Need Another Mooney!

[gofast]

Hi, Please see the "Sell an Airplane" entry...  I sold my M20S to buy a bushplane.  I regret the decision.  If you know a Mooney that's available that would trade with a Cessna 175/180hp Tailwheel, let me know.  Link to other post with specs: http://www.mooneyspace.com/index.cfm?mainaction=posts&forumid=7&threadid=2971

Thanks!

[201er]

Have you considered something like an RV? If you don't need four seats, want a taildragger, and like speed...

[gofast]

I really need 4 seats AND 180KTAS....  But RVs are cool too.  I've often lusted after an F1 Rocket!  (RV on steriods)

[GTWreck]

The RV-10 has 4 seats and will do around 165-170 kts.  And they're typically far less expensive for a similar vintage production aircraft of the same performance.  The RV-10 is a real world 4 adult plus full fuel and bags kind of plane.

[thinwing]

Aaron...no offense but I really dont think so guy!!!!sinc kpc

[David Mazer]

I'm not an expert on all Mooney models performance but wouldn't you require a K (maybe), an R, or a TN to get reliable 180 Kts performance?  I get that easily, even at low altitudes and 60% power, from my Rocket but I didn't think most Mooney trued out that fast.  If you do need one of those models, wouldn't the trade for a C175 be a little lopsided?

[gofast]

I'd planned to have to put cash with it.....

[aviatoreb]

Quote: GTWreck

The RV-10 has 4 seats and will do around 165-170 kts.  And they're typically far less expensive for a similar vintage production aircraft of the same performance.  The RV-10 is a real world 4 adult plus full fuel and bags kind of plane.

[flyboy0681]

What I don't get is why you took a giant leap backwards to begin with. That's like trading in a Porsche for a Grand Marquis.

[David Mazer]

The Lancair is fast and sexy.  That's for sure.  The problem is they seem to be particularly dangerous.  It is a small sample since there are so few of them but I looked into the IVP.  The fatality rate was ridiculous.  It may be just the usual under-prepared pilot in over his head but there were so many diverse causes I had to just write it off.

[bd32322]

before buying the mooney i was looking at lancairs seriously - have you looked at the ES? I remember going through the ntsb accident database for lancair ES and IVP and remember seeing mostly weather related accidents. The IVP might have landing accidents I think from the high approach speeds required but the ES has a low stall speed and is the same as a cessna columbia / lancair 350.

 

I do remember a couple of lancair legacy stall spin accidents on approach from the ntsb databases.

I am still inclined to believe its the pilots and not the planes

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Mazerbase

The Lancair is fast and sexy.  That's for sure.  The problem is they seem to be particularly dangerous.  It is a small sample since there are so few of them but I looked into the IVP.  The fatality rate was ridiculous.  It may be just the usual under-prepared pilot in over his head but there were so many diverse causes I had to just write it off.

[bd32322]

aviatorweb - i looked up the ntsb database again - for a 10 year and 40 year period back from now - I see 7 lancair IV-P accidents and 1 Lancair IV accident - 3 of them were non-fatal. There are none for the Lanciar ES - which is now the certified cessna 400 and former columbia 300/350 and has a much lower stall speed than the IV-P.

You can check the data here: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

So really the only reasons I did not go with Lancair is:

1) money

2) too lazy to build a plane for 5-7 years

3) I am wary of buying a homebuilt that is built by another person - you dont know who has used what technique in building it.

 

[KSMooniac]

Quote: bd32322

aviatorweb - i looked up the ntsb database again - for a 10 year and 40 year period back from now - I see 7 lancair IV-P accidents and 1 Lancair IV accident - 3 of them were non-fatal. There are none for the Lanciar ES - which is now the certified cessna 400 and former columbia 300/350 and has a much lower stall speed than the IV-P.

 

[David Mazer]

The 360 and the Legacy both have approach speeds of about 100 kts on final.  I spoke to the past president of Lancair and he told me 100 kts was short final speeds. They are fast but I thought the risks were not warranted.  I sure hope that means I make better decisions on other flying matters, and safer as a result, as aviatoreb suggests.

[KSMooniac]

100 knots on final is ridiculous...those 2-seaters do not need to fly that fast on final!  80 knots I'd believe...they both stall below 60 knots.  The IV will typically cross the fence at 90 knots, though, and has a stall speed around 70 knots or more IIRC.  For reference, the IV has less wing area than a C-150 and twice the gross weight.  

The fact that you are even worried about landing speeds in those planes puts you far ahead of the typical Lancair customer IMO that only cares about the sexy look and high cruise speed.  Mooneys are the safest XC planes IMO due to the stall speeds and behavior, and especially the steel cage!

[bd32322]

ksmooniac - the ntsb database lists aircraft as Joe Schmoe Lancair IV-P - the make of the aircraft is still listed as lancair IV-P and not whatever name the builder gives to it. So I am not so sure I agree with you that its hard to search for experimental aircraft in the ntsb database.

