For the price of the LX7, why don't people just purchase a branch new Cirrus that is equipped with the parachute? The mission for both airplanes is the same.
It's faster and has more range. They could try to build their own model from scratch using modern engines and the existing custom parts they already have given their engineering potential, maybe it would lower prices and reduce the effort to build the airplanes.
@@vitordelima The turbine in the LX7 is the most expensive part. All the additional reinforcementd to the structure added to the high cost. Finding a A&P to work on this plane is hard. Together, it costs more than a new Cirrus
Very welll thought out redesign. Delightful to fly, non-event stalls. Handles turbulence very well. Having been through the entire build process, I can safely say it's no longer a 4P. Maintenance is much easier. Great fuel system. As a former Army AVIM helicopter mechanic, I'm impressed by the thought and planning RDD put into the LX7 series.
That does it for me ugly landing gear. Oh, wait, can not see it when flying, it is a retractable. And the throttle, prop, and condition lever are just fine.
@@ohwell2790 Lol, 90% of the time a retractable gear airplane is seen is while the gear is extended. In this Lancair's case an _ugly_ landing gear! The quadrant isn't rich enough looking, either.
Cool plane, but that's some butt ugly landing gear. Spindly, and the way it retracts reminds me of the C 210 gear. Something else that comes to mind is how do you get out if an emergency landing leaves you upside down. Even worse if there is a fire.
@@AlexanderStöhr-r6d The Lancair 4 has a horrendous safety record. Lots of that has to do with the morons who fly them and crash them but it is an airplane that requires more experience than the Cirrus.
@@816928 I always thought it had to do with the fact, that the original Lancair's control behaviour (nonlinear force-deflection gradient) was not certifiable and also gave the aircraft an "interesting" temperament. Slurring (most or all) Lancair-buyers and pilots as "morons" doesn't help understand the real problem underneath. Which is what I'd like to learn more about.
@@AlexanderStöhr-r6d My apologies to Lancair owner/operators who have crashed their planes. This is a high performance airplane and just because you can afford to buy one and build one doesn't mean you have any business doing it. If you do this type of thing you are officially a credit card captain. These planes demand a healthy respect from their operators. I have seen many Lancair 4/4p's for sale that are more than 20 years old and have less than 2000 hours on them. Private pilots/instrument pilots who fly this little shouldn't be operating this type of aircraft unless they are professional pilots. This goes for the Dr. killers too (bonanzas). This aircraft, even with docile temperament, will never have a good safety record given the experience level and lack of proficiency their operators have.
It’s not that it’s too expensive, I just can’t afford it. Just wondering if aviation is reaching the point of extinction with prices and desire to be a part of due to difficulty of training and purchase power. Maybe what way said in top gun, regarding A.I planes, will collapse the industry/careers.
@@ne0tas Although I understand the technology, build time and materials included in these planes come at a cost, greed is a factor for inflated prices without a doubt.
@@Anotherday787 i will say from experience working at an OEM for bleed air valves, a lot of it is greed. while our (worker pay) increased by 3% per year, the prices of the parts we were producing were going up by 10-40% every year (whenever contracts were renewed) for no reason. Quality didn't change, (often goes down) regulations didn't change, customer service got worse, but they still upcharge every year. its what makes our 401ks go up sadly as they tout how much more money they make per year.
What a fantastic idea! Take a IV-P carcass, new wings and tail. Lower stall speed 68kts? whole plane parachute, electric deicing and range. The piston version is sweet.
The power quadrant on the turboprop looks janky. And only 30kt faster for all that money to upgrade to turbine power? 12:05 mentions Continental piston engine but shows turboprop. Who edited this video?
Honestly 8500' cabin altitude is too high IMO for most older pilots coming from sea level. That's Breckenridge, CO altitude and routinely people have issues at that altitude. Go up there from sea level for 5 hour long XC, seems not 100% ideal.
I wouldn't call an experimental aircraft a "work horse". In fact, working with it is expressly forbidden. It is illegal to charter an experimental aircraft for business or to fly it into known icing conditions.
Lancair models precede modern cirrus airplanes. TlDR of the video: IV-P is a no-nonsense xc machine that outperforms cirrus in every way except for wife-factor (chute). It will also kill you if you’re not careful with it. LX-7 solves the wife-factor and improves wing design to make airflow separation more benign.
