RV-6 vs. Lancair vs. Glasiar

[Bob Axsom]

[quote=gmcjetpilot


Even the "slow" RV is going near 200 mph in cruse. [/QUOTE]

This is stretching it a bit I think. I think the average RV is cruising in the 195-199 range but the "slow" ones are not. The slow ones are low power, fixed pitch climb proped, unfaired, improperly rigged and overweight.

Bob Axsom

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by aadamson

Odd...

I just don't know where some of this comes from.... So let me set the record straight *one more time*.

If you search under my username, you will find lots of comparitive info on the RV6/7 vs. the Lancair Legacy FG. Net-Net. The FG will cost you the difference in kit cost only. The engine options are the same as the RV, the avionics options are the same as the RG. The Kit is very complete and requires only engine/prop and avionics. Last time I did the comparision, it was a 9K difference for the Legacy FG vs. the RV's (Fast build to better compare build times).

Negative, the two seat RV's are designed for O235's (118 hp), (I)O320's (150 hp / 160 hp), (I)O360's (180HP) and the IO360 (200HP).

Engines listed for current Lancair's are IO550 ($44,000 reman) TSIO550 ($75,000 reman) Continentals and the smallest listed a big 4-cyl IO390 Lycoming (210HP) or TIO-360 Lycoming(?) for the Legacy FG. XIO390? Turbo charged? Another $11,000 to $20,000 more than a IO360 (180HP engine) and much heavier. Weight on the nose affects handling and "feel". A light plane is more fun to me. I fly a big plane at work, RV's are more fun. A Lancair Legacy FG is 400 lbs MORE than a RV!

Lancair's are designed around a high HP or Turbo charge engines for a heavier plane, period. I guess you could put a small 160/180 hp engine in the Legacy FG, but it would be under powered and fly the same speed or slower than a RV but still have that higher stall. No thanks. You can find use 150/160 hp engines, not XIO390's.

Originally Posted by aadamson

Also, there are 2 types of Legacy's there is an RG and an FG. The RG uses the IO-550 6 cyl engine, is Retractable, is an carbon fiber constructed airplane. The FG can be had in either Carbon (more money) or eglass (the reference 9K difference).

Who cares if its "Carbon!". I know that impresses you and you mention it every chance you get, but what does that have to do with FUN? It does help keep your overweight plane's empty weight down. Listed Weights, Legacy FG; 1,450 lb empty, 2,200 lb gross. OUCH That is fat, a +350-400 lbs more than a RV! Heavy means heavy controls, longer take off, higher stall speed & less climb. I fly a 255,000 lb plane at work. A light RV is a delight to fly.


Alan he is talking about a Glasair I/II or Lancair 360, not a Legacy FG ala-carbon btw. Early Lancair's with Lyc 235, 320 and 360's are more efficient than current Lancair models which are bigger and DO use bigger engines.

Originally Posted by aadamson

The RG cruises at about 240KTS at 13 g/hr, the eglass fg, which can only take a 4 cyl engine, cruises at 175KTS at about 8-9 g/hr.

So say you, prove it. I doubt your real world speed or fuel flow or both.

The FG calls for a IO390 (210 hp). At 75% power it's sucking more than 8-9 gal/hr. A (I)O360 (180 hp) at 75% sucks 9.5-10 gal/hr, so a 210 hp engine will be 16% more like 11.6 gal/hr. May be a turbo charge TIO-360 flying in the teens with oxygen would get that speed/FF. WOW, fly real high, dry nostrils, boring and uncomfortable. Cost of turbo engine? More than justified for fun flying 100-150 hrs a yr.

A RV-8 can cruise at 204 mph (177 kts) at 75% power on a 180 hp engine. A RV is FASTER than your Legacy FG! You want to go real fast a RV-8 with a IO360 (200 HP) can cruise about 184.4 kts, top speed 193 kts (222 mph)!

I don't get it, a "FG" 4-cyl cost way more, is not faster and does less. If all you want to do is "cruise" cross country, I guess its OK, but why give up the FUN? (loops, rolls and little grass strips)

Originally Posted by aadamson

Lancair has never had *financial* problems. The company was sold *once* when Columbia sold off the experimental group. The sale kept the Lancair name. Glasair has been sold, out of business, etc a few times, still around today, but probably more focused on the sportsman than the II or III.

Yes Lancair has had financial problems. Just Google "lancair financial problems". Most issues are w/ the commercial side, granted. The kit side? I'm sure Lancair kits will be around. However the 360 parts may be harder to get as an orphan. Just saying, parts for either the older Lancair's and Glasairs may be an issue down the road.

Originally Posted by aadamson

One advantage to the Legacy's - they are extremely fast build airplanes. about 600 hours to complete an eglass FG, about 800 to complete a carbon RG and 1200 to complete a carbon RG. This gets to to a flying state, but smoothing and contouring body work may still be required before paint. The factory used to offer a 10wk from kit to flying program.

ha ha ha ha ha, 600 hours, ha ha ha ha ha, that is ridiculous. May be 600 hours just on the paint job. I have too much experience around homebuilts to believe that. Your factory help program free? Please they are complex planes. Typically factory estimates are off. The problem Alan is you make these statements you can't or don't back up. Are you flying YET? How long have you been working on it? Right.

