N727RT: Project Notebook
Intro: Why build a Lancair ES?
| Back to Introduction
| Back to Why
"Build"? |
Next: Build Options> |
|
Intro: Why build a Lancair ES?
|
|
Why did I decide to build a Lancair...
and Why the ES??
Naturally, the decision to build an airplane (vs buy
one) is high dependent on the next logical question: "which
airplane to build?" Since it's already known
that I'm building a Lancair ES, some of the relevant selection criteria are summarized
(below).
Summary: <<This page is pretty long. I need to add a summary up here...>>
Mission Goals and Performance Objectives: The starting point for selecting (or designing) an aircraft is establishing the primary mission goals and performance objectives (within technically feasible and personal economic constraints). However, since many aspects of aircraft performance and capability are inversely related to each other, a key to balancing these tradeoffs is in also understanding the desired breadth and variability of the intended operational profile. My Primary Mission Profile: As a primary mission goal, I am interested in using my new/next airplane for relatively long (500-1000 mi) trips. From Detroit (or other mid/west locations) this would cover nearly all of the the eastern US and west to the continental divide. That range would allow for long weekend trips and mini-vacations to the south during the winter, weakend sailing regattas to New England, and/or Denver to visit family or skiing on occasion. Assuming a desired max travel time of 3-5 hours for these trips, implies a targeted high cruise speed of 200+ks, with no fuel stops, altitude capability to leverage (or avoid) favorable/unfavorable winds (and/or weather if/when possible), as well as strong IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) capability due to the variability of weather over long range flights and features/equipment to minimize pilot workload/fatigue due to the flight duration. These trips will normally entail two adults and luggage, perhaps including skis, golf clubs, or fowl weather sailing gear. On occasion these trip may entail a third or forth passenger, but could then imply reduced range or luggage (ideally not both). Ideally, these trips would be operationally and economically comparable to commercial travel alternatives. Note that "comparable" does not necessarily imply economically "equal" to commercial travel as convenience, pleasure pastime, and/or per passenger math factors are considered. This desire does imply a relatively efficient cruise capability and minimized fixed operational costs. This primary mission goal is perhaps partly rooted in the relatively lack of capability of my current Cessna172 to accomplish these trips easily, economically, and/or comfortably - based on its limited fuel/range, slow speed, low operating ceiling, marginal cruise economy, cramped cockpit, and constrained baggage/weight capability with two adults and full fuel. Realistically however, I anticipate trips of this range will typically occur less than 6 times per year (perhaps less than 3), and will thus account for less than 50% of the total flight hours. Alternate Mission Profiles: The larger majority of cross country flights are likely to be 200-400 miles. At a targeted 200+kts cruise speed, trips of this range would take 1-2 hours and could often be one day round-trips. Typical trips would be Chicago/Toronto for shopping/dinner/theater, Tennessee/Pennsylvania/Ohio/Indiana for sporting events, local/regional fly-ins, and/or various business trips. As implied by the types of events/venues, perhaps as many as 30% of these could entail three or four adults, but typically with minimal luggage. Also, this range/mission would include occasional (1-2 times per year) trips with larger than average loads, such as camping gear to Oshkosh (click to visit Oshkosh Website). Having 1000+mi range capability (see primary mission profile above) would imply that these (200-400mi) trips could be completed round-trip to a destination without fuel (and/or with prohibitively expensive fuel) without the need for an additional/intermediate fuel stop on the return leg (when loading allowed). Given the marginal weather in the northern mid-west for most of the year, strong IFR capability is a requirement to achieve high dispatch rates. Additionally, while light aircraft are generally not capable of safe/sustained flight into known icing conditions, the reality of cold weather in Michigan implies that some degree of ice protection would be desirable for any potential inadvertent momentary encounters. These 200-400 mile trips are expected to occur 10 times/year+/-. Likely more if the plane is ever used in a partnership. On occasion (less than one a year), it would be desirable to be able to carry a folding bicycle (or two) or other large/awkward shaped special freight items - although this is not a hard requirement. I anticipate that (local) flights of less than 100 miles will primarily occur for training/currency, short pleasure trips, and/or selected short business trips. The economics of fly-vs-drive greatly effect the nature of these missions, especially when considering the time and effort of flight planning, getting to the airport, preflight, destination transportation needs, and post flight fueling and cleaning. For short flights, driving (or postponing) is nearly always an attractive option, so these are really training or pleasure flights. These flights are likely to occur 15 times/year+/-. While these short/local flights are not the primary mission objective, I do desire that the plane be "fun to fly" and forgiving enough for a care-free afternoon of takeoff and landing or IFR practice. However, as an amateur build (experimental) airplane I do not expect that it will ever be used for primary flight training and thus does not need to be that docile/forgiving (i.e. not student pilot friendly). Occasionally, (approximately once every year or two) I can foresee a trip of over 1000 miles. These would entail a trip to Alaska, the Caribbean, Redmond Oregon, and/or the south western US (perhaps for a Lancair Fly-in). These trips would typically entail one or two adults and selected luggage (depending on the trip). While these trips will normally occur relatively infrequently, having the range, load capacity, and ceiling capability to make them comfortably is an important desire.
Mission Profile Summary:
Overall, these mission profiles imply a 4 seat aircraft with relatively high speed, load, and range capabilities. Rear seat space may be compromised somewhat, since 4 passenger trips are relatively infrequent and typically under 2 hrs, thus eliminating the need for a 6 seat plane. However, good 4 person useful load capability is required. Average or better comfort is desirable for the front seat passengers to facilitate the longer two person trips (3-5 hrs+). Given the realities of the laws of physics, some speed and economy compromises may be required to meet the load/range and local flight handling objectives. In "auto-speak", I'd describe my ideal performance profile as a "Sport Utility Plane" - more sporty/capable than a mini-van or pick-up, more useful/practical than a sports car, with some luxury but not to exceed reasonable economics.
Other Selection Considerations: Scratch-Built vs Kit Plains: Amateur built aircraft come in two general varieties: scratch/plans build and kit planes. Scratch/plans build airplanes are often perceived to be less expensive (at least up front), but generally offer more learning opportunities (grin), and take more time. The available plans-built planes are also generally smaller (less load, range, seats, etc). On the other hand, the Kit Plane industry has continued to mature over the past few decades, developing more robust kits, including more parts, pre-fit "fast-build" components and standard engine and accessories options. Additionally, Kit Built planes are perceived to be safer, due in part to the quality controls in place on the major components and the larger number flying. As such, I have a strong bias toward a Kit-Built project. Kit Popularity: I view it as relatively important that there be an active group of builders and pilots working on and flying whatever kit I choose. As issues and problems arise (and they always do), there is economic and intellectual strength in numbers. The RV's and Lancair's are the two most popular kits being bought, built and flown, with several of the smaller and light sport designs following closely. Manufacturer Stability: Over the past 10+ years there have been several good performing Kit Planes, that based on the specs should have been very successful. However, due to various economic and/or business management issues, the manufacturer had to shut down and/or declare bankruptcy. This is obviously very bad for everyone involved. As such, I have a strong bias toward a company with a healthy track record. Materials & Build Process: Another relevant consideration is primary construction material and process - namely aluminum (RV) vs composites (Lancair). There are advantages and disadvantages for either approach. For composites, it is primarily a tradeoff of sleek/efficient design vs the sanding/bodywork required (and any potential epoxy sensitization issues). Resale: In choosing a manufacturer and specific kit, the resalebility of the plane is another consideration in addition to my mission profiles and performance objectives. Amongst other things this includes the decision of a retractable vs fixed gear design. Insurance on retractable gear airplanes is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive for many pilots. Thus, the market for retractable gear airplanes is somewhat smaller/limited than for fixed gear models. Thus, my bias is toward a fixed gear airplane, assuming acceptable performance (again perhaps at the expense of some economy and/or speed). Aesthetics: Ok I'll admit-it, I'm also partly interested in the appearance (i.e. it also has to look like a fast/sporty airplane). In fact, it is perhaps better to look fast and fly docile than to look slow and be difficult/twichy to fly. On a logical note, I am going to spend a lot of time building which-ever airplane I choose. If I want to get the most return on my effort, I should start with the best Kit I can afford and that has the potential (if done correctly) to be a "head turner" when completed. I learned this lesson years ago by attempting to completely remodel/rebuild a 50yr old small lakefront house. By the time it was over (it was never over), for the time and effort expended, I could have started with a fresh foundation and built a new house (lesson learned - but that's another story).
The chart below outlines a few of the key performance specs of popular light aircraft (to be verified - actual results may very).
As is well know (from the homepage of this site), I ultimately decided to build a Lancair ES. Lancair is a solid company with a great track record, proven designs, and an active builder/flyer pilot community. The Lancair company was started in the 1980's by Lance Niebauer in his California garage. The initial designs were 2 seat, kit-based composite aircraft at a time when composites were relatively new to aircraft structures and were sleeker and faster than prior fabric and/or aluminum planes (see the 235 below). Based on the companies initial success, Lancair developed a larger 4 seat aircraft (the Lancair IV) in the 1990's, and then extended the design to create the Lancair IV-P (a pressurized version), and then further extended the design to create a turbine IV (the PropJet). The IV is a great aircraft with speed, range, and looks. However, it has a reputation of being demanding of the pilot and responsive/touchy on the controls - great for cross-country flights, but a bit "hot" for lazy, local practice flights. To fill a market niche for a less complex aircraft, Lancair designed the ES (Extra Simple-yeah right) by retro-fitting the IV fuselage with a larger wing and a fixed landing gear. Thus, the ES is essentially a simpler and more docile version of the IV. Lancair's most recent offering is the Legacy, a refined (and very fast/efficient) 2 seat design. The legacy has consistently been a top contender and frequent winner at the Reno Air Races. Click to: www.airrace.org site (note: you may need to quickly triple click to get [back] from this site).
In 2003, Lance sold the company to Joe Bartels (a prior IV-P builder/flyer), to pursue other interests including created a Certified aircraft derived from the ES, which became the Columbia Aircraft Company. Under Joe's watch, Lancair has remained a leader in the kit aircraft industry and continues to refine the design and components to improve build-ability, performance, and safety. There are presently well over 500 Lancair kit aircraft flying with 50-100 new ones being completed by amateur builders each year. The LancairES:
The kit includes all the airframe components (fuselage, windows, doors, wings, controls surfaces, control linkages, landing gear, brakes, engine mount, seat frames, and associated fasteners and hardware). The builder is left to select and supply the engine, propeller, avionics, electrical equipment, wiring, paint & upholstery, and any other add-ons. To learn more about Lancair and their Kit Planes click to: www.lancair.com To learn more about Columbia certified aircraft click to: www.flycolumbia.com
Other Popular Kit Aircraft Sites: Glasair Aviation: www.glasairaviation.com RV (Van's Aircraft): www.vanaircraft.com Super Stallion: www.aircraftdesigns.com/stallion
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2006. All rights reserved. This site is the online project notebook of Rick Titsworth and for the purpose of sharing information and opinions related to building N272RT. No responsibility for the accuracy or usefulness of the information is expressed or implied. Any person using these images, ideas, and tips does so at their own discretion and risk and without recourse against anyone related to this site or the n727rt project. This site is not affiliated with Lancair International. |
Then,
a more detailed discussion is offered following the summary
which includes:
The ES is not Lancair's fastest nor most
highest performance plane - in fact some Lancair folks joke that ES stands for
"Extra Slow". However, it offers solid/respectable performance along with
an enlarged wing, plenty of load capacity, and the simplicity/safety of a fixed
gear. In the standard configuration, it offers dual pilot/co-pilot flight
controls, a single pilot side door, and is un-pressurized. The design offers options for multiple doors, pressurization,
various engines, and various extended fuel opportunities, which further extend
the capabilities. The factory molding and
pre-fitting of selected parts including the alignment of the wings, provides for
a measure of quality assurance and a simplified build process. Additionally,
there is an active community of LancairES builder and flyers, who are extremely
helpful and consistently espouse the advantages of their aircraft.