@@tims1288 The IV-P is pressurized too, that's what the -P means. Full fuel and wife with luggage is certainly possible. Just put her on a diet and teach her how to pack less. Tell her that you'll fly her to Hawaii for a vacation if she can get her weight below gross.
The piston model has a 1400 pound useful load! How heavy is your wife? 😂 Also, full fuel is 180 gallons. You’d almost never need full fuel. The airplane’s 9+ hour endurance would exceed your bladder’s.
Great plane, but the quality of the cabin is disgusting. Especially the leather is one of the cheapest I’ve ever seen. Even a Hyundai has way better leather quality.
I can tell you Lancair is dead. I know from personal professional experience with them. As of now you CANNOT get a new kit from the new owners in Uvalde, TX.
For that amount of money, I want a fadec engine. I'll gladly get a Diamond DA-42VI instead, which burns less fuel with two engines and doesn't have such lanky-looking landing gear. 10:15 how do you actually "add less fuel?"
The fly in the kit plane ointment is that when you buy a used one you're gambling that it was constructed true to plans, or that if mods were made, they're safe. I once bought a Velocity RG that was constructed by a very well respected builder. He left one wing tank filled with 'glass shavings when he closed the wing.
The wings are replaced with better stronger wings. the fuselage is lengthen and stronger, the empennage is totally engineered with lager horizontal and horizontal rudder and evaluator. So, the reality is that it is a new airplane and is just a sports car of the air. And, it is beautiful to boot. So, the glass shavings are a moot point as the wings are new.
@@ohwell2790 his point is it takes a lot of faith to trust your life in the hands of a builder who constructed something in their garage in their free time with little to no experience. The good news is the LX7 has a builder team behind it so chances are not very many mistakes or corners were cut
I suspect you found those fiberglass shavings by sumping or draining the tank, and probably spilled some fuel on yourself which got the fiberglass all over you. I ruined a nice leather jacket like that from a Cherokee with tip tanks, and the unfortunate reality is that all fiberglass fuel tanks will eventually shed bits of fiberglass in the fuel. It's entirely possible the builder wasn't at fault for that.
I've enjoyed plenty of previous vids but this is like an old school magazine article of the kind that was actually a glorified brochure. 30 extra knots for almost halving the range (2400 vs 1400) while massively increasing the purchase price and cost per hour? Neither of which you actually mention? Okaaaaaaaay. Instead of just quietly unsubscribing, I am calling you out for presenting yourself dishonestly. If you are doing brochures for the manufacturers, you either make that clear or be damned as yet another dishonest sell-out. And I have loved and aspired to being good enough to operate Lancairs since the 90s. But if they're involved dishonestly with you, then they deserve to disappear into the night also.
It makes perfect sense if you understand aerodynamics and altitude performance. Get up in the flight levels once in a while and you'll understand what it all means
Better off building an RV-10. True four place, and better performance than a Beech Bonanza; this with fixed gear. Although you won't get the speed or pressurization, you get a NEW (not an overhauled airframe) aircraft for a whole lot less $$.
If I buy one brandnew, I will opt for a PT-6 engine that of the PC-12 constant speed five bladed propeller but with extended spine behind tha cabin that of the PC-21 for better speed control, and a Warbird livery colors. The color...nothing, just its bare but polished aluminum.
They could probably make a new one that's even faster and nicer inside but that won't help general aviation become more affordable fuck the price of this piece of shit......
That landing gear looks like it skipped leg day
I bet it's pretty strong, though flexible.
Looks like something off a rubber band plane, though.
For the price of the LX7, why don't people just purchase a branch new Cirrus that is equipped with the parachute? The mission for both airplanes is the same.
It's faster and has more range. They could try to build their own model from scratch using modern engines and the existing custom parts they already have given their engineering potential, maybe it would lower prices and reduce the effort to build the airplanes.
@@vitordelima The turbine in the LX7 is the most expensive part. All the additional reinforcementd to the structure added to the high cost. Finding a A&P to work on this plane is hard. Together, it costs more than a new Cirrus
@@2Phast4Rocket Maybe another piston engine would be competitive with the turbine, it's somewhat close already.
