europaxs the TBM with a PT-6 rated at 1,850 shp and a flat rating of 850 shp, must be delivering a lot more power at FL280 than the Evolution’s -135 rated at (just) 750 shp. Also the TBM is a turbine design, while the Lancair is an upgrade from a piston and there are possible aerodynamic constraints above FL250 (flutter mainly due to reduced aerodynamic damping) which doesn’t allow a higher rated engine. A 750 shp is a lot of torque for a relatively short coupled relatively small volume tail aircraft, presumably type training emphasises caution on go around.
presumably type training emphasises caution on go around.
If the Evo was designed to be certified (as Lancair claim) then it should have sufficient aileron/rudder authority at Vs (and Vs itself must be below 60kt for a SE plane, unless special factors can be demonstrated) because this is a certification requirement.
Same goes for elevator authority at Vs, over the full loading envelope.
Etc…
The other homebuilt Lancairs can’t do that. They are fast/efficient (a) because they are small planes for the engine size and (b) because they have cut-down wings and control surfaces. A 320 for example can’t hold the full torque at the stated Vs of 57kt. It will flip over and kill you… just like say a Spitfire would. That 57kt is fiction.
So unless the Lancair Evo design claim is false (and I imagine with so many now flying there will be a body of opinion on that – I have no idea) it should not need special training in this area. Well, no more than a TBM needs it. I put that to Socata during my test flight and it was clearly proved the assertions (posted on forums over the years) were false. The TBM does handle full power suddenly applied at the published Vs (65kt for the 850). I was sitting in it at the time.
I see. I only assumed similar power (750 shp) of the both. But don’t know much about turbines and wasn’t aware, that the TBM is highly derated.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
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 was thinking more in terms of availability. A snag in the Evo, and it will be grounded for how many months? The same in an RV and it is fixed within the hour. Dispatch rate is a function of what exactly it is you are dispatching for. Flying across the Atlantic on a regular basis, I think the Evolution would win (unless grounded of course 
), but flying to Greece in July? not so sure the Evolution would be very much better.
Peter wrote:
Historically, the SE TP market has worked this way:
Like the Caravan, Twin Otter, PAC 750, Pilatus Porter and countless others? (non pressurized, low level, slow) Pressurization is mostly a safety feature. There was an article by a Widerøe pilot about this some weeks ago in relation to SET used for personnel transport. He had also flown Twin Otters earlier, before they got the dash 8 and newer derivatives. He said, SET no problem, non-pressurized – never. Economically a non pressurized TP would be better for most of the routes they do here in Norway, but safety vise he meant it was crazy, as they would be prevented the ability of flying above the weather.
Peter wrote:
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).
It’s actually quite funny. EASA har no problems whatsoever with that, and neither has ECAC or AOPA. So it is definitely not an European problem, and large parts of Europe can be flown IFR with homebuilts today as well (legally).
What snags do you suggest would ground an Evo for months?
Turbine pressurised types without dedicated, current type support in the country of operation might suffer maintenance despatch issues – I think this may be based on more than hearsay. We may even have a thread illustrating this on the forum.
A snag in the Evo, and it will be grounded for how many months? The same in an RV and it is fixed within the hour
No way!
The downtime of any plane depends on what setup you have for managing it.
If you have a glass cockpit made on Jupiter and that packs up, you will be AOGd for an awfully long time.
You can have a new model certified SEP and be grounded for weeks because some small item has broken and the UK dealer has taken weeks to get a replacement from the USA (actual scenario). This happens all the time. Loads of people don’t make any particular fly-in because something has broken.
The systems on the Evo are made up mostly of standard parts. Probably even the door handles are from a VW Golf (well you get the idea).
To fix an RV within an hour implies the owner is a very competent tinkerer – the sort who happily spends all day under a 1972 MGB replacing the clutch. That’s great, of course – that is a big (and necessary!) part of the appeal of the homebuilt scene. To fix the Evo within an hour would require corresponding expertise. Plus the new part has to be right there in your hand. How often is that?
BOTH will require a suitable hangar (where you are permitted to work), tools, and the broken part has to be available quickly. There is any number of RV bits which will ground you for weeks.
Pressurization is mostly a safety feature
Pressurisation is necessary to fly at altitude. You could use oxygen at FL280 but it would need to be a mask, for everyone aboard. Cannulas are OK, but many don’t like them, and even fewer people like masks.
