Why I don’t regret going from the Mooney to the Glasair

[mike_elliott]

Here is an inexpensive, fast single seat experimental turbine...

 

[GeeBee]

9 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

My airplane stalls at 63/64 kts. About the same as a J

FAR 23.49. The Vso of an airplane under 6000 pounds cannot be greater than 61 knots.

 

[skykrawler]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

FAR 23.49. The Vso of an airplane under 6000 pounds cannot be greater than 61 knots.

 

And the J stall - full flaps, 0 bank is 56 kts.

 

[GeeBee]

Vso standard flaps 68 knots = Vref 88.4 knots

Vso slotted flaps 63 knots = Vref 81.9 knots

Vso slotted flaps and wing tip extensions 58 knots = Vref 75.4

https://glasair-owners.com/resources/glasair-specifications-and-performance/

A good Mooney comparison would be the M20T Predator. Slightly heavier, same engine, stall speed of 56 knots Vref  72.8 knots

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/uncategorized/mooney-predator/ 

[MBDiagMan]

Glad you’re happy with it and glad I’m happy with my Mooney.  That’s why they make different airplanes, for different people.

[Austintatious]

I think my long term plan is to buy a Lancair 4 and just not insure it.   I do not think the aircraft is dangerous... are the Columbia 400's crashing at the same rate? 

I think the sad fact is that the people flying them overall just are not up to the task.  Weekend warriors flying an absolute hot rod.

I would much love the extra speed and efficiency over my rocket.  I think it would be cheaper to own to (sans insurance) as I can work on it myself and have an A&P who could do the yearly safety inspection.

 

[aviatoreb]

10 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I think my long term plan is to buy a Lancair 4 and just not insure it.   I do not think the aircraft is dangerous... are the Columbia 400's crashing at the same rate? 

I think the sad fact is that the people flying them overall just are not up to the task.  Weekend warriors flying an absolute hot rod.

I would much love the extra speed and efficiency over my rocket.  I think it would be cheaper to own to (sans insurance) as I can work on it myself and have an A&P who could do the yearly safety inspection.

 

Piston or turbine?

They are awfully awesome.

[exM20K]

10 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I think my long term plan is to buy a Lancair 4 and just not insure it.   I do not think the aircraft is dangerous... are the Columbia 400's crashing at the same rate? 

I'd be lying if I said i haven't or am not considering the LX-7 conversion of the Lancair 4p.  It appears to be a very well engineered and crafted plane, though insurance remains a challenge.

Lancair 4P fatal rate is 10:100,000 hours vs 1:100,000 across GA.  The company that does the LX-7 will not ferry donor airframes; they disassemble and truck them to Oregon.

Columbia 400 wing area 141 sqft

Lancair 4P wing area 98  sqft.

There is a piston LX7 on controller if you have a spare $900,000 lying around :-)

 

 

-dan

[Ibra]

Good you found something that please you !

I flew with a friend in his Glasair3 from Zurich (Switzerland) to LaRochelle (France), however, unlike US, in Europe having one means crossing country borders with a pile of paperwork, especially under IFR, it had an impressive performance in speed & climb rate 

As people said, if one scarify stall speed limits, useful weight and increase runway requirements they should get close numbers in 300hp Mooneys 

[Hank]

3 hours ago, exM20K said:

I'd be lying if I said i haven't or am not considering the LX-7 conversion of the Lancair 4p.  It appears to be a very well engineered and crafted plane, though insurance remains a challenge.

Lancair 4P fatal rate is 10:100,000 hours vs 1:100,000 across GA.  The company that does the LX-7 will not ferry donor airframes; they disassemble and truck them to Oregon.

Columbia 400 wing area 141 sqft

Lancair 4P wing area 98  sqft.

There is a piston LX7 on controller if you have a spare $900,000 lying around :-)

When I was in WV, we had a neurosurgeon with a 4PT, awesome machine! But watching him come over the trees to our 3000' field at his normal approach speed always s cared me. Seems like he went into Beta as soon as the nosewheel came down. His Flight Aware tracks were awe-inspiring!

