X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:37:46 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.56] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2o) with ESMTP id 4889439 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:11:04 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.30.56; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.92]) by qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id EhkT1g0031zF43QA6iAWXo; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:10:30 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.5] ([24.17.111.171]) by omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id EiAT1g00K3hvfg88kiAV2c; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:10:29 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: [LML] LNC4 Observed Performance? From: John Hafen In-Reply-To: X-Original-Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:10:26 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Message-Id: <092DA07B-B5C7-43B1-B5DF-96E4D10C1FC4@comcast.net> References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Craig: I have an IVP. Flying in the high teens, lean of peak, 17.5 gph, I get = 260 - 265 KTAS, probably 20 KTAS slower than what Lancair advertises at = FL240. I did everything possible to make my plane as heavy and slow as = possible, lots of options, including prop heat, thermal icing = (Thermawing), air conditioning, and lead bricks. Living in Seattle, I'm more than happy to give up some top end speed for = a little protection from unanticipated ice. I avoid all potential ice = situations, and sometimes it just flat hunts you down in an attempt to = kill you. My Thermawing has saved my bacon a couple of times. The ice peals up = like potato chips then blows off. I have TKS spray for the windscreen. = I don't make a habit of looking out too often, but it helps to be able = to know when to flair on landing. My landing theory is to fly down to about an inch off the ground, then = just let it crash and roll out. As far as range, I can easily hit Vegas (or Fresno) from Seattle = non-stop. The limiting factor is not my plane or fuel, but my bladder. = So I usually stop in Reno to practice my crash landings and to pee, if = I'm not in a big ass hurry to get to Vegas and contribute to the local = economy. Cheers, John Hafen On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Craig Jimenez wrote: If this is posted elsewhere, please point me to the data. The Lancair site says a piston IV-P will do 330 mph (~286 KTAS) at = FL240.=20 I'd be interested in what speed and fuel-flow you guys see at = sustainable power settings at various altitudes. Most of you flying LOP? I'm going to the APS class this Friday in Ada. How much speed do you lose equipping with the thermal or TKS icing = products? Although probably beyond my budget, I'd also be interested in similar = data for turbine-powered IVPs. My typical flight is 720 nm Oklahoma City to Phoenix, MEA 13000', prevailing westerlies, 1-2 people and 50 lb stuff. The Mooney M20J does great on non-stop range and economy, but I'm evaluating options for = going a lot faster, and preferably with at least inadvertent ice equipment.=20 Currently thinking Mooney Rocket, P-Baron, IV, IVP...? Thoughts on appropriate planes would be welcomed. Craig -- For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html