What a beautifully designed single engine turbo! It has all of the features that a pilot could want in an airplane. Love the carbon fiber design to reduce weight but maintain structural integrity. The glass panel touch screen avionics is a pilots dream! Speed, performance and efficient fuel burn add up to a "Magnificent Air Plane"! Congrats on such a well designed and engineered airplane!
No with a Vso of 61 kts it really isn't necessary, but it shows how well you can manage with that large disc out there instead of spoilers. I was hoping they wouldn't cut off the video so short so we can see how quickly it stops in beta.
N927LE was at the Moscow Airshow in 2011 and I was very surprised when I saw this Evolution coming across the ramp and parking next to my Legacy in Goose Bay, Canada. Simply by chance, we both stopped at Goose Bay while I was eastbound for my TransAltantic Crossing. Hope that you will soon release some of the video (& stills) shot at Moscow and Goose Bay. Thank you. N767EM
Blitzvogel bigger windshield equals larger cabin equals more drag, slower airspeed, more excessive fuel consumption, degraded glide ratio. The view out the front is very good. Of all the planes if flown I can tell you there are planes with much less visibility. The visibility in this plane is at or above average...
@@tomwolf8721 Understand that I'm not sheep enough to buy your sheepish bs. I'm well aware that turbines are overpriced. That's a key part of the problem. Don't be a status quo sheep that defends what you don't understand.
@Someone Needs a Snickers Lancair designs decent planes but no, the cost is not reasonable for a plane you have to build yourself. You can buy a Lancair IV-P for 250k already built that cruises at nearly the same speed.
Consider the increased outright cost of the turbine v. the piston......then calculate the fuel flow per knots.......it just doesn't add up, then the wild card....the noise the P&W puts out. I'd opt for the piston.....the turbine doesn't really add up.
Ricardo Ellison I don't have that means of buying one anyway, but just one of dreamers who would like to buy one. What you say here is probably true, I only considered the turbine over the piston engine due to better reliability. Any accident involving one of these aircraft due to engine failure would result in a write off due to it's carbon fiber makeup, even if the forced landing was successful. I worked in a engine overhaul shop 25 years ago, so I know where crankcases and cylinders crack and why.
Yeah for you. Thing is you aren't the only person in the world so your opinion is applicable to your circumstance, not anybody else you presume to speak for. If one can afford it then the turbine is a far better choice so long as you don't need to switch it off and re start it all the time such as when doing paid joy flights or TIFs. Put another way one could be happy with a 6 cylinder car but if offered a 12 cylinder car might have more prestige and presence than the stinkin' 6!
ThePaulv12 But at the end of the day your still talking piston engines here regardless of cylinders, you can't compare cars and planes for reliability.
Just an analogy (slightly poor perhaps but makes the point well enough). Why have a piston when you can have a gas turbine - because you can. One life, once it's nearing the end then all the regrets become apparent. Unfortunately the knowing is in the doing. If going to the trouble (and I had the money of course) then I'd go the turbine. Forget what the accountants say - they're boring and ruin everything.
I presume that you meant to say PWC PT6..., Pratt & Whitney Canada, which is quite a separate company from Pratt & Whitney (USA) which makes much larger jet engines.
Carbon fiber is a very light and strong choice for airframe construction, very well suited to withstand the airframe's stresses in flight and allows the aircraft designer to create e a lower drag airframe than can be made with anodized aircraft aluminium or wood. , But composite materials lack the toughness and impact resistance of aircraft aluminum or Sitka spruce. You may ask: What is toughness, and how does toughness differ from strength? Well, if you accidentally drop a heavy wrench or other metal tool onto a composite airframe you may puncture a sizable hole into the plane's outer skin that is difficult and costly to repair. Drop the same tool onto a wing made of aircraft aluminum or Sitka spruce and you'll leave a mark or dent but won't penetrate the skin. Another example: Hit a fairly small snag or piece of driftwood with an aluminum boat and it will leave a dent. Hit the same snag with a fiberglass or carbon fiber hull and you could have a hole the diameter of the object you just hit that could well be unrepairable. That is the difference between toughness and strength in torsion, compression or tension.. One thing that is clear: there are very many 60+ year-old aluminum aircraft which are still airworthy today. Since the first composite aircraft showed up only about 40 years ago, we won''t know if the first composite airframes will last that long for at least another 20 years. Another plus for anodized aircraft aluminum is its durability and resistance to corrosion. Composite materials tend to deteriorate when exposed to bright sun and high temperatures, while many aluminum airframes have been parked outdoors and rained and snowed on for decades, without any significant corrosion. Call me old fashioned, but 'll take durability and toughness over the same level of strength as aluminum or wood, plus inevitable airframe deterioration from near-constant exposure to heat and sunlight any day.
Douglas McIntyre Interesting! My own tests, using S-Glass + Graphite + Kevlar, bonded with Vinylester Resins to Nomex Honeycomb, showed a durability far in excess of what you describe! High impact sharp corner (90 degress x 90 degrees x 90 degrees) damage at a slight 'Pock Mark' around 1/16th inch 'whitening' of the resin surface, which would be the Equivalent of hitting a sharp but heavy broken tree branch! The damage you are describing, does not match my observations around the Quickie, at the shop of the 'Tundra Quickie', either! Actually quite the opposite! Many tools were dropped on that skin, with ZERO visible damage! However, your issues sound a bit more like what might have been seen on the Rutan Built, Around the World on One Tank og Gas, Voyager Airplane, which was built incredibly light, and had the thinest of Fabrics on the Wing Skins, that you Could poke your finger into the thin 1/4" Honeycomb, because of how thin that cloth was!
They really seemed to like those buzz words in their sales pitch. I wish I had $1 for every time they said composite or carbon fiber, like it was some sort of exotic material. Our military uses it? Yeah, so does the dash in my car, and my bicycle.