Building the airframe is only half of the job. Even a RV QB (quick build) will take time to wire, plumb, major systems (engine, prop, instruments, brakes, controls and etc...), interior, exterior, etc.... Lancair's kits are less likely to be simple VFR, fixed pitch, basic.

Originally Posted by aadamson

Georga and I have gone round and round about the merits of "glue and string" vs. Metal. I'm not going to try to do that again. To each their own.

Its Mr. George to you. Alan, facts: cost, weight, power, wing area, stall speed and ability of structural to deform (ie absorbed energy). Deal w/ it.

Lancair didn't find new "magic". RV's are good because they are light w/ a low drag flush riveted smooth fuselage. I know swoopy fuselage curves turn you on, but is more aesthetically pleasing than aerodynamic. There's some aerodynamics to a smooth glass surface, but a well built metal RV has near the same "wetted" area and similar Cd (coefficient of drag). In the past, early Glass planes (Glasair I/II/III & Lancair 235/320/360) had low Cd because the pilot was made to LAY DOWN flat on their back to reduce frontal area & gain speed. It works but it's not comfortable. RV's allow you to sit upright. New Lancair's appear to have a normal seat position but give up some "efficiency".

Alan, stick to facts. You say each to his own. Well I say undoubtedly & inescapably, but you also seem to need or want your posts about your Carbon Lancair on "Van's air force dot net" to be met with ohhhh, ahhhhs. Don't take it personally. Bottom line Carbon fiber and compound fuselage curves are cool but does NOT make it more FUN and they COST WAY MORE MONEY, fact.

If going 175 kts w/ 210 hp engine makes your whole world, bully for you. A RV-7 with 180 hp goes 173.9 kts. WOW 1.1 kts faster with an engine that makes 30 hp more & burns more gas.

I love metal and rivets. Easy to work on, maintain, repair, inspect and paint any color you want.

Originally Posted by aadamson

As for which to do. If you just want a fun flyer, that you can get into small places, then go for the RV. If you want a "touring" airplane then you can't beat the Lancair's.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IF YOU JUST WANT A FUN FLYER GET A RV & THE LANCAIR FOR TOURING? You make it sound like RV's are not great X-C planes. BULL. After flying 1/2 way across the country, a RV will arrive may be 20-30 minutes later (w/ less fuel burn) than a Legacy FG. So what? In the mean time RV's go into short grass strips and do loops and rolls.

Alan, a sport plane for FUN is what he was asking about, not a fly straight & level for hours at +8,000 ft, see nothing & be bored. However if you want to ONLY do that, a Lancair is great. Yawn for me. I think the RV is the best kit planes in both value and overall performance on the market. Most folks can't afford a $400,000 Lancair IV-P or need one.

[Mike_ExpressCT]

As someone who builds a composite airplane....

Composite Advantages:

-Cleaner lines (easier to have compound curves)
-kits have higher speed potentials (Glasair III and Legacy RG)
-You can make a composite airplane PERFECT...it only takes body filler and sandpaper.
-(debateable) easier for building errors/easier to redo parts

Metal Advantages

-Easier/faster to build (debateable)
-Less mess when building (no dust, less acetone, etc.)
-Easier to prep for painting/finish work
-much cheaper
-RV's are great airplanes!


I've been building a 4 place composite for a while now, and can tell you that the basic airframe on glass planes go together pretty quick. The headache comes when it's time to prep the whole thing for paint...it takes forever to sand the whole thing! That in itself makes metal airplanes so appealing to me...I can't tell you the countless hundreds of hours I've spent sanding and filling and sanding and filling (repeat forever!) The next time you see a really nice glass airplane, ask the builder how many hours they spent prepping for paint. It's not uncommon for builders who want a good job to spend more time in paint prep than basic a/c construction.

The good news is that, if you have the time and patience for it, you can make the finish on a glass plane perfect...all it takes is time. It's easy to see why so many Glasair III's were Grand Champion Kits throughout the last 15 years. It's also easy to see how it took 5,000-9,000 hours to do it. On the other hand, I know of several RV-6 builders who have put 5,000-6,000 hours into building their planes, which is very high as well.

In the end, there's one other huge point that I don't believe anyone has made yet, and that deals with builder networks. You'll find that the RV community is without compare...everyone is very willing to lend a hand, and chances are, if you run into a problem, there will be someone very close by to offer a hand or let you see their airplane! The airplane I'm building has been around since the late 80's, and there's maybe 100 flying. Think about how may RV's are flying, and you'll see why it's such a good idea to go RV and never look back

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by Bob Axsom

This is stretching it a bit I think. I think the average RV is cruising in the 195-199 range but the "slow" ones are not. The slow ones are low power, fixed pitch climb proped, unfaired, improperly rigged and overweight. Bob Axsom

I agree typical 150/160 hp may be lower, however 180/200 HP RV's, list 75% power solo cruise at approx 200 mph and up to 212 mph.

