I have flown the Lancair 4 once and it is in my opinion an airplane which as it is should never be allowed to fly. It violates basic control principles in as so far that for take off you can not even set full power and expect to stay on the runway,
Well, yes. That’s what I was getting at when someone said certification is just a money making scam. Clearly it isn’t. It delivers basically safe to fly planes, which are not (to use a bit of LeSving’s terminology) not sub-IKEA-quality kitchen kits. BTW, here in the UK, “IKEA” generally means total crap, with even their potted plants dying after a few weeks because they cut off the roots but filled the pot (except for the top 2cm) with horse manure to keep the plant alive for just long enough__ 
Some of the stuff sold in the kitplane kits is appalling – and they aren’t at all cheap.
like the Evolution too btw.
The Evo should not have suffered from the Lancair kitplane low speed control issues i.e. a basically fictional “Vs” figure. It is easy to design a plane which meets those requirements, and it was claimed the Evo did meet them. It does make the plane a bit slower though
Mooney_Driver wrote:
… Lancair 4… basically the Columbia was developed from it
While this gets written time and time again, it is very misleading.
Lancair had a four-seater fuselage, originally designed for the IV. They quickly introduced the ES, which has a fixed gear, but more importantly has a a less powerful engine (310 instead of 350HP) and a more benign wing – in particular around 40% more wing area, and hence lower wing loading and stall speed. This is what the Columbia is based on – so it has quite different wing.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
it is should never be allowed to fly.
Thank god you don’t make the rules. You base that on what? Sure, the IV is a handful to fly and can bite, but are the accident statistics telling you such drastic action as prohibiting something is required? And compared to the certified Aerostar (twin), the stall behaviour of the IV is completely harmless.
It violates basic control principles in as so far that for take off you can not even set full power and expect to stay on the runway
No aircraft with a castoring wheel – especially tail wheel, but also with a nose wheel – goes straight if you set full power. You need rudder to keep them straight. The extra 40 hp over the ES / Columbia don’t make much of a difference.
True in terms of land area, but I would suggest very few people are going to buy an Evo to fly over the most desolate and the coldest parts of Europe They sold 80 in total, with nearly all of them (well, the ones actually completed) operating in “GA heaven” where almost every town of relevance has a runway next to it. Just 2 into Europe and only one of them is doing any “real” flying, and that guy is well known to be extremely wealthy. Someone based up where you are told me that almost every GA plane gets into a hangar around now and stays there till the sun comes out the following summer. So being able to fly IFR in a kitplane is of minimal value – especially as Norway bans N-reg long term parking.
So being able to fly IFR in a kitplane is of minimal value – especially as Norway bans N-reg long term parking.
What is the logic here? Any N-reg experimental can be converted to LN-reg in a matter of days. That is, as long as the build process is documented.
Peter wrote:
there is nowhere to go except fly over vast areas of desolate terrain and so often in bad wx.
Of course this makes flying a very attractive means of transport. Distances involved often do not encourage driving.
But it has to be said that a large part of Scandinavia is really beautiful indeed, from my own experience the coast of Norway and Svalbard are really something to write home about. I also liked the large forests of Finland, even tough I could have done without the mosquitoes.
Thanks for moving, Peter – expected. these really belong into the “random flying / photos” thread, or my never finished Norway trip write-up.
The point I am trying to make is that both sides of the debate are right.
Unless you live in a a small country like Luxembourg, aircraft that are limited (legally or practically) to that country can offer tremendous enjoyment and utility. So flying a [fill-in-what-is-allowed] in a COUNTRY in Europe is fine.
But if you want to fly in EUROPE, not just a COUNTRY in Europe, the restrictions, which range from hassle to prohibition, are problematic.
If I were in the US (and had the money), I would have been severely tempted by the Evo, and wouldn’t have given the TBM700 a second look. Too large, to expensive. Here, it is the other way round.
Still, the TBM outsells the Evo in the USA by an order of magnitude, despite only a fairly old TBM being in the same price range.
I would expect it to. Despite what is frequently written, those people who go for a kit and then organise / supervise the build are mostly technically minded and hands-on in their attitude to their aircraft and maintenance, something that does not appeal to many owners. Definitely not to those which – as you often put it – “leave the checkbook on the seat when they leave the aircraft for maintenance”. Which from what I see is the majority.
A great example that both worlds have their place. Long may both live.
Peter wrote:
Still, the TBM outsells the Evo in the USA by an order of magnitude, despite only a fairly old TBM being in the same price range.
Well, after reading Austin’s experience with his Evo, it is easy to see why. If you pay this kind of money you want a plane with factory support and a certain reliability.