LX7 has a BRS parachute like the Cirrus. Lx7 is a much nicer airplane with pressurization, faster, longer range etc. Leaves the cirrus in the dust.
Simple. Pressurized, no mask or hoses up your nose. And faster.
The guys voice, reader is obnoxious. Plane is amazing.
Car salesman or game show host.
"Outshined"?
As
Trying to figure out what adjectives were left unused...
What?
@@Dwaynesaviation every sentence has a na adjective like a greasy salesman trying to sell a gold plated turd. Hahahaha
As if the voice-over guy was being paid per stressed-syllable. ;-)
It really did feel like a Superbowl commercial.
Very welll thought out redesign. Delightful to fly, non-event stalls. Handles turbulence very well. Having been through the entire build process, I can safely say it's no longer a 4P. Maintenance is much easier. Great fuel system.
As a former Army AVIM helicopter mechanic, I'm impressed by the thought and planning RDD put into the LX7 series.
For near-million dollar airplane, it sure has an UGLY landing gear. The quadrant doesn't look the price tag, either.
That does it for me ugly landing gear. Oh, wait, can not see it when flying, it is a retractable. And the throttle, prop, and condition lever are just fine.
@@ohwell2790 Lol, 90% of the time a retractable gear airplane is seen is while the gear is extended. In this Lancair's case an _ugly_ landing gear! The quadrant isn't rich enough looking, either.
Beechcraft Baron is attractive for this mission. I just don’t like the cabin of the Lancair or Cirrus much.
A B55 or B58 or King Air C90A.
This has got to be my absolute favorite 4 place aircraft since i can't get my hands on Patey's Turbulence. Lovely machine
Cool plane, but that's some butt ugly landing gear. Spindly, and the way it retracts reminds me of the C 210 gear. Something else that comes to mind is how do you get out if an emergency landing leaves you upside down. Even worse if there is a fire.
Still cheaper than a cirrus sr22t and is pressurized, faster, longer range.
Cheaper and most likely not safer
@@2Phast4Rocket why is it less safe? Honestly interested.
@@AlexanderStöhr-r6d The Lancair 4 has a horrendous safety record. Lots of that has to do with the morons who fly them and crash them but it is an airplane that requires more experience than the Cirrus.
@@816928 I always thought it had to do with the fact, that the original Lancair's control behaviour (nonlinear force-deflection gradient) was not certifiable and also gave the aircraft an "interesting" temperament.
Slurring (most or all) Lancair-buyers and pilots as "morons" doesn't help understand the real problem underneath. Which is what I'd like to learn more about.
@@AlexanderStöhr-r6d My apologies to Lancair owner/operators who have crashed their planes. This is a high performance airplane and just because you can afford to buy one and build one doesn't mean you have any business doing it. If you do this type of thing you are officially a credit card captain. These planes demand a healthy respect from their operators. I have seen many Lancair 4/4p's for sale that are more than 20 years old and have less than 2000 hours on them. Private pilots/instrument pilots who fly this little shouldn't be operating this type of aircraft unless they are professional pilots. This goes for the Dr. killers too (bonanzas). This aircraft, even with docile temperament, will never have a good safety record given the experience level and lack of proficiency their operators have.
Could actually get to Bermuda from the eastern seaboard w/ necessary reserves with the piston engine,, just need to add the required comms
Thats 10 lbs of sh*t in a 5 lbs box
Most underrated GA aircraft I wonder why, maybe because it costs a shit ton of money? Just a thought.
It’s not that it’s too expensive, I just can’t afford it. Just wondering if aviation is reaching the point of extinction with prices and desire to be a part of due to difficulty of training and purchase power. Maybe what way said in top gun, regarding A.I planes, will collapse the industry/careers.
@@toddsmith8608 I hope not. It is a little scary to think about but till then, we keep going ✌️
blame corporate companies raising up prices constantly to hit their quarterly/yearly growth numbers.
@@toddsmith8608 Maybe remotely monitored and semi-autopiloted aircraft.
@@ne0tas Although I understand the technology, build time and materials included in these planes come at a cost, greed is a factor for inflated prices without a doubt.
