Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Flying the Lancair Evolution turboprop in Europe (production moved to Europe)

There are loads of PT6 service facilities in Europe. I was hangared in one such for 10 years, so I have seen more PT6s and PT6 powered planes than most things…

But the engine needs very little servicing.

With a normal experimental aircraft, you don’t need that. You can fix everything yourself, because the complexity is within doable limits

That depends on your competence and facilities… Can you rebuild an IO540 engine yourself? Very very few aircraft owners can. Even many engine shops can’t do it properly! The vast majority of European homebuilders with Lyco engines will use a certified engine shop for the work.

What about avionics? I know enough homebuilders to know the answer to that one.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

@LeSving let me repeat again although it is really not that complicated – people do NOT buy these because they plan to fix the PT6 by themselves and on their own if / when it breaks!

If / when that does however (which is a lot more seldom than with a piston) you are a LOT more likely to find a turbine shop than a piston shop to fix it…

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

people do NOT buy these because they plan to fix the PT6 by themselves and on their own if / when it breaks!

I understand that Mk2, it’s pretty obvious the way it is marketed and “produced”, as well as the price. What you obviously do not get, is that despite all the factory support, this aircraft IS an amateur built experimental certificated aircraft. There is nothing standard about it. It does not have a maintenance program for instance, no maintenance manuals. This stuff is the owner’s responsibility to create. You cannot simply let any odd maintenance shop do the maintenance, they wouldn’t know what to do with it. How many mechanics do you know that 1. know how to work with composites and 2. would actually do work on a pressurized carbon fiber hull? Would Lancair themselves allow it? Here is what Lancair say about maintaining an Evolution (my emphasis):

Depending on the component needing attention, you would go to any commercial service shop that offers service to that component. Special airframe issues or issues with Lancair manufactured parts would be attended to at Lancair or one of our commercial assistance shops across that US.

There is no way an Evo would “work” in Europe without either a way above average competent homebuilder type owner, or by creating some kind of Lancair approved assistance shop. It cannot be done using the existing European maintenance infrastructure without some heavy modification and training of personnel. This is no ordinary homebuilt, and it is far from a standard certified aircraft.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Fully understood. Compared to the host of reliability issues on a SEP how many times would you say you would face grounding issues due to the hull?

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

how many times would you say you would face grounding issues due to the hull?

I have no idea, and I really don’t care. But having the knowledge that IF something happens, and the only way to fix it is to bring it to the US for repair, is a major turn down all by itself. This is a home built after all , and it’s things like that you normally would never have to worry about. It’s one of the main benefits with owning one.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Well this is the thing you see – the truth is most of the stuff that will happen on a homebuilt, unless it happens in your hangar, you won’t be able to fix. Note that I do also see a difference between “may fix” and “can fix”. So unless you always fly from Point A to Point A, having an issue with your homebuilt anywhere in Europe will be just as problematic as with an Evolution (unless you fly with a full complement of tools and spares and can miss work for three weeks while you work on your fix). So for me I’d rather have something that does not break down or require constant tweaking like a piston homebuilt does.

The same kind of uninformed crap was being thrown about re the Cirrus, composites, delamination, “oh my god it will melt in direct sunlight” and what not – end result, did you ever see one “delaminating because of a hard landing”? Not so much. Evolutions are racking up hundreds of hours in the US and I don’t see owners constantly having to fix stuff like on the lower-end piston homebuilts.

It’s all a matter of probabilities – it’s all good if you MAY fix your homebuilt but depending on where it happens or what happens I bet you CAN’T fix it, and the probability of that happening is far higher than the Evo “cracking on landing”.

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

Note that I do also see a difference between “may fix” and “can fix”. So unless you always fly from Point A to Point A, having an issue with your homebuilt anywhere in Europe will be just as problematic as with an Evolution (unless you fly with a full complement of tools and spares and can miss work for three weeks while you work on your fix).

There is a big difference taking an aircraft to the nearest repair shop and sending it across the Atlantic. It’s not like you have to fix everything yourself in a homebuilt, at all times, at all cost. But it’s good to know that it can be fixed everywhere.

Gliders were built of composites ages before Cirrus or Lancair started. Today every other microlight are built using carbon fiber. The know how about airframe structures in composites exists in abundance in Europe. It’s more that the know how does not exist in a general GA repair shop. Still, a pressurized carbon fuselage is rather exotic though, and it’s not without reason that Lancair does not want others touching it.

The Evolution is a cool plane for those who can afford it. it doesn’t seem to be much homebuilt about it though, and not much certified either. It’s something different, more like a factory experimental project or something that has never gotten out of the experimental stage, but is stil being sold. It’s very much like factory produced microlights (exactly like it in fact), only larger and with much more power, while pretending to be both a homebuilt and a certified aircraft at the same time. It’s a very odd thing.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I think that based on the failure track record of low end homebuilts you get waaaay too fixated on your “i have to take a broken pressurised hull across the Atlantic” mantra.

You should probably stop and reflect on what you propose – i.e. if the plane lands so hard to crack the pressure vessel open it won’t go anywhere anymore, and I bet that is valid for metal ones too (even in the US). I am also willing to bet that the gear attach points will break before the hull cracks open. In that case something called insurance steps in and it is declared a write-off. End of story.

I really can’t understand this “it’s pressurised carbon so it’s exotic” fixation. There is at least one european well-established GA maker that is starting production on an all-carbon pressurised turboprop as we speak. Doesn’t seem to be rocket science.

Last Edited by Shorrick_Mk2 at 31 May 06:43

Peter wrote:

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.

A cursory look reveals that it has Vs of 76 knots and Vs0 of 61 knots. And IIRC, Lancair claims to have used requirements for utility category of Part 23 as guidance where possible (or something like that) which implies that it’s not a fully compliant design (and can really mean anything).

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.

Isn’t a certified bird a better match for someone with this mindset (I do take your definition as a hyperbole)? I can certainly imagine that there are amateur builders that want to build something as complex, as challenging as the Evolution. And I don’t condemn seeking mentoring/ assistance so you can avoid stupid mistakes and learn more efficiently. Perhaps not 10:1 on the tinkering:flying ratio, but working on the plane still should be enjoyable and play a big part, otherwise why bother (if you’re not after saving money).

The certified bird is far more expensive and lacking in capability. In a North American context an Evolution offers a lot more bang for the buck. And I suspect working on it remains enjoyable because things don’t constantly break or have to be replaced or tweaked like on other homebuilts (and a good part of the certified market).

With regards to takeoff power and control authority, takeoff torque should not exceed 1200 lb/ft so probably slamming full power on go-around isn’t a good idea.

This thread is locked. This means you can't add a response.
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top