Peter wrote:
As with any aircraft, it is up to the owner to assess the work and assemble a team of experienced people, as necessary.
Yes, and one fundamental idea behind amateur built experimental aviation is that the builder through building over several years will gather enough competence and expertise to do exactly that, on the particular individual aircraft he has built. With kits, this will be watered down. With kits built at the factory, and where the “builder” participate for two weeks, there is nothing left of this. It is no longer an amateur built experimental aircraft, it’s a factory built experimental aircraft. The Evolution is essentially just a factory built microlight, but it’s orders of magnitude more complex, much larger and with much higher performance.
The factory has taken over all of the builder’s “responsibilities”. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this IMO, the factory is just a “bunch of builders” selling almost ready to fly aircraft, ideally. However, what has actually happened though is that an amateur company is doing series production without any requirements for conforming to any standard. Regarding the Evolution, it’s series production of an aircraft that is as complex and high performance as it gets for a light airplane. This is a way of manufacturing aircraft that is only accepted for microlights in Europe (MTOW 450 kg, stall speed of 65 km/h), and it is even more strict in the US (single seat, top speed 55 kts and so on).
What I mean, is that there is nothing left of the idea that an individual can built an aircraft in his own garage, then fly it, and do this for recreational and educational purposes. I mean so what (to that also), but this do leave a void. The “builder” is in no position to do anything useful, because he has not obtained any competence through building. The aircraft itself, with no adherence to any standards, is very far from straight forward for a professional team of mechanics, when the complexity is at a level of an Evolution. Any mechanic can work on a straight forward thing like an RV, or a certified TBM for that matter, not so much on a very non standard carbon fiber, pressurized TP like an Evolution.
Even microlighters themselves are starting to question the “cleverness” of the new super complex microlights with RG, CS prop, FADEC, turbo etc. They are very nice, high performance etc. – but…. and it’s not like they do not have access to very gifted mechanics.
A standard homebuilt is one thing. A certified aircraft is another. The Evolution is something very different from either of those. It’s unclear to me how you are going to do anything useful on that aircraft without flying it to the factory for every single little thing.
LeSving wrote:
With kits built at the factory, and where the “builder” participate for two weeks, there is nothing left of this.
Such an aircraft then shouldn’t meet the definition for amateur-built. You won’t do what the authorities would consider 51 % in two weeks. And I doubt the rest will be done by amateurs in a spirit of helping a fellow builder, no profit, no commercial interest.
As I understand it (I never looked into it), you have to build the Evolution yourself, but there are facilities that provide all the tools and people with experience for you to consult. You could do it all by yourself in your garage, but the probability of finishing such a complex project would be pretty close to zero. And it’s too expensive for that.
Le Sving – your comments would apply to e.g. a Lancair IV/P too. It’s just a progression in equipment and complexity.
Let’s face it, there is a progression in the ability of aircraft owners to manage their maintenance. Certified or not. They range from completely unable (which is kind of tricky if you own a homebuilt 
) to totally competent (which I would say is what the homebuilt scene is all about, especially at the upper end of capability).
The 51% rule is a rule and you cannot blame people for working right up to the limit of any rule, legal or whatever 
The rule is so obviously a sham even on a “simple” RV, which comes as a pre-drilled kit. But so what? If the regulatory system makes the plane useful, I’d say: good luck to everyone.
There is a vast difference however between the build quality of the Evolution and the build quality of a more normal fibreglass homebuilt, based on what I have seen… From 10m away both will look OK So there is definitely a place for the factory doing as much as possible. I would not want to do critical stuff myself. Most homebuilts were the only plane the owner ever built.
Even microlighters themselves are starting to question the “cleverness” of the new super complex microlights with RG, CS prop, FADEC, turbo etc
I think there is a saying about that but I don’t recall it right now
BTW I am certain the Evo could be maintained in Europe, by the owner working with an engineer with appropriate expertise. Same with a TBM, for that matter, though just about all TBM owners choose to not do that, for reasons already much discussed (e.g. resale value very dependent on doing the whole Socata MM).
Peter wrote:
The 51% rule is a rule and you cannot blame people for working right up to the limit of any rule, legal or whatever
As I said, I don’t have any problem with that. But what will happen is that, due to the complexity, only the factory will be able to maintain it. There is nothing standard, no maintenance manuals, no nothing. Here in Norway the builder has to make maintenance manuals, that’s just the way the regulations are. How are you going to do that when you have hardly touched the aircraft? There is only one option, the factory will have to make it, and the factory will make it so it is beneficial for the factory. It becomes a super complex factory built microlight, that is what this aircraft is. It’s very far away from the “spirit” of amateur homebuilding.
I would not want to do critical stuff myself.
Why not? It’s not like flying and maintaining the thing is any less critical. “Build quality” whatever it is you mean by that, is the least critical thing in a homebuilt. Look at a Yak (original built), it’s built like a tank, and the finish is also like a tank. On a composite aircraft it is close to impossible to assess the build quality (proper lamination, proper “cooking”, proper curing, proper gluing and whatever it is they do). Only the finish is visible.