My 150 hp RV-4 did a tad over 190 mph all day long at WOT 8,000 ft w/ FF less than 8 gal/hr (which is about book speed). If my RV-4 had a 180 hp I have no doubt it would cruise at 200 mph. We RV'ers all know a typical RV does book or close.

I agree weight, rigging, poor prop pitch and fit and finish have an affect. However I'd say it does not take super human building skill to get book.

Any way my 200 mph number was apples and apples. If comparing to 210 HP Legacy FG, a 200 HP RV-8 or RV-7 makes a good comparison. These models with 200 hp do well over 200 mph cruise on 200 HP. I don't think that is in doubt.

[unclecameron]

Thanks for all the info., but really the question was grinability, not the specs I know they can all outrun my Ducati (er most, and CHP would definitely vote: plane), I just wanted to know which one was simply the most fun for what we're doing. If I spent 10 minutes trying to find my keys in the cramped flight bag full of snickers wrappers and questionable food remnants, I would've offset the difference in speed, I want to grin like a fat 6 year old...and my wife like...a 6 year old

Thanks again,
Cameron
San Diego

[aadamson]

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

Alan, a sport plane for FUN is what he was asking about, not a fly straight & level for hours at +8,000 ft, see nothing & be bored. However if you want to ONLY do that, a Lancair is great. Yawn for me. I think the RV is the best kit planes in both value and overall performance on the market. Most folks can't afford a $400,000 Lancair IV-P or need one.

Whatever...

[Captain Avgas]

I'm building an RV7A mainly because I felt more comfortable about building a metal plane with a lot of internet builder support and a large base of third party vendors. There are other reasons, of course, but those were the main ones.

Much has been made in this thread about the difference in price of competing kits. However the reality is that the cost of any kit is just a fraction of the final project price. It is possible you could spend as much money on just a new engine as on the entire Vans kit...ditto for a well presented instrument panel. So of course it is not all that relevant to worry about small amounts of kit-cost dollar difference in the context of the big picture.

Also I took a good look at a friend's Glassair recently and I was generally impressed with the quality of the components in the kit. For instance there is no comparison between the pedals supplied with the Glassair and those that come with the RVs...same with many other components.

In fact I have thrown out much of the Vans kit including the pitot system, the static system, the fuel caps, the fuel selector, etc etc.

Don't get me wrong here. I love RVs...and I like the way they fly. I think they're a very good all purpose type of plane. And the matched hole superstructure components produced in house by Vans are excellent...but when it comes to buying subcontract products Vans are more motivated by price than quality (or quality control). For instance have you ever heard of any builder replacing the Vans kit supplied tyres and tubes with the same el-cheapo Chinese brand when the first set wore out.

So the Vans kit is cheap relatively speaking...but a lot of the supplied components are of marginal quality. On that basis I'm not sure that simply comparing kit prices is all that relevant.

[TJoyner]

We all love our airplanes... Let's just leave it at that...

[rv6ejguy]

Bang for the buck, hard to beat an RV. Too bad Lancair no longer offers the 320/360 kits. 190-195 knots TAS was pretty common cruise on the 320s on 8.5-9 gph. Cramped a bit, yes. Nice looking airplanes for sure.

If you want to step up in speed, Lancairs are the next obvious step above RVs. This always comes with a price in $ and complexity plus some other low speed compromises but Lancair guys are generally into long cruises.The Legacy FG with the turbo Lyco is good for 220-225 knots with affordable fuel flows. This is quite a bit faster than than most RVs which are realistically cruising at 160-175 knots in most cases. Is 20-50 knots more worth it? I guess that depends. It's like the old King Air vs. Citation vs. Lear thing. On short trips, the King Air is going to be within minutes of the other two. Lengthen the trip and quickly the extra speed of the jets makes big difference. On a 4-5 hour trip, the Lancair will might save a full hour or more because they carry more fuel too. That is worth it to many who are doing long trips.

600 hours to finish a composite airplane is unrealistic in my view. I have a good friend who builds composite aircraft for a living and have seen what goes into making a nice Glassair or Lancair or Legend. Way more than 600 hours. I know of one fellow who spent over 1000 hours just finish sanding alone.

If you have the bucks can't beat Lancairs for performance. I'd like a IV-P with a turbo LS-2.

My friend who has a 6A is working on his wife now to release funds for a Legacy. I think airframe choices depend a lot on mission and disposable income. We have a bunch of guys around here with $500K turbine Lancairs and Legends. Hard to wipe the grins off their faces when they come down from a flight. Yes, you will be flying off 3000 foot plus paved runways with these aircraft and need to be up on the flight characteristics but that simply goes with the territory of high performance aircraft.

Lancairs are higher up the food chain than RVs but certainly cost more and don't do everything better.

[WAM120RV]

I hope to be able to supply some proper comparisons soon as I just bought a part built 320/360 Lancair kit.

I am still flying my 4 and it's great. I will finish the rebuild of my 9 too soon, so my update will probably be a year or so away.

I fail to see why one poster in particular became almost aggressive to another person who posted, both RVs and Lancairs are on my hit list! Great aeroplanes are just that, whether made of wood (Falco), aluminium (RV's) or composite (Lancair/Glasair).