EASA har no problems whatsoever with that, and neither has ECAC or AOPA. So it is definitely not an European problem, and large parts of Europe can be flown IFR with homebuilts today as well (legally).
EASA has no jurisdiction over non-EASA aircraft.
ECAC is powerless, as is evident by the mostly unimplemented recommendations. AOPA?? There isn’t one in Europe that is really functional.
large parts of Europe can be flown IFR with homebuilts today as well (legally).
We have done that one to death before… not so.
Turbine pressurised types without dedicated, current type support in the country of operation might suffer maintenance despatch issues
It would depend on how the aircraft is constructed.
A PT6 itself is not a problem.
I think the Evo has a fairly primitive “heating” system. Not insufficient but no doubt simple.
The avionics are as simple as any similar sort… same issues with any glass cockpit (you can get AOGd unless a dealer comes over to you) and a certified Evo would need mostly certified avionics.
The rest of the plane is probably simple enough to work on with standard tools and procedures.
But yes Robert you have a point about EASA-reg certified planes and TC ownership issues. A certified Evo would have to be N-reg…
Peter wrote:
EASA has no jurisdiction over non-EASA aircraft.
Of course they have. You need a EASA PPL to fly them for one (no one gets national licenses anymore). EASA also allows these aircraft to fly in all of “EASA land” with no restrictions of any kind. What EASA did was to let each national AA put restrictions and regulations as they see fit (meaning to continue having whatever regulations they had). Any and all restrictions are national matters, not EASA/European matters. It’s the same with microlights. According to EASA a microlight is a microlight in all of EASA land, with clear cut definitions and specs regardless of where it is situated.
Peter wrote:
ECAC is powerless, as is evident by the mostly unimplemented recommendations.
Nonsense! It is mostly implemented everywhere, with a few exceptions. Besides, ECAC is not about power, it’s about reason, and it is the only European arena at high enough level that is able to anything about free inter-European aviation for aircraft not directly governed by EASA. ECAC work directly with ICAO, coordinating all ECAC states. The point about ICAO was that there is nothing in ICAO restricting the use of experimental amateur built aircraft. But, as with all civilian aviation, ECAC is also 99% airliners and 1% GA.
Both EASA and ECAC is in agreement here. Amateur built experimental aircraft should fly freely between all member states, with no restrictions put on them other than what is written in the CofA or “permit”. This IS the European stand on this. You can of course say that there is not enough power behind it, but you cannot use a hammer to bang reason into people’s heads when they refuse.
Peter wrote:
We have done that one to death before… not so.
And you always keep saying that, even though it is not the case. All of Scandinavia, France, Italy, Poland, even Portugal and Spain. That’s a huge part of the European land mass and population.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
What snags do you suggest would ground an Evo for months?
The engine and related systems. Also what standard repair methods would you use to fix a cracked, pressurized carbon fiber hull after a hard landing? Is it even possible to fix?
@LeSving – “the engine and related systems” are so ubiquitous that I’m willing to bet dollars to pennies in your currency of choice that you’ll find more people able to expertly fix a PT6 than a RV engine. Not to mention the PT6 is somewhat more reliable than a piston engine.
As to the “cracked hull on landing” – why not something likely to happen more often like “a hull cracked by an angry T-Rex looking for food” or “hull grazed by a falling meteorite”, something along those lines.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
I’m willing to bet dollars to pennies in your currency of choice that you’ll find more people able to expertly fix a PT6 than a RV engine
How would you “expertly fix” a PT6 without full factory support from the manufacturer? A Lycoming anyone can fix.
Taking a short look at the Lancair site, and it is obvious how this works:
Lancair’s Full Service Maintenance Facility
At Lancair’s maintenance facility, we can perform pre-purchase inspections, condition (annual/100 hour) inspections, and engine and aircraft repairs. We also provide aircraft modifications and air conditioning installations. Lancair maintenance facility will offer the most experienced and reliable service you will find.
I would never buy (“build” ) an Evolution without the full service program and support at the factory itself. Without that you are just buying yourself into a whole bunch of work and problems. This thing is too complex for one pilot to “fix” himself. It would be a full time job at least. For the Evolution to work satisfactory in Europe, you would need something similar to the full factory support. Doing this will be a major venture on it’s own, and infinitely larger than “building” the plane. A major opportunity also of course, IF the Evolution becomes popular here.
With a normal experimental aircraft, you don’t need that. You can fix everything yourself, because the complexity is within doable limits.