@@Anotherday787 i will say from experience working at an OEM for bleed air valves, a lot of it is greed. while our (worker pay) increased by 3% per year, the prices of the parts we were producing were going up by 10-40% every year (whenever contracts were renewed) for no reason. Quality didn't change, (often goes down) regulations didn't change, customer service got worse, but they still upcharge every year. its what makes our 401ks go up sadly as they tout how much more money they make per year.
What a fantastic idea! Take a IV-P carcass, new wings and tail. Lower stall speed 68kts? whole plane parachute, electric deicing and range. The piston version is sweet.
What a crap combination of pictures. Constantly combining the old type with the new LX7 makes it horrible to watch.
The power quadrant on the turboprop looks janky. And only 30kt faster for all that money to upgrade to turbine power? 12:05 mentions Continental piston engine but shows turboprop. Who edited this video?
I’m still trying to figure out what engine this is supposed to have…
With max fuel it can only handle one person. WTF
I noticed that too. It could take me a weekend bag and my dog (10lbs). That's it. Wife and kids would have to stay home or take another flight.
At average price of $1.2m for an LX7, I’d rather buy a used TP Piper or Daher TBM.
Showing some love to the aircraft I fly. N299KT. Best prop Ive ever had the chance to fly thus far.
It’s actually an RDD LX-7 made from a donor lancair IV-P
“Adding” less fuel. 🤦🏻♂️
He likely assumed the reader would infer, "... In the first place."
11:30 OMG use some damn finish washers on that screw and stop destroying the interior that's amateur stuff
Honestly 8500' cabin altitude is too high IMO for most older pilots coming from sea level. That's Breckenridge, CO altitude and routinely people have issues at that altitude. Go up there from sea level for 5 hour long XC, seems not 100% ideal.
That’s the same as what the airlines cabin are..
@@taltruda True. When you are traveling on Southwest you can just fall asleep though.
@@816928 unless you’re the pilot. Those pilots are flying with that cabin altitude all day long every day with no problems. 🙄
I wouldn't call an experimental aircraft a "work horse". In fact, working with it is expressly forbidden. It is illegal to charter an experimental aircraft for business or to fly it into known icing conditions.
RDD offers a system designed for experimental aircraft for flight into known icing.
Lancair models precede modern cirrus airplanes.
TlDR of the video: IV-P is a no-nonsense xc machine that outperforms cirrus in every way except for wife-factor (chute). It will also kill you if you’re not careful with it.
LX-7 solves the wife-factor and improves wing design to make airflow separation more benign.
Wife Plus Factors: 1) It has a chute 2) Pressurized. Wife negative factors: 1) Only 1 Door. 2) No way Full fuel and wife + Luggage.
@@tims1288 The IV-P is pressurized too, that's what the -P means. Full fuel and wife with luggage is certainly possible. Just put her on a diet and teach her how to pack less. Tell her that you'll fly her to Hawaii for a vacation if she can get her weight below gross.
The piston model has a 1400 pound useful load! How heavy is your wife? 😂 Also, full fuel is 180 gallons. You’d almost never need full fuel. The airplane’s 9+ hour endurance would exceed your bladder’s.
Since when American actual have precision?
Wimpy bird leg struts detract from the appearance.
That’s a fact Jack
All good until we got to the price.
Great plane, but the quality of the cabin is disgusting. Especially the leather is one of the cheapest I’ve ever seen. Even a Hyundai has way better leather quality.
Check with your insurance company before buying.
And y'all can have a good laugh together!
I can tell you Lancair is dead. I know from personal professional experience with them. As of now you CANNOT get a new kit from the new owners in Uvalde, TX.
I would buy one immediately if you know about one for sale. Best located in europe
For that amount of money, I want a fadec engine. I'll gladly get a Diamond DA-42VI instead, which burns less fuel with two engines and doesn't have such lanky-looking landing gear.
10:15 how do you actually "add less fuel?"
You have to stop at an airport that siphons fuel. Duh.
It’s experimental, you can easily add System 32 EFII if you want.
The fly in the kit plane ointment is that when you buy a used one you're gambling that it was constructed true to plans, or that if mods were made, they're safe. I once bought a Velocity RG that was constructed by a very well respected builder. He left one wing tank filled with 'glass shavings when he closed the wing.
