back in production.   Not sure how long that could be limited in the sale agreement but clearly the Evolution Company ( formerly Lancair) wants no competition with their Evolution.   

Every kit built plane has unique features and different standards of build.  Some I would never fly in, some are better built than production certified planes.  There IS NO way all Lancairs can be judged the same.  I have safety features on mine you could never install on an existing certified aircraft, and installed for a very reasonable cost. 

Accident record and insurance: a ton of the accidents have been with pilots resistant to training or doing REALLY stupid pilot actions.  If there is any compliment to be paid to the Mooney community, it's the fact that a real significant amount of transitioning Lancair pilots have come out of Mooney aircraft, obviously me included.

Tom

[MB65E]

10 hours ago, thinwing said:

Doesn't the IV-p have a doubtful safety record and are hard to insure

It's not the airplanes fault. We have all heard "stories". I've flown all the lancairs except the 4s and those that have the 4s love them and say they are stable. I think all aircraft have limitations. The 4s approached the limits of what was phicically possible with an airframe that large. They checked many boxes in the want column. As they got heavier and faster they approached the airframe limits, compounded with an inexperienced pilot and there could be issues. The legacy I flew was super fast (trued 276kts at 24gph 12k ft, trued 315kts flat out) and it was heavy. It had no bad habits in the pattern. It stalled and recovered from everything I could get it into. Just a neat airplane!!

A friend tried to buy only the legacy rights and portions of the assets. Current manangment would not split up the components. All or none. It's a shame because he has built over ten really nice Legacys. I'd love to complete one one day.  Does anyone know if there were any all carbon legacy kits left? 

I hope the new owner is able to support the guys still building, and sell the remaining kits. 

-Matt 

[KSMooniac]

The Legacy and Evolution are leaps and bounds better behaved than the earlier Lancair planes. Even the ES badly flunked certification handling quality requirements when it was going to be certified...which is why the Columbia was a clean-sheet design that has nothing in common with the ES. The 320/360 series wasn't horrible with the big tail, though. The IV was the most dangerous of the lot and the record shows that without question. Sexy as hell and fast, but very demanding and it has very little safety margin.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk