Lancair ES-P Build

[gbigs]

While waiting for the C4, patience has run thin.  Anyone with experience building a Lancair?  Especially a pressurized ES? 

[Anticept]

You will find that building a plane is going to take a LOT longer than buying one.

[FlyingMonkey]

You will find that building a plane is going to take a LOT longer than buying one.

 

Absolutely.  I bet a Lancair ES is a decade-long project unless you have a whole team working on it.  People who have never started a build project simply have no idea.  When I stopped building my Sonex, I was almost 3 years into it and was halfway done.  That was working a couple of hours *every* weekday, and 9-16 hours every Saturday and Sunday.

 

The Sonex is a toy compared to the complexity of a Lancair.  And pressurized?!?  Takes twice as long because you have to worry about pressure integrity of everything you route through the cabin.

[FastEddieB]

Another hurdle:

 

"The ES, ES-P, IV, IV-P, and Propjet are out of production. We continue to support these famous aircraft with parts and technical assistance. Please contact the KCI store or Customer Service sections for support."

 

From the Lancair website.

[sandpiper]

I'm building an Rv-12. A very easy and simple kit. Never again will I ask a builder "what's taking you so long?"

[Anticept]

You shouldn't ask a guy who does maintenance that question either!

[FlyingMonkey]

I'm building an Rv-12. A very easy and simple kit. Never again will I ask a builder "what's taking you so long?"

 

I looked closely at an RV-12 kit.  It's fantastic, very easy to put together, everything match drilled.  What finally did me in on the Sonex, I think, was the large amount of fabrication needed to complete the kit.  Lots of cutting angle stock, precise drilling, etc.  Nothing too hard, but it all adds up to a huge amount of time.  The Sonex is now all match drilled and the channel pieces (and there are a  LOT of them) are pre-cut and drilled.  I'd have finished my Sonex long ago if the kit I bought was like that.

 

But even a "simple" airplane like the RV-12 or Sonex is a  *huge* project.  Something like a Lancair is a Herculean, once in a lifetime epic labor of pure devotion.  I enjoyed building, and would like to do it again at some point.  But I would not do it unless I already had another flying aircraft.  Trying to build on a timetable so you can fly ASAP is a recipe for failure.

[gbigs]

Well, a little more detail.  The 'kit' is a little over half built. 

[FlyingMonkey]

Okay, half done.  How long did the first half take?  That will tell you how long the second half will take.  

 

Hint:  It's been long enough that that the airplane is no longer sold.    Though like a lot of kits, it might have sat for long periods with no work being done on it.  I'd look at the build log closely and see how many hours are in the construction so far, then figure out how many hours you (or your builder(s) ) can devote weekly to the project.  That math should give you a *very* rought completion time estimate.

 

Just remember the builder's adage:  "The first 90% takes 90% of the build time, the last 10% takes the other 90% of the build time." 

 

I hope it works out for you if it's what you want, it would be a hell of a plane.

 

EDIT:  One last thing about homebuilt airplanes:  They are NEVER perfect.  You have to develop a sense of where things need to be as close to perfect as possible, and where "good enough" is, well...good enough.  If you try for perfection everywhere, it will never be finished, because there will always be something not perfect.  It took me a long time in my build to learn this, once I did things went much faster and actually better.  

[FastEddieB]

Lots of very well done homebuilts - mostly RV's - in my EAA chapter.

 

But not an area I know much at all about.

 

Just curious...

 

Does the 51% rule apply here? If so, how?

 

If others complete more than 50%, how does that affect owner maintenance and/or annual inspections?

 

I believe anyone can do maintenance on any Experimental.

 

Anyway, is this the 4 place plane that's been mysteriously referenced in addition to the CTLSi?

[FastEddieB]

 

EDIT:  One last thing about homebuilt airplanes:  They are NEVER perfect.

 

I have found that's essentially true of virtually all aircraft.

 

There was a saying about marathons: any time you're feeling pretty good, don't worry, you'll get over it!