The price of the plane isn't worth the cost of the stress you'll go through every time you fly it You can't get proper insurance for it, because it's had so many accidents caused by design flaws... insurance companies want nothing to do with this airframe after the deaths A lot of owners are trying to dump their lancair evos now, but that's dropped the prices they'll take just to have this nightmare out of their lives Lancair stopped answering the phones n stopped updating their website for a while there, turned out the company was sold. The lancair Evo series is in trouble to this day, I'm not sure anyone is willing to invest the kind of millions it would take to redesign it to be safe
+sdslim9012 The TPE-331 doesn't install in the nose of an aircraft nearly as neatly as a PT6, it has that giant, goofy exhaust hanging off of the bottom.
Yes, she did say "385 miles per hour," however that was then and this is now: the published specs now state 300 KTAS (300 knots true airspeed) as the maximum cruise speed, and 260 KTAS for "economy cruise." That works out to 345 MPH and 299 MPH respectively.
I watched the video with great enthusiasm and the opening girl was very attractive..... until 6:31 min mark when I saw the whole airplane for the first time...... OMG how ugly it is! turning off the computer now I need some meditation
After an extensive study of comparing serial numbers which appear to be listed as EVO-0001, EVO-0002, etc.... and comparing FAA N numbers on Flightaware which. we all know, tells the truth when it come to ground speed. It seems that this Evolution aircraft is quite slow for an aircraft equipped with a PT6A-135A. Perhaps its wing, which is essentially and enlarged the Lancair Legacy airfoil, and slapping it on a turbine engine was not the best course of action. Before commenting just do your own study Search the FAA and compare those N numbers on flightaware. Remember Flightaware tells the truth.
The Avanti goes 440 mph (at it's highest altitude). It's got just over double the power of the Lancair and carries three times the occupants (and still goes that much faster). But the Avanti is a canard pusher with a good air-foil. It's a twin engine (850 hp each) and both props have a completely clear path for the thrust. The Lacair gets off the ground quick (low stall speed) and that's what makes it slow in cruise speed (for the power and weight). Especially compared to the piston Lankair that has half the power and nearly goes as fast. lol But the Avanti plane takes AGES to get off the ground (like a WW2 Mustang). That's cos The Avanti goes so fast and obviously has a fairly high stall speed.
The Avanti has 3 times the seats, goes 100 mph faster and has two (expensive) gas turbine engines. I thought it would have been much more expensive (like 4 mill). Bizz jets are dearer, cost more in fuel and only another 100 mph faster. The Avanti compares better with a bizz jet that a 4 place piston plane. lol The Avanti has heaps more bang for your buck, than the 4 seater plane (by-a-large-measure).
@Justwantahover, So far you're pretty bad at business math. "Only 100mph faster" is a lot when you're flying x amount further and when you're wanting to climb through a freezing layer with x amount of headwind. I'm supposing you haven't priced replacing turbine wheels on two engines instead of one, etc.. Single engine turbines are the bees knees for many businesses for obvious reasons. Smaller multi turbines like the old or new Beech C-90 models hardly ever make sense over the single engine turbines today.
the 550 evolution with the pt6-21 has 1300nm+ of range with ifr reserves and a 270 kts cruise speed. Burning 28 gph. That's the one I would get. With full fuel you can still carry 820 lbs. its Truley a 4-place plane full fuel. TBM 700 can cruise at 300kts but with about 200lbs less of payload at full fuel and 2x the fuel burn. The Tbm range is only slightly better and if you loaded the planes the same it would actually be worse.
Must be annoying to be a female who gets up in the morning, takes a quick shower and goes to work, ends up being treated to comment after comment regarding her looks. As an old man, on the part of the testosterone-saturated TV brigade everywhere, I apologize to As an old man, I apologize to Chelsea and all who have to put up with unwanted, unsought attention to the superficial. She looks nice. She knows people appreciate that she doesn't look like Rosie O'Donnell. She doesn't need or want to be fawned over for her looks . . . I'm sure she would rather anyone admiring her do so for the fact that in the male dominated world of aviation, that she's the one that's got her hand on the throttle. There's a twinkle in her eye when she talks about controlling 750 horsepower and going 300+ miles per hour. Commenting publicly about whether she wears make-up or not is just plain cheesy. As for Mr. Jeffreys, please stop mis-representing Lancair's accomplishments. Lancair did NOT innovate composite construction and Mr. Neibauer would be the first person to tell you that. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qrwm82HlKiA.html The first plane he built of composite construction was a Rand-Robinson KR-2 - still flying currently in Texas. Ken Rand and his fellow Douglas engineer Stu Robinson were the innovators of wood/foam/fiber construction, creating a sensation at Oshkosh 1972 with their KR-1. Bert Rutan was a close second following closely behind with his VariEze and LongEze composite designs. After building the KR-2 and flying it all around the country winning awards and races everywhere he went, Mr. Neibauer figured he could take the same construction ideas and do something that was roomier, faster, slicker looking, and had his name on it. I'd say he accomplished that goal with flying colors, but please don't completely forget about Ken Rand and Stu Robinson - the fellows who actually did "innovate composite construction . . . Ken Rand especially." That's one nice plane . . . the one with the twin-turbo IO-540 too. The latter will fly from LA to Hawaii just with standard fuel capacity. I'll never own one but I sure wish I did.
I have the same problem. I am an extremely handsome man. Its not easy getting through life with everyone telling me how gorgeous I am. Its just a cross I have to bear. Oh lifes trials.
It's natural... boys are attracted to girls. Get over it. Boys and girls are different. That's not a bad thing. To compliment a lady as being attractive (not merely her looks) should not bother you do this degree.