Peter wrote:
The rule is so obviously a sham even on a “simple” RV, which comes as a pre-drilled kit
A pre drilled kit is probably one of the major advancements that makes homebuilding viable for a lot more people. It’s also a big safety factor, because that is one place where you can (and will) do lots of errors. You still have to match drill, up-drill, deburr, dimple/countersink, and bang rivets. The pre-drilling itself is only 10-20 % of the (riveting) work, but it is the 10-20% that is much better done by a CNC machine than a human being, and will allow rather complex structures to be built easily, as well as assure the plane is built straight with no jigs or complex tooling. The FAA has rather strict and detailed rules of what a 51% amateur built aircraft is. A quick built is 49% done, a pre drilled kit is about 5% done. You don’t make screws and bolts yourself either.
BTW I am certain the Evo could be maintained in Europe,
Of course it can, but it’s going to be more hassle and more costly (if someone else is to do it) than comparable certified plane IMO.
Peter wrote:
It’s just a progression in equipment and complexity.
It’s not just a progression in equipment and complexity. It’s a progression in equipment and complexity with a reduction in builder participation. I’m not against the Evolution or other very high degree of prefabricated aircraft, like the Glasairs, Carbon Cubs and so on. It’s just that I think people fool themselves if they thing maintaining a Evolution is less work and hassle than a comparable certified aircraft. They are still built by amateurs, but in this case the factory is the amateur, not the “builder”. Nothing wrong with that, but it IS something to think about and consider. Even a small boat is built according to industry standards, and an LSA is also. An evolution is not. A normal homebuilt is not built to any industry standard because it’s not an industrial thing, it is not a series production in a factory.
The big difference is that someone who buys an Evolution doesn’t buy it to play Lego for 5 years and then do 10 hours of tinkering for one hour of flying. S/he buys it to go places fast, in comfort and with a high dispatch rate, not because s/he plans to save 100 bucks doing his / her oil change in a barn. It’s a different market.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
The big difference is that someone who buys an Evolution doesn’t buy it to play Lego for 5 years and then do 10 hours of tinkering for one hour of flying. S/he buys it to go places fast, in comfort and with a high dispatch rate, not because s/he plans to save 100 bucks doing his / her oil change in a barn. It’s a different market.
Exactly!!! How on earth is a super complex homebuilt, that most mechanics won’t even touch, do that better than a certified aircraft? The Evolution IS a homebuilt, it doesn’t help pretending it is not simply because it looks cool, has a TP in the nose, and is made at the Lancair “factory”. An RV or any other normal homebuilt will give you much higher dispatch rate than an Evolution ever will, and tons of less grief, at the fraction of the cost. Besides, people flying homebuilts (and microlights) fly much more per year on average than the average PPL spam can flyer does, while dreaming of flying large, fast jets and “going places” to make some sense out of why he is flying in the first place
The Evolution is so far out on the edge of the homebuilt scale that it is ridiculous. Yet, it is far from being a certified plane, but probably would be better of as one? I don’t know, it seems very small and cramped compared with a TBM.
I am sorry but if you think an RV has a higher dispatch rate than an Evolution we might not be talking about the same plane.
I don’t know, it seems very small and cramped compared with a TBM.
I’d say it would open up a different market.
Historically, the SE TP market has worked this way:
1) A TP engine is expensive, so
2) the plane is expensive, so
3) the buyer must be given lots of goodies to make it look the money (a €6000 CD player from Socata e.g.), and
4) it must be pressurised to provide comfort
In parallel with that you have
1) A TP engine does poor MPG at low levels (below ~ FL250), so
2) the plane has to be pressurised, so
3) the plane gets heavy and expensive, so
4) the plane has to be big to carry the big engine which is needed to pull the big heavy plane, etc
Hence, a TBM is a huge plane, which will cost you 20k-30k just to hangar.
BUT not everybody wants a huge plane which can carry 6 people with 6 sets of golf clubs, etc.
The Evolution is a product which is positioned between say an SR22 and a TBM, while totally outclassing the SR22 in every respect (except window size) and delivering (assuming some sort of de-ice) very close to 100% of the TBM despatch rate. I routinely see one of them at FL280 doing 250kt (like today, for example). It isn’t RVSM but who cares?
It is a superb 2/3-person tourer, which is not too cumbersome to be used for sight-seeing. I would imagine it’s DOC is about 1/3 of the TBM too…
The Evolution is so far out on the edge of the homebuilt scale that it is ridiculous.
Objectively, I don’t see a problem there. But my OP was about whether a certified one would sell in Europe. I don’t honestly think Europe will ever relax the homebuilt rules so that homebuilts will be actually useful for using that sort of capability (IFR, etc).
What amazes me is, that the Evolution doesn’t seem to be faster than the TBM (700), both 300KTAS.
The TP also offers the advantage of comfortably pressurising the airplane without getting worked out like the turbo piston engine does say in a P210. It also offers better weather capability – avoiding weather at FL280 is a lot better in a pressurised hull than with cannulas up the nostrils, while watching your O2 saturation, 6 EGTs and CHTs. The capacity of climbing through weather at a climb rate which is a multiple of a piston adds to the safety factor. And yes, it is deiced (boots on the wings & stab, hot intake lip and glycol for the windshield).
So as far as “going places” is concerned i don’t think a RV can hold a candle to it. Does it make sense to go for a 100 USD low altitude burger – no, but that is not why one would buy this, so in my opinion the fuel flow at low altitude is moot.
@europaxs the Evolution is speed-limited from FL240 upwards due to compressibility. I assume that a straight-wing TBM has the same issues.