[A64Pilot]

7 hours ago, Hank said:

When I was in WV, we had a neurosurgeon with a 4PT, awesome machine! But watching him come over the trees to our 3000' field at his normal approach speed always s cared me. Seems like he went into Beta as soon as the nosewheel came down. His Flight Aware tracks were awe-inspiring!

If it was Walter powered there really isn’t a Beta, A Walter clicks into reverse and from that point you add fuel, a Pratt you can easily get to zero thrust and fuel and pitch are added together the further you pull it back, but yes if he was waiting until the nose came down he was waiting plenty long enough

[A64Pilot]

21 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I think my long term plan is to buy a Lancair 4 and just not insure it.   I do not think the aircraft is dangerous... are the Columbia 400's crashing at the same rate? 

I think the sad fact is that the people flying them overall just are not up to the task.  Weekend warriors flying an absolute hot rod.

I would much love the extra speed and efficiency over my rocket.  I think it would be cheaper to own to (sans insurance) as I can work on it myself and have an A&P who could do the yearly safety inspection.

 

That’s exactly what’s going on, people revert to trying to land them like a 172 and get bit, you can’t flare this type of airplane and hold the nose up until it stalls, it will drop a wing if you do, you have to fly it to the ground.

That’s why my neighbor said fly it like a Lear and you won’t have any trouble, problem is most owners don’t have any truly high performance, as in Lear etc time. If I were to go that route I think I’d try to buy a little L-39 or similar time.

But you know almost everyone here fits the Weekend Warrior definition, how many have flown Professionally whether Military or other. Nothing wrong with that just accept that strapping one of these types on may be biting off more than you can chew.

They are in fact too much airplane for most, and most who own them don’t have the skills needed, heck a lot of Mooney drivers are in over their heads for that matter, we really are doing ourselves and others a disfavor telling them, sure it’s fine to learn in a Mooney and then cry about high insurance rates. 

The aircraft aren’t unsafe, the people who fly them are.

In the Military in flight school I had NO other job, didn’t live at home, didn’t have a car, lived, breathed and ate learning how to fly 7 days a week, getting an hour or two dual a couple times a week after work isn’t even close, but I do understand, you have to work, mow the grass, live at home and deal with the Wife and kids and bills and get the car fixed and a hundred other things that I didn’t have to. Besides I was in my 20’s and one hell of a lot more motivated than I’m capable of now.

Edited June 27, 2023 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

As for four seats, my J model isn’t really, what it is, is a two seat airplane with a lot of baggage compt. But trying to compare it to a four door car where you can fill the trunk with suitcases and fit four adults and a full tank of gas, it’s not.

The C-210 I had was, but then it was called a 6 seat airplane  

But an RV 6,7, or 8 is barely a two seat airplane, of the three I’d only want an 8 as it’s got more baggage and room for two Adults, but be real leery of that nose wheel, so only go with a tailwheel, it won’t kill you.

I don’t know about a -10, but an 8 can’t compare to the comfort and load hauling of a Mooney, few Experimental's can. Then look at range, a -8 only carries 42 gallons I believe

[chriscalandro]

11 hours ago, Ibra said:

 

As people said, if one scarify stall speed limits, useful weight and increase runway requirements they should get close numbers in 300hp Mooneys 

So you chose to completely ignore all the information given to you to make this comment?

 

58 is not a sacrifice for a stall speed, my useful load is the same as a rocket, and I can land on the same runway as modern Mooney. 

[cliffy]

An MU-2 was in reality no different than a 20 series Lear but in the beginning anyone with an MEL could go fly one  No specific training required,

Hence the bad track record when in fact if flown like a small jet it was an easy airplane to fly. But, in actuality, not as easy as a 20 Lear

Too many wanna-bees bought them

Hence again- the SFAR for proper training and recurrent to fly an MU2 now.

The 20 Lear was a fun and in reality easy airplane to fly EXCEPT at 410 without autopilot! It could have been an easy SP if the regs would have allowed it.  

The go fast plastic singles (Cirrus not included) are kind of in the same boat. They need a proper attitude to fly them safely IMO only. 

