The build time is irrelevant.
There are two distinct “homebuild” segments: aircraft for genuine homebuilders who want to build and maintain their own aircraft (at least in part), and certification cost avoidance. There will be the occasional genuine homebuilder getting an Evo kit to occupy their garage or hangar for a year, but it is mostly the latter.
It just shows that, paying $100 per hour, a piston evo costs around $1 million, and you get a more capable aircraft at the same price as the SR22, or a less capable but still fast turboprop for $1.5 million instead of twice that.
All of this is just evidence that aircraft (and avionics) certification is broken – if the Evo could be sold finished directly from the factory and flown like any other certified aircraft, it would be sold that way, at a higher price.
There was a Lanc IV-P doing 273kt at FL250 a few days ago 
He peaked at 311kt which must have been in a descent.
He did have tailwind, but there is still real value in that sort of perf.
Martin wrote:
Recently, I started a thread about whether this is actually supposed to work. Nobody replied AFAIK. Because that document I referenced said something to the effect that the highest approved MTOW counts. If I understood it correctly. So if that hardware can legally fly at 2,3 tonnes, nobody cares whether you have an STC that changes it on paper to 1999 kg. And a move like this makes perfect sense to curb avoidance.
Off topic, but : Where did you get that ? Do you have any first-hand experience ?
I think not, ’cause I do and EuroControl was very accommodating when one of my clients voluntarily lowered his declared MTOW with them.
Michael wrote:
Where did you get that ? Do you have any first-hand experience ?
I linked to that page (on eurocontrol website) and also quoted the relevant bit in the thread I started about it. I’ll have to search for it. I was bit baffled by it (why else have the 1999 kg STCs), hence I asked here.
PS: http://www.euroga.org/forums/flying/5777-route-charges-and-mtow-reduction#post_104052
