Lancair 320

[Gorilla]

I understand what you guys are trying to say about negative stability, but (and we're talking semantics) I think what you are really trying to say is that it is close to neutral on the positive side.

If it was truly negatively stable, it would require advanced FC computers just to get airborne. The F-117 and B-2 come to mind, as does the forward swept rockwell fighter prototype, the X-29. If it was negative, the moment you deviated from straight and level, you'd probably end up in a destructive PIO. It would be impossible to control it quickly and accurately enough.

There's nothing wrong with saying "it's a handful", but don't say it's got negative stability because that's simply not accurate.

 

[sstearns2]

Unstable in what way? In phugoid, the long period (~30 second peak to peak) pitch occilation? An airplane can be unstable in phugoid and still be flyable, just a lot of work. Some of the early jet fighters were instable in phugoid. All the early swept wing jet transports were unstable in dutch roll before they put yaw dampers on them.

Scott

 

[neflier]

Like I said I'm just looking for a decent XC plane.

Have you considered the RV's?

 

[V1cutsrfun]

Although Lance, the previous owner and designer of the Lancair 320/360 will disagree, he redesigned the tail in later 320/360 models to relieve the aircraft of the inherent stability problems (see this article) http://www.eaa1000.av.org/fltrpts/lanc360/hq.htm

In all justice though all of the buyers were well off privates with mooney or bonanza time and considered themselves a cut above the rest. Scared the hell out of most of them.



I agree with cherrybomb, this airplane as tested is Neutral to negative stability at best.

As your article states, and as you refer to the potential buyer (Mooney and Bonanza types) of the aircraft it discusses FAR part 23. This is an expermental aircraft, not only because it is built buy someone with potenetially little formal training, but because it will never pass alot of the requirements for a Part 23 Certificate. Again ALL Lancairs are POSITIVLY STABLE. Stability comes in a wide range, from very stabile and docile 172 that are trainers with little manuverability to very manuverable and less stable Extra 300. Its all a trade off. Stability, Manueverablity and Controlablity are all different from each other and only loosely related to each in each others function.
Lancair's get it's speed from a very clean and efficient airframe and slightly less then PART 23 requirments for stability. If you are trying to compare aircraft, then don't compare "apples to oranges", ie. mooney, bonanza's and the like. I have personally flown the ES with Full fuel and four Adults and Bags at Full Gross wieght, never came close to the aft CG and still climbed at 800 ft a min/160KTS to 10,500 msl @ ISA +14, AN then accelerated into a 215 Knots True Airspeed Cruise, While burning 13.0 GPH. Neither a Mooney/Bonzanza nor a 206 could acheive this without a slight reduction in stability and other parameters required by FAR23. Does that make the aircraft unsafe, no, Only the pilot operating it without proper training.
Less stabilty is just more workload. I have flown all the models from the 320 through the Turbine IV at ALL spectrums of CG, Full aft and Full Forward, and have NEVER found anything that wasn't going to be expected for such conditions.
Type specific training is required to "unlearn" some of the techniques that an instructor taught during inital flight training to be safe. Simply put, apllying what you already know form a Cesnna, Piper Beech Mooney is unsafe. Period. You need to be responsible and LEARN about the aircraft that you intend to fly. A Single Engine Land rating is simply not enough to undertake a high performance airplane like this. Yes, accidents do occur, but its the pilots fault, not the airplanes fault.

V1