[chriscalandro]

2 minutes ago, cliffy said:

An MU-2 was in reality no different than a 20 series Lear but in the beginning anyone with an MEL could go fly one  No specific training required,

Hence the bad track record when in fact if flown like a small jet it was an easy airplane to fly. But, in actuality, not as easy as a 20 Lear

Too many wanna-bees bought them

Hence again- the SFAR for proper training and recurrent to fly an MU2 now.

The 20 Lear was a fun and in reality easy airplane to fly EXCEPT at 410 without autopilot! It could have been an easy SP if the regs would have allowed it.  

The go fast plastic singles (Cirrus not included) are kind of in the same boat. They need a proper attitude to fly them safely IMO only. 

It’s absolutely a different animal and needs to be respected. Just because it’s capable of aerobics doesn’t mean you need to do aerobics. 
 

the biggest accident factor in the Glasair 3  seems to be people putting on a show. 
 

it’s happiest landing fast, it’s capable of flying slow. 

[cliffy]

3 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

It’s absolutely a different animal and needs to be respected. Just because it’s capable of aerobics doesn’t mean you need to do aerobics. 
 

the biggest accident factor in the Glasair 3  seems to be people putting on a show. 
 

it’s happiest landing fast, it’s capable of flying slow. 

Agreed!

[A64Pilot]

The other huge issue is they are home built, with essentially no oversight.

Almost every builder is smarter than the factories, they do things different than the instructions because they know better, often they gain this superior knowledge from the internet, I mean not minor things, but things like layup schedules and resins if we are talking about composites. Then many times they have zero actual building experience and zero actual training.

Then there are some like my Neighbor, Steve Wolf who recently had one of his home builds hung in the Smithsonian.  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/one-kind-biplane-embodies-thrill-airshow-flight-180969864/  His aircraft are superior to any factory build I’ve ever seen, but he’s one in a thousand, and you need to have the ability to determine which is which if your buying, something one in a hundred can.

It’s similar to buying a geriatric certified airplane, just more so. You have to be nuts to fly GA.

Good luck

Edited June 27, 2023 by A64Pilot

[Echo]

I think it's hilarious when I former Porsche owner buys a Ferrari and then goes on the Porsche site and blathers about how great his Ferrari is. But that's just me. I love Porsches and Ferraris and I'm happy for whoever owns one of either brand.

[chriscalandro]

39 minutes ago, Echo said:

I think it's hilarious when I former Porsche owner buys a Ferrari and then goes on the Porsche site and blathers about how great his Ferrari is. But that's just me. I love Porsches and Ferraris and I'm happy for whoever owns one of either brand.

Well, a Ferrari beats a Porsche any day if the week. 

[Echo]

[WilliamR]

9 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

Well, a Ferrari beats a Porsche any day if the week. 

Except if you want a daily driver with near equal performance, lower bills, or want to win at Le Mans (yes, I'm aware Ferrari just won, but Porsche has more wins and the most consecutive wins). 

Btw, anyone who compares a Lancair 4PT to a Columbia or even an ES should really understand the wildly different airframe features.

William

[ttflyer]

11 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

The other huge issue is they are home built, with essentially no oversight.

 

Good luck

We had an RV-6 before the Mooney.  I always felt like I was flying something built in somebody's garage.  Because it was.  It was built by a Vans factory pilot by an "expert" and It still felt very flimsy.  That, along with the fact that I was certain any off-airport landing would end up with the airplane upside-down or crunched like a beer can convinced me to get the Mooney.  It's a a completely different flying experience.  Less "fun" (let's go upside down) but way more "I feel confident I will survive in this airplane if the engine quits." And that makes flying it, particularly with my wife, WAY more enjoyable.  Plus, the Mooney will actually glide to an airport from most reasonable altitudes.  The RV-6 was more like a helicopter - it was going to land right under wherever the engine quit.... Soon....

My 2c....

[Echo]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Did I mention how much better a Comanche is than a Mooney, even if it’s a copy!

Never ever have I read that you said that ;)

[Mufflerbearing]

15 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Did I mention how much better a Comanche is than a Mooney, even if it’s a copy!

Way to bring in a Corvette into a Porsche/Ferrari debate!