ugh, that's ugly, no thanks

agree with Gerry, fly around, or land and wait it out-

That looks like a Bonanza tip tank... No thanks.

They put a TPE-331-6 on a Lancair IV-P, the -10 would just be overkill.

What did the -6 make the IV-P do? If I'm not mistaken the -6 is ~750hp and the -10 is ~950hp no? I think the -10 would be about right. I once considered a PT6-50 for my Evo.

This site
http://www.innovativewings.com/lancair-iv-turbine/
says a IV-P with a -6 will do "320+" knots. It gives the -6 as 840 hp. but that's the thermo rating, the gearbox limit is 750 hp. Not as much as I expected for so much power in such a small airframe, looks like it's well into the area of diminishing returns.

That said, I talked to a guy who's built probably more IVs with the -6 than anyone, 6 of them. He said the response to power changes is noticeably more abrupt than a free turbine Walter or Pratt and it makes the IV, designed for less than half that power, into a handful. The Evo should be much better able to handle it. He also pointed out that a -12 is the same size and weight as a -10 with more power yet.

Good summary of the TPE331 models and development here.
http://eamaz.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... lution.pdf

This site
http://www.innovativewings.com/lancair-iv-turbine/
says a IV-P with a -6 will do "320+" knots. It gives the -6 as 840 hp. but that's the thermo rating, the gearbox limit is 750 hp. Not as much as I expected for so much power in such a small airframe, looks like it's well into the area of diminishing returns.

That said, I talked to a guy who's built probably more IVs with the -6 than anyone, 6 of them. He said the response to power changes is noticeably more abrupt than a free turbine Walter or Pratt and it makes the IV, designed for less than half that power, into a handful. The Evo should be much better able to handle it. He also pointed out that a -12 is the same size and weight as a -10 with more power yet.

Good summary of the TPE331 models and development here.
http://eamaz.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... lution.pdf

Just posted on the EAC FB page. At FL 240, 250 knots true. Though it doesn't show the fuel flow or CHT.

That's about what was expected. Cooler days that should be about what it tops out at. Warmer days probably about 240 tas.

This document from the Evolution Aircraft website implies that the piston EVOP-350 is limited to 25,000 feet, where the cabin altitude is 9,000 feet. Perhaps there isn't enough bleed air from the turbos to attain