Why don’t you go to the Lancair site and have a look? 30 seconds reveal (1) electrical prop deice and (2) optional boot kit.
Because if I let Google answer all my questions I have nothing left I could ask here :-)
You can get builder assist companies in the USA to get the whole plane done with custom interiors for about $1.6 million USD including the chute. Without the chute its about $1.55 million. For a pressurized, 300ktas plane with the latest Garmin G3x panel and autopilot it’s a bargain.
Very much so.
I think the Evolution is the most amazing plane to have. It is a smaller version of the “TBM” but with similar performance.
There are two (that I know about) in Europe. One based in the Czech Republic and one (which rarely flies) based in what appears to be Latvia or Lithuania.
The problem we have here is that they cannot legally fly IFR in most of Europe. In all probability they would have to be N-reg and that severely limits residence. The UK is 28 days. Germany makes it possible to do a renewable 365 days. But there are not many countries over which you can legally fly it IFR. Even VFR needs the obtaining of individual country permits in most cases (in theory 
). The IFR options are being examined by some people and it appears there are countries which have no airspace regulation banning it (so overflight of these would be legal). But it isn’t generally useful around Europe. One can do it in practice (there is no apparent enforcement) but one’s insurance would be void once the operation ceases to be legal so e.g. after 28 days in the UK you have no insurance.
Spending $15k on a dubiously legally usable plane is one thing but spending $1.5M is another 
Even if they were legal to fly IFR, I don’t think they are a particularly good Euro fit. They use a lot of runway and would not tolerate anything but the smoothest surfaces. Although different than the Legacy, the Lancairs are almost uninsurable in the US. They have a very high accident rate and very high premiums as a result.
Coming from a fast wing that stalls abruptly myself, I know all of this is totally trainable. With good training, that problem could be minimized, but as things stand today with experimentals that’s not easily implementable.
Do you think it needs a lot of runway?
It has masses of thrust to weight – like the Jetprop. 500m tarmac should be easy. It will probably be off in 300m.
Regarding unprepared runways, yeah, who knows, but anyway who would operate a $1.5M plane from “trust me, it’s really smooth; I was there in 2001 in my Maule with tundra tyres and it was like a billiard table and, anyway, you have to take chances in life sometime” grass runway
FWIW, the two planes whose build quality struck me as really outstanding, right down the the way the composites fitted together, the precise elevator trim tab hinges, etc, were
the Lancairs are almost uninsurable in the US
The IO550 piston ones with some “interesting” Vs, yes. The Evo claims to be FAR23 compliant.
BTW an N-reg Evo is legal to fly IFR “by default” because its permit is not “VFR-only”. That’s not true for most European “homebuilts”, so they are screwed right at the start.
Here’s X-Plane developer Austin Meyer’s website on the building of his Evo. It’s interesting reading.
Peter wrote:
Evo claims to be FAR23 compliant
Not quite. Lancair says the Evolution was designed to be readily certified under Part 23, but they have not verified that or begun that process. It is still sold as a kit aircraft and Lancair says they do not intend to ever make a factory version. Notice Lancair no longer makes their older models.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Here’s X-Plane developer Austin Meyer’s website on the building of his Evo. It’s interesting reading.
Wow. It does appear Austin has made himself some cash since I last saw him at Microwings in Dallas, where he showed X-Plane 1….
Makes interesting reading for sure!
Been looking at his “Figure of Merit” a bit.
Score = ( square(max cruise speed in knots) * max range with 45-minute reserve in nm * payload with full fuel in lb) / (dirty stall speed in knots * fuel in gallons)
(which needs to be divided by 1’Million in order to get his numbers).
