About the Lancair ES...

The Lancair ES is a high performance, 4 place, fixed gear, kit built, composite airplane. It is registered with the FAA as an “Experimental, Amateur Built” category aircraft.

Ed Rosiak's Lancair Super ES Turbo N350EL There are two standard aircraft engine options. The first is a Continental IO-360 (210 hp), and the second is a Continental IO-550 (300 hp). A Lancair ES with an IO-550 is called a Lancair Super ES. The kit and general airframe between the two are the same, the most significant differences are the engine and propeller. As a result, some of the performance data between the these two variations are somewhat different. The table below gives the primary specifications for the two models. I am building the Super ES.

Lancair ES Specifications

Lancair ES Lancair Super ES

Engine Continental IO-360-ES Continental IO-550-G

Horsepower 210 hp @ 2800 RPM 300 hp @2700 RPM

Propeller 2 Blade, Constant Speed 3 Blade, Constant Speed

Length 25 ft 25 ft

Height 8 ft 8 ft

Wingspan 35.5 ft 35.5 ft

Wing Area 140 sq. ft 140 sq. ft

Wing Loading (3000 lbs.) 21.4 lbs./sq. ft 21.4 lbs./sq. ft

Aspect Ratio 8.4:1 8.4:1

Power Loading 15 lbs./hp. 10.7 lbs./hp.

G Loading (Utility) +4.4, -2.3 +4.4, -2.3

Empty Weight 1900 2000

Gross Weight 3200 3200

Gross Weight 3000 3000

Fuel Capacity 75 gallons (std.) 75 gallons (std.)

Useful Load 1300 1200

Baggage Capacity 175 (max.) 175 (max.)

Cabin Width 46 in (front), 43 in (rear) 46 in (front), 43 in (rear)

Cabin Height 48 in 48 in

Cabin Length 126 in 126 in

Seats 4 conventional 4 conventional

Cruise (Typical) 192 - 200 mph 220 - 225 mph

Stall Speed (Dirty) 57 mph 57 mph

Service Ceiling 18,000 ft 18,000 ft

Takeoff Distance 600 ft 600 ft

Landing Distance 800 ft 800 ft

Cross Wind Landing Component 21 mph Component 21 mph

Fuel Consumption 8.5 - 9.5 gph @ 75% 13 gph @ 75%

Maximum Range 1450 sm. (no reserve) 1280 sm. (no reserve)

Rate of Climb 1250 fpm 1550 fpm

Why Did We Choose a Lancair ES?

I have wanted to build a plane since about 1981. In those years, I evaluated many options. Initially, my only real criteria was that it be able to fly, and do so safely. Through the years I managed to develop a more specific criteria. The main criteria points include:

( Not necessarily listed in priority order )

I wanted a kit aircraft instead of one built from raw materials by plans. I felt that my chances of completing the project would be considerably greater with a kit. I also believe that a good kit will take less time to build than most plans built options. I wanted to strike a nice balance between building it myself and getting up in the air flying.
The company that produced the kit should be well established, and well known in the amateur built aircraft world as a solid company. The company must also have a good rate of customer project completion. (This criteria point shortened the list to just a hand full of companies, with the top two companies IMHO being Van’s Aircraft and Lancair.)
There needed to be enough people building the kit I chose that I stood a good chance of getting help and advice from other builders.
I have always preferred composite construction, but was willing to go with a metal aircraft if the kit was an RV from Van’s Aircraft.
I wanted an aircraft that would be a good cross country travel machine. Terry and I intend to go places, and I want to get there quickly. I was looking for something that would cruise as close to 200 mph or more as possible. The inside cabin space for the plane, and the weights and balances would have to allow at least 75 lbs. of baggage.
I wanted a plane that would also have moderately slow stall and landing speeds. I wanted this for safety reasons and to make grass strip landings a possibility.
The aircraft would need to be insurable, and reasonably easy to fly. Factors that effected this included the stall and land speed, the numbers of that aircraft flying, and the safety record of the design.
The aircraft needed to be fixed gear. With my limited flight experience, a retractable gear aircraft was not an option. Also, a fixed gear aircraft would be simpler to build and fly, and I would not have to worry about doing a gear up landing due to mechanical malfunction or pilot error.
Terry and I preferred a 4 place. On short trips we wanted to take others with us, but on long trips we believed that would more likely use the extra space for baggage, so we would not have to be as restrictive with what we could take with us.
It had to look good. ;-)

There were also some characteristics of the ES that were not a part of my original criteria, but did get considered as pluses for the ES:

The honeycomb core for Lancair composite material is DuPont Nomex. This struck me as a good safety feature for a couple of reasons. 1) Although it will burn, it will not sustain a flame. In other words, Nomex will not help fuel a fire. 2) A fiberglass/Nomex composite is frequently used to make race helmets, and fire protection suits. Additionally, I saw a Lancair Columbia fiberglass/Nomex fuselage at AirVenture that NASA had drop tested as a part of the AGATE program. The cabin was completely intact. The damage was mostly limited to the engine cowling where the direct impact occurred, and the tail section had broken off.
Lancair also produces the Columbia which is a commercially manufactured FAA Certified variation of the Lancair ES. I believe this says a lot about the safety potential of the ES design. Most Experimental Amateur Built designs do not have an FAA Certified version in production.
I have gotten to fly 2 Lancair Super ES aircraft from the right seat at altitude. I found it easier to fly than the Piper Warriors I have been taking instruction in.
I also found the Lancair ES cabin to be more comfortable and spacious than any Experimental Amateur Built I have ridden in to date. It compared favorably to any FAA Certified 4 place I have ridden in as well.

Other Options Considered

At AirVenture 2000 I started seriously considering the Velocity. Going for a demo ride really helped fuel that fire. However, I did learn that getting insurance would have been very difficult. Later this issue was somewhat lessened by a deal that was struck between Velocity Aircraft and Avemco, but by that point I had ruled out the Velocity, and had moved on. There were also a few other reasons I had for ruling out the Velocity.

The only other kit on the market that I seriously considered near the end was the Van’s RV-7A. The RV line of kits have a lot going for them. There are by far more RVs flying than any line of amateur built planes. RV builders are everywhere and in great numbers. Also, from my personal experience, RV builders are a great bunch of people. From all that I have been able to determine, RV kits are top quality, and getting better and easier as time goes by.

Terry and I sided with the extra space of a 4 place. For those familiar with the Van’s Aircraft line, the 4 place RV-10 was only a rumor, and no solid confirmations or date estimates were coming out of Van’s Aircraft at that time. I feared that it would be a few years before an RV-10 actually hit the market, and a Quickbuild kit would be even later. I also figured that an RV-10 would be enough of a new kit that I would want to wait until some had been completed and flying first, which would be a few more years. I would prefer not to be one of the first builders for a whole new design. I just did not want to wait that long. More recently Van’s Aircraft has been talking about the RV-10 in their newsletter “RVator” to customers. It sounds very promising, but it is still too much in the future for me.

Even though we have decided to go with a Lancair, we will continue to hang out with RV builders. So... in a few years, if you see a squadron of RVs flying together, and you see one Lancair ES in the flock, you will know who the Lancair belongs to.

Return to Previous Page