The wings are replaced with better stronger wings. the fuselage is lengthen and stronger, the empennage is totally engineered with lager horizontal and horizontal rudder and evaluator. So, the reality is that it is a new airplane and is just a sports car of the air. And, it is beautiful to boot. So, the glass shavings are a moot point as the wings are new.
@@ohwell2790 his point is it takes a lot of faith to trust your life in the hands of a builder who constructed something in their garage in their free time with little to no experience. The good news is the LX7 has a builder team behind it so chances are not very many mistakes or corners were cut
I suspect you found those fiberglass shavings by sumping or draining the tank, and probably spilled some fuel on yourself which got the fiberglass all over you. I ruined a nice leather jacket like that from a Cherokee with tip tanks, and the unfortunate reality is that all fiberglass fuel tanks will eventually shed bits of fiberglass in the fuel. It's entirely possible the builder wasn't at fault for that.
Autopipot 😂
Love love
Why does the picture of the plane keep changing? come on!
Does it have a heated windshield ? (anti-ice/de-ice)
As soon as I heard "a sky high price tag" I became uninterested
I've enjoyed plenty of previous vids but this is like an old school magazine article of the kind that was actually a glorified brochure. 30 extra knots for almost halving the range (2400 vs 1400) while massively increasing the purchase price and cost per hour? Neither of which you actually mention? Okaaaaaaaay.
Instead of just quietly unsubscribing, I am calling you out for presenting yourself dishonestly. If you are doing brochures for the manufacturers, you either make that clear or be damned as yet another dishonest sell-out.
And I have loved and aspired to being good enough to operate Lancairs since the 90s. But if they're involved dishonestly with you, then they deserve to disappear into the night also.
Price ?
Youll need to buy a used kit as Lancair is NOT making full kits. They are dead in the water
It’s great - like a more dangerous Cirrus. 🙄
The planes they compared carry far more passengers...
It’s fuselage, not fusalige.
You can buy planes with equivalent specs for
What plane goes 250 KTAS on 18gph in pressurized comfort with BRS and de-ice for half the price?
Frankenplane or dream machine?
But you have to build it .
Excellent stuff bro
Avemco has entered the chat
Excellent analysis.
1400nm Vs 2400nm?
Bravo.Thenks
1400nm Vs 2400nm?
'll.
prefer diamond air craft
You can’t compare a basic trainer to a hitch performance machine!
I like that he said if engine stops your in a brick.
that's what the chute is for. Glide to roughly where you want to come down, pull the chute.
Better glide ratio than a Cirrus. 🤷♂️
Coast to coast without refueling? How's that possible with a 1400 mile range. Last time I checked, NY to LA is about 2500 miles
North American worm-hole charts included.
They were talking about the piston version which has a range of 2400 miles, the turbine is 1400.
@@Matt_from_Florida don't those transit though Lalaland?
Which coasts? There's lots of 'em.
@@FLMKane Lalaland? Close. Lakeland, FL.
350 horse piston = 260 knots and 750 hp turbine = 280 knots. Does not add up.
It makes perfect sense if you understand aerodynamics and altitude performance. Get up in the flight levels once in a while and you'll understand what it all means
👍
Better off building an RV-10. True four place, and better performance than a Beech Bonanza; this with fixed gear. Although you won't get the speed or pressurization, you get a NEW (not an overhauled airframe) aircraft for a whole lot less $$.
คือเราไม่สามารถที่จะใช้พลังงานแม่เหล็กแบบทางตรงได้นอกจากจะใช้ทางอ้อมคือใช้แทนลูกสูบขึ้นลงอัดอากาศใช้แม่เหล็กขั้วบวกขั้วลบคิดได้แค่นี้แหละ
If I buy one brandnew, I will opt for a PT-6 engine that of the PC-12 constant speed five bladed propeller but with extended spine behind tha cabin that of the PC-21 for better speed control, and a Warbird livery colors. The color...nothing, just its bare but polished aluminum.
If you buy one..take me for a ride..😁 please
I think the airframe skin is mostly carbon. . .sooo no polished aluminum.
No way the PC12 engine would fit, this takes a small PT6.
They could probably make a new one that's even faster and nicer inside but that won't help general aviation become more affordable fuck the price of this piece of shit......
Add, and very high flying and fast piece of shit.