 

I get much the same feeling flying nearly any plane. If for one bright, shining moment everything seems to be working properly, don't worry, it will get over it!

[gbigs]

The 51% rule does apply.  The prior kit owner did work under the fast build option at Lancair.

[FlyingMonkey]

Lots of very well done homebuilts - mostly RV's - in my EAA chapter.

 

But not an area I know much at all about.

 

Just curious...

 

Does the 51% rule apply here? If so, how?

 

If others complete more than 50%, how does that affect owner maintenance and/or annual inspections?

 

I believe anyone can do maintenance on any Experimental.

 

Anyway, is this the 4 place plane that's been mysteriously referenced in addition to the CTLSi?

 

The airplane must be 51% amateur built.  It doesn't matter who the builder is, as long as he/she is an amateur.  But only the primary builder can get the repairman certificate to do annual condition inspections.

 

Burgers seems to be implying that somebody else is going to be doing the build.  That's fine...BUT...if he pays the builder(s) anything, they essentially become contract *manufacturers*, and are no longer amateurs.  That makes the airplane not registerable as a certified airplane (it has not passed FAR 23 standards), nor is it registerable as an E-AB, since it's not amateur built.  It might be able to be registered as experimental - exhibition, but that has a lot of serious restrictions on it.

 

People pay others to build for with/for them all the time, but if the FAA's jaundiced eye falls upon you, it can get messy fast.  This is none of my business and I wasn't going to get into all this, but since Eddie asked...

[FlyingMonkey]

I have found that's essentially true of virtually all aircraft.

 

There was a saying about marathons: any time you're feeling pretty good, don't worry, you'll get over it!

 

I get much the same feeling flying nearly any plane. If for one bright, shining moment everything seems to be working properly, don't worry, it will get over it!

 

I totally agree.  But most pilots never get to put their anal-retentive qualities to the test in the construction of a factory airplane.  With E-AB it all comes out!

[gbigs]

The airplane must be 51% amateur built.  It doesn't matter who the builder is, as long as he/she is an amateur.  But only the primary builder can get the repairman certificate to do annual condition inspections.

 

Burgers seems to be implying that somebody else is going to be doing the build.  That's fine...BUT...if he pays the builder(s) anything, they essentially become contract *manufacturers*, and are no longer amateurs.  That makes the airplane not registerable as a certified airplane (it has not passed FAR 23 standards), nor is it registerable as an E-AB, since it's not amateur built.  It might be able to be registered as experimental - exhibition, but that has a lot of serious restrictions on it.

 

Take a look at these places and ask them how they build Lancair Evolution and other kits for their customers and still meet FAA rules.

 

Lancair Builder Assist: http://lancair.com

Performance One Aviation  http://performanceoneaviation.com/

Advanced Aviation  http://www.advancedaviationinc.com/

Innovative Wings: http://www.innovativewings.com/

High Speed Composites: http://highspeedcomposites.com/id10.html

 

Also, give Velocity Aircraft a call and ask about their factory build process:  http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-vtwin.html

[BobJones]

Deleted.

 

Another one down for a while. Have all the discussions you want, but check the personal attacks at the door.

One week.

[FlyingMonkey]

You may want to take a look at these places and ask them how they build Lancair Evolution and other kits for their customers and still meet FAA rules.

 

Lancair Builder Assist: http://lancair.com

Performance One Aviation  http://performanceoneaviation.com/

Advanced Aviation  http://www.advancedaviationinc.com/

Innovative Wings: http://www.innovativewings.com/

High Speed Composites: http://highspeedcomposites.com/id10.html

 

Also, give Velocity Aircraft a call and ask about their factory build process:  http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-vtwin.html

 

As long as the 'owner' 'builder' is present and working on 51% of the aircraft (even if being aided by professionals at the factory or at a place that does these things for a living), it qualifies as a Experimental amateur built.  And that aircraft also needs 40 hours of specific flight testing which can also be done by a professional test pilot. \\

 

The FAA wants such builders to have an intimate and working knowledge of the aircraft, that is the intent as explained to me by those involved in the process....  And likewise, the FAA is fine with any professional doing maintenance on an experimental.  I will not be doing my own engine or airframe or avionics maint, even while owning an experimental.

 

Sure, builder assist is legal.  I thought you meant hiring somebody to do the work while you were...elsewhere.  

[WmInce]

Well, a little more detail.  The 'kit' is a little over half built.  The engine just purchased (TSIO-550-E20B twin turbo platinum series).  The panel has been designed and will be finished by Sept - a pro will assemble and test it...it will have twin Garmin G3x with a Garmin GTN 750 navcom and a GRT backup PFD.  It will also have a four-blade constant speed prop.

 

Lancair no longer makes, but does still support the older models.  Lancair responds to question immediately over the phone and continues to stock and sell spare parts and documentation as well.  Yes the ES-P is pressurize and is more complex, but of course you get what you pay for...a FL28k  250ktas cruiser without the need to put on a cannula or mask!

 

It is fixed gear which helps with insurance, but is experimental which gives some back.  We are also fitting it with a BRS parachute.  Which will be somewhat unique; about 3 others have that in an ES and ES-P.

 

We will have a pro to do the initial test flights and will transition train with that guy when the time comes.

 

That sounds terrific.  I like the BRS option too.

Of my many encounters with Lancair owners/operators, I have yet to meet one yet that didn't love the airplane.  A serious cross country platform, with great performance numbers. 

Getting above most of the weather, during IFR, is awesome.  At FL 280, it's right there with the King Airs.

If that suits the mission, I would not hesitate to acquire a Lancair.  And since it has not been finished yet, it gives you the liberty to choose the enhancements you prefer, like paint and interior.

[BobJones]

Well, you are older than 65 and fly as a sport pilot and do not own your own plane.   I am not interested in your advise.  I am looking for comments from other aircraft owners and guys experienced in building.   Have fun in your rented Skycatcher.

Thanks.  I will.

[WmInce]

. . . If I was 65 years old and a new private pilot with little experience and no instrument rating, I would not consider such an airplane.  First of all, it is way too much airplane for his experience level . . .

 

Bob,

 

Valid concern, but I am assuming he would get appropriately trained, before flying the airplane on his own, regardless of VFR or IFR operation.

[BobJones]

You can't train experience.  Also, 65 is getting on up there.  I am 67 and notice I make a few mistakes I didn't make when I was 37, 47, or 57.  I am more than happy I am no longer putting my family in an airplane and flying in serious IFR conditions.  Most people recognize their limitations and act accordingly.  Those who don't are often the subject of tragic headlines.  We all know about the Bonanza "Doctor Killer" reputation. (The problem is not the plane).

[gbigs]

Sure, builder assist is legal.  I thought you meant hiring somebody to do the work while you were...elsewhere.  

 

The 'project' is sitting at a professional builders facility in Oregon right now.  They offer the same kind of services Lancair does regarding builder assist. 

[gbigs]

That sounds terrific.  I like the BRS option too.

Of my many encounters with Lancair owners/operators, I have yet to meet one yet that didn't love the airplane.  A serious cross country platform, with great performance numbers. 

Getting above most of the weather, during IFR, is awesome.  At FL 280, it's right there with the King Airs.

If that suits the mission, I would not hesitate to acquire a Lancair.  And since it has not been finished yet, it gives you the liberty to choose the enhancements you prefer, like paint and interior.

 

It is a lot of airplane. And I know flying high has it's own special hazards and rewards (backup oxygen being one). 

 

On the field there are IV-P, and a couple of evolutions.  We have asked a lot of question and taken a few flights in them as passengers.  We know the IV has a much different wing and requires much more experience and skill from a pilot.  The ES is more forgiving given its larger wing, and has fixed gear.  still, the ES stalls at 70kts and goes over the numbers at 80kts, substantially higher speed than the FD.

 

We researched and found the BRS chute can be added to the ES but only if it's done before the plane is much further along.  The builder has done them in other ESs so that was another reason to choose this company.

 

We plan to do instrument training in the plane when it's done.  So we won't be flying above 17k feet for a while - enough time to learn the plane well.  I wanted to instrument train in the Flight Design but didn't want to spend the extra $5k to upgrade the radio to a navcom unit, so we are doing the written part now and waiting to get the flight instruction later.

[WmInce]

We plan to do instrument training in the plane when it's done.  So we won't be flying above 17k feet for a while - enough time to learn the plane well.  I wanted to instrument train in the Flight Design but didn't want to spend the extra $5k to upgrade the radio to a navcom unit, so we are doing the written part now and waiting to get the flight instruction later.

That sounds good.

[FastEddieB]

I feel like a little more needs to be said on this topic.

 

First, let me stipulate that what 100Hamburger is proposing is, in fact, doable. More on that later.

 

But let me go on to say that if he is, in fact, open to advice, I would strongly caution against it. While doable, its also a path fraught with potential danger.

 

Most pilots learn and gain experience incrementally, in small, digestible chunks. Learn to fly in a basic 2 seat trainer. Then, in no particular order...move up to a 4 seat, and later maybe 6 seat. Maybe gain tailwheel or aerobatic experience. Then complex and/or high performance. Possibly cover turbocharging at that point. Then maybe IFR. Then multiengine. Then high altitude, involving oxygen and possibly pressurization.

 

Each step along the way, the pilot will often feel a little swamped with the additional tasks required at each step. Its pretty much the path I took, with Commercial and Ground Instructor and Flight Instructor ratings thrown in along the way. An advantage to doing it this way is one can often solo the new aircraft type and spend time at each "level" to get comfortable with the new skills he or she has just learned.

 

The danger I mentioned earlier is progressing too rapidly, and ending up with too little experience to deal with new and different situations. I've read dozens of accident reports over the years traceable to this sort of situation. The "Landmark" accident is likely Thurmon Munson's. If anyone is not aware of that one, its worth Googling.

 

But as I said, it is theoretically possible to jump directly from a CT to a Lancair ES-P. It will, or course, require an instructor with a good understanding of the Lancair. That instructor will need to be patient, as it will likely take a long time for the student to absorb all the new skills required to safely solo a plane like that.

 

It will also require the student be patient and receptive. I would expect it to take 50 hours or so a become comfortable in the Lancair, and would encourage perhaps another 200 or 300 hours to be flown with a "mentor pilot" before embarking solo.

 

Anyway, my advice, knowing what I know about the situation, would be to buy a "transition" plane to get used to at least some of the simpler new skills as the Lancair is built. An Arrow or Bonanza or Mooney or Cutlass RG or even a P210 would do, though with 100Hamburger's preference for composite build, a Cirrus would probably fit the bill better, though it does lack a prop control. Ideally a Cirrus with a turbo so it could be used for the high altitude training as well.

 

There would be some costs involved, but bought used and then sold there should not be a huge hit in depreciation. And there might very well be savings, since all in the Lancair will likely run $250 to $300/hr to operate, and most of the "transition" planes I listed could be flown for a lot less (except maybe the Cirrus and P210).

 

Finally, as BobJones pointed out, age raises its ugly head as a factor, for two reasons...

 

First, like Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations." We all lose skills and abilities with advancing age - vision, reflexes, hearing and the like, combined with a little more difficulty picking things up. In addition, since we're no longer talking Light Sport, you will get the joy of "Medical Roulette". Each medical holds the possibility of a discovery which could end all of one's flying - including Light Sport. And with increasing age the chances of finding a career ending condition tends to increase dramatically.

 

Second, at 65 the time remaining in one's flying career is already short, likely to be measured in years and not decades. Each year lost waiting for the perfect plane to be built or having to be mentored is one less year one will likely have to look back on, having enjoyed the pure joy of flight at the end of one's career - which is probably sneaking up faster than we like to think.

 

Anyway, good luck and I for one would love to hear a chronicling of your adventure - with photos if possible!