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
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.
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.
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.
$900k sounds a lot but there are people paying $1M for a new gadget-loaded (e.g. IR camera) SR22, and the piston Evo massively outperforms the SR22 in all relevant aspects.
If their claim of having been designed for Part 23 certification is true, this is an amazing aircraft. Otherwise, the 61kt Vs is likely to be the biggest fiction item (in terms of Part 23 certification controllability etc) like on the smaller Lancairs, and that translates to needing a lot more runway than an SR22. But in the USA, where lots of tarmac is common, this is a marketable proposition.
I see these planes on FR24, in the Eurocontrol system, FL100-200, doing figures like 250kt. The numbers are very small but when you see one, they are really impressive.
Obviously this is not a Cirrus… which has a really slick cockpit, designed by Porsche or BMW (?) and really looks the business. But you are looking at way more knots for the same money. It appeals to a different group of people.
Their web page now announce the estimated cost to be US$895k for a piston Evo. They also explain the building process. It’s done at the factory, and a builder only need to build for 200-250 h. You can hire professional help to do those 250h. I think it’s safe to say that a new “homebuilt” piston Evolution will cost US$ 950k at least, all in all. The turboprop is estimated to be US$ 1.415M. To me these prices are completely insane, but a person with lots of money to spend, it’s no problem of course. Considering what you get for that money though, it is obvious that Lancair has a good scheme going, selling extremely expensive carbon composites to a selected audience.
Just to keep it on track (somewhat). A new issue of SportAviation came yesterday. Lancair has one full page ad of the piston Evolution. It’s only a picture of the airplane and the text: 220 kts, 16 gph, for 2200 nm. It uses the “new” Lycoming iE2 (single lever, double redundant FADEC, 350 hp, aka TEO-540). Then I remembered I had read about this aircraft and engine before, a long time ago. It turns out that Kitplanes tested the prototype 6 years ago (prototype aircraft with a prototype iE2) in a lengthy article. Already at that time they had 5 piston Evo’s flying, but it’s a bit unclear if they all had the TEO-540 or some other engine.
Look at the price! and the build time! This is 6 year old data. This aircraft is basically a pressurized Cirrus with retracts. It takes 1500 h to build, and it ends up costing more than even the most equipped certified Cirrus. The TEO-540 is probably the most expensive piston engine out there, I have no idea what it cost, but it cannot be all that much more than a big turbo Continental used in the Cirrus? The question is, what exactly is it you pay for? Carbon shell body and wings does not cost that much to produce, not even close, it’s only a fraction of this.
Airlines (especially some of the cheaper variety) frequently operate jets at below-book MTOW to cut charges, so shurely can’t be that difficult to do.
Silvaire wrote:
To which somebody will respond by bundling some other airframe change together with the gross weight STC so that the highest approved weight for that particular airframe configuration is 1999 Kg.
Yes. But that makes it more difficult and more expensive. Lowering MTOW on paper shouldn’t require any flight testing. But it wasn’t clear from that document if that’s enough – whether it should be highest MTOW for the entire type (which seems silly) or a variant and what exactly would make a variant.
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.
To which somebody will respond by bundling some other airframe change together with the gross weight STC so that the highest approved weight for that particular airframe configuration is 1999 Kg.