His figures:
Citaion Mustang: ( sqr(340) * 1150 * 700 ) / ( 76 * 380) =3.222 M
TBM-850: ( sqr(320) * 1585 * 849 ) / ( 65 * 282 ) =7.517 M
Lancair Evolution:( sqr(300) * 1500 * 800 ) / ( 59 * 168) =10.090 M
Piper Meridian:( sqr(260) * 1000 * 542 ) / ( 58 * 173 ) =3.651 M
Piper Mirage:( sqr(215) * 1555 * 517 ) / ( 58 * 120 ) =5.339 M
Columbia-400:( sqr(235) * 1150 * 422 ) / ( 59 * 106 ) =4.285 M
Cirrus SR-22: ( sqr(180) * 1170 * 610 ) / ( 59 * 92 ) =4.260 M
Cessna-182:( sqr(145) * 940 * 772 ) / ( 41 * 87 ) =4.277 M
I added a few of my own:
TB20: (sqr(159)*1100*560)/(53*86) = 3.416 M
M20C:(sqr(150)*750*588)/(50*52)= 3.816 M
Ovation:(sqr(198)*1500*400)/(52*100)= 4.523 M
Acclaim:(sqr(242)*1200*400)/(52*100)= 4.883 M
However I find the calculation funny in some ways. Max range and max speed seldom go together (either or but not both). And how stall speed and max fuel load correspond is beyond me. But then again, I’d never try to compete with Austin when mathematics are on the line…
What is quite interesting however is that he appears to have now built his own hardware for the Vertical Power 400 system and is hooking it up to the Garmin autopilot he is using. Hmmmmmm. So you get that engine failure, press the red button and watch the AP fly the airplane to the threshold of the nearest suitable runway? Not too shabby I’d say. That definitly bears thinking about, as it may well be a massive safety improvement to have a system like that, even not coupled.
Yea, Austin is one of the few original guys out there. Smart as hell and with a vivid imagination. And apparently it does pay off if he can afford to step up from a Columbia 400 to a Evolution.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
What is quite interesting however is that he appears to have now built his own hardware for the Vertical Power 400 system and is hooking it up to the Garmin autopilot he is using. Hmmmmmm. So you get that engine failure, press the red button and watch the AP fly the airplane to the threshold of the nearest suitable runway? Not too shabby I’d say. That definitly bears thinking about, as it may well be a massive safety improvement to have a system like that, even not coupled.
I like the idea but I’d like to question the scenario of an engine failure at 27.000 feet, how is the computer compensating for the different wind velocities and directions at the altitude? What I mean is, if the computer is saying “ok, I need to lose height here to stay on my projected flight path”, an increase of wind speed (gusts) or change in direction (variation) could mean the plane suddenly comes up short……
what also confuses me was the following statement on his page: The success-rate in bringing the plane in for a BUMPY BUT NON-DAMAGING LANDING IN THE SIMULATOR, IF WITHIN GLIDING RANGE OF AN AIRPORT: 90%, followed by The success-rate in bringing the plane TO A 200-FT DECISION-HEIGHT RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD AT APPROACH SPEED, HEADING, AND GLIDEPATH IN THE SIMULATOR, IF WITHIN GLIDING RANGE OF AN AIRPORT: 100%..
Does the former comment refer to hand flown approaches? Because 90% might seem a high rate of success, however if you imagine the 10% to be a crash with the approach speed of at least 75knots, I’d prefer to pull the chute 100% of the time. If, on the other hand, it refers to the system landing (at least that’s how I see the inference), how come it can get to a decision height 100% of the time but then a safe landing only be assured 90% of the time?
Fantastic link – thanks Adam for posting it
I would so much like to build this plane one day.
Regards the Vertical Power thingy… this plane must have an auto throttle, otherwise it could never get down from cruise. But that isn’t mentioned, so is this system only for power-loss scenarios?
Regards certification, what this sounds like is that it was designed to meet the various requirements (e.g. Vs of 60kt or less, enough rudder to cope with max engine torque at Vs, etc) whereas the other Lancair homebuilts were totally not thus designed, with Vs values anywhere up to about 85kt and likely fatal if you go around at max power and what you thought was Vs. I think this is a huge selling point, to anyone who values their life a little more than “having a pure sense of adventure”
I have grabbed a copy of that writeup, because some of the past ones were removed afterwards, notably one which was flown to Europe.
I like the idea but I’d like to question the scenario of an engine failure at 27.000 feet, how is the computer compensating for the different wind velocities and directions at the altitude? What I mean is, if the computer is saying “ok, I need to lose height here to stay on my projected flight path”, an increase of wind speed (gusts) or change in direction (variation) could mean the plane suddenly comes up short……
Clearly he must be applying some margin there otherwise, as you say, he would need to know the vertical wind profile, which he can’t know. One can also minimise the wind effect by gliding fast… which will reduce the useful radius.
We discussed this previously
however if you imagine the 10% to be a crash with the approach speed of at least 75knots, I’d prefer to pull the chute 100% of the time
He says it gets you to a short final 100% of the time and that’s good enough for me, because if I can’t land it from there I can’t land it from anywhere.
Also the use of the chute is likely to (in Europe) impact your insurability situation if you ever want to fly again Especially on a type like this, IMHO. And, in Europe, no insurance = no flying.
