For what it’s worth I have the light version of it which is the Xavion app. It downloads the weather prior to flight or in the US you can connect it to an ADS B receiver and finally you can input weather and wind data manually. It’s better than nothing and you always see on the map which airports are in gliding distance based on your specific glide ratios. You will not glide at best glide speed but much faster. we have tried it during a few approaches in the middle of the mountains here in Switzerland at the Mollis airport and we would have always made without hitting the mountains just by flying through the hoops.
You can see your energy based on how low on the hoops you are and you can cut corners if you are low on energy.
I’d love to try it but apparently it doesn’t work for android. Austin seems to have had a huge conflict regarding android and last thing I heard is that he won’t touch it again.
But he is an interesting guy and very smart indeed. He needs to be after developing his sim almost single handed. Xplane is a totally different piece of cake as MSFS, a lot more complex and with much different flight dynamic….
Mooney_Driver wrote:
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….
Yes, he is an interesting guy. I have also know him since the early days of X-Plane.
I’ve met him first at Microwings in Dallas. I think I saw him again in Orlando a few years after that, and later on one of the Aerosoft conferences. It was fun to see him now on that website, he’s changed quite a bit. Bet he would not reckognize me on sight either.
But I am glad to see that his work and exemplary dedication to his product has earned him enough to do some real fun stuff. If anyone deserves that, it’s Austin.
Would a certified Lancair Evolution eat a piece of the European TBM market?
The Evolution
has been out since 2008. From their forum, there are 63 Evolutions flying and they just sold kit number 80 this week.
The TBM
TBM sales in the USA are a lot higher but some number between 63 and 80 (some of the 17 won’t get completed by the original buyer) is still a lot of planes at this capability level.
I reckon some people are very happy about the homebuilt restrictions in Europe 
Especially as the 3:1 price difference would make it a great business proposition to build them serially. N-reg, one would not lose many maintenance privileges. You basically just need an A&P signoff on the Annual.
Peter wrote:
Especially as the 3:1 price difference would make it a great business proposition to build them serially. N-reg, one would not lose many maintenance privileges. You basically just need an A&P signoff on the Annual.
Would that still be Annex II? IMHO only two options make sense:
(b) aircraft specifically designed or modified for research, experimental or scientific purposes, and likely to be produced in very limited numbers;
(c) aircraft of which at least 51 % is built by an amateur, or a non-profit making association of amateurs, for their own purposes and without any commercial objective;
And neither of them seems to cover your envisioned serial production. Unless you’re proposing a non-profit association of amateur aircraft builders.
I was thinking “certified” as in ICAO CofA.
Of course the alternative is for homebuilts to be able to fly freely VFR and IFR in Europe but I can’t see that ever happening. It’s possible only in very narrow situations. It’s what they have in the USA. Many threads on this here
Well in that case cost of certification and obtaining approvals will be a huge factor. The market might be there, but it’s by no means low risk enterprise. As I’m sure you’re aware.
AFAIK amateur-builts in the Czech Republic (they are called individually built) do get Special Certificate of Airworthiness when they’re completed and it should be ICAO compliant. I doubt it’s the only country in the EU that does it like that. I have no idea how hard it is to convince the CAA that any particular aircraft is suitable for IFR (or how would they look at a pressurized turboprop as a project).
Martin wrote:
I have no idea how hard it is to convince the CAA that any particular aircraft is suitable for IFR (or how would they look at a pressurized turboprop as a project).
Here in Norway you can install IFR equipment and fly away with no interference from the LT. A certified aircraft maintenance facility have to install it though (at least sign the forms, I don’t know how it actually work in practice). If the LT will approve a pressurized TP being built by just anybody, is another matter. But the Evolutions are built at the factory as I understand it, so maybe that’s no problem either ? There are several experimental turbine helicopters here.
What I think is odd is that someone actually wants to tinker with a pressurized TP with no formal background (meaning you have the will to do it, as well as the ability).
What I think is odd is that someone actually wants to tinker with a pressurized TP with no formal background (meaning you have the will to do it, as well as the ability).
As with any aircraft, it is up to the owner to assess the work and assemble a team of experienced people, as necessary.