As for the cessna being a clean sheet design - I dont recall hearing anything like that - but I dont know for sure. I did read in AOPA that they changed the rudder design as compared to the certified columbia - maybe just to put a cessna stamp on the design. But the Columbia 300/350 were supposed to be very similar to the ES according to Lancair (but you cant trust the manufacturer I suppose).

 

Regardless of the clean sheet design or not - I took a demo ride in the ES because I was looking at building one and its stall was as benign as anything else and this is borne out by other aviation reviewers. I forget if that aircraft can be spun or not - but then our Mooneys also have "atrocious" spin qualities and terrible secondary stall characteristics and are prohibited from spins. Doesnt stop us from buying one either.

 

If I were gifted an ES I would take it immediately - if gifted a Lancair IV-P - I would look at whether I could land at my favorite airports with short runways. Anyway all this talk about bad handling characteristics reminds me of cessna drivers telling me how hard it is to land a Mooney - lol.

[gofast]

Interesting....  But I still need help finding another Mooney!  LOL

[aviatoreb]

Quote: bd32322

aviatorweb - i looked up the ntsb database again - for a 10 year and 40 year period back from now - I see 7 lancair IV-P accidents and 1 Lancair IV accident - 3 of them were non-fatal. There are none for the Lanciar ES - which is now the certified cessna 400 and former columbia 300/350 and has a much lower stall speed than the IV-P.

You can check the data here: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

So really the only reasons I did not go with Lancair is:

1) money

2) too lazy to build a plane for 5-7 years

3) I am wary of buying a homebuilt that is built by another person - you dont know who has used what technique in building it.

 

[KSMooniac]

Quote: bd32322

As for the cessna being a clean sheet design - I dont recall hearing anything like that - but I dont know for sure. I did read in AOPA that they changed the rudder design as compared to the certified columbia - maybe just to put a cessna stamp on the design. But the Columbia 300/350 were supposed to be very similar to the ES according to Lancair (but you cant trust the manufacturer I suppose).

[bd32322]

good info ksmooniac - did these changes make it back into the ES kit - if not - any idea why not?

aviatorweb - the wikipedia lists ntsb as the source - and NTSB shows 7or 8 IV and IV-P crashes - not 19. Wikipedia is usually not to be trusted since anyone can put up anything there especially for pages that not many people visit.

[KSMooniac]

The changes were certainly not propagated back to the kit ES... it would involved a tooling change among other things and that is cost-prohibitive, especially for low-volume production.

Just Googling "Lancair IV crashes" I can quickly find more than 8 distinct crashes and several references to the 19 number although they could be based on Wiki as well.  I'd bet $100 that there are many more than 8 but don't have time to tally all of them.  I used to look at NTSB listings all the time and did have trouble finding accidents, even when I knew the specifics, using their search form.  Perhaps it has improved, but I would not be surprised if you cannot find all of them without searching month-by-month from 1990 or so to the present.  

The fact remains, though, that the ES and especially the IV do not meet certification standards.  They don't have to, but the customer should determine whether or not they are good enough before purchasing.  The IV especially is a handful at low speed and in IMC.  Many kits (and especially Lancairs) suffer mechanical problems related to the fuel and powerplant installations for a variety of reasons, and when trying to fly a crippled airplane (and troubleshoot) the poor manners at low speed are especially dangerous, as are the very high stall/landing speeds when looking at a forced landing.  I'd much prefer to be in a steel caged Mooney with a sub-60 knot stall speed any day compared to any Lancair.

[fantom]

This is my #3 favorite hot rod, after my Mooney (not for sale - sorry), and a Siai Marchetti SF-260.

It's a Swearingen SX-300 kit plane, and it's name was derived in the same way as a Mooney 201 or 252, so it's faaaaast.

It's got tiny wing, tiny landing gear and a big bad 300 HP Lycoming. Yes, it's fully aerobatic, has eatest up more pilots than any records will ever indicate, and has killed a few.

Rotate at 90, and hope to lift off at 110; approach at 110 KIAS, cross the threshold at 100, flare and add a bit power to check descent for a touchdown at 90....if you're lucky. We won't talk about take-off or landing roll distances.

The guys at Spruce Creek have given up their SF-260's for SX-300's

[bd32322]

Theres an outfit at KPYM Massachusetts (Siai Marchettti SF-260) that uses these for aerobatics training. Definitely very exciting. Actually for the longest time I had my eye on this (M26 Airwolf) but its probably going to be cost prohibitive to maintain because of its 300 hp engine and Czech made parts (this one is on sale here http://www.flightlab.net/Flightlab.net/Air_Wolf_photo,_specs.html)

 

 

 

 

[David Mazer]

Someone has listed a 231 on the General Mooney Talk forum.  Other than it is there, I know nothing about it but I know you are looking and a 231 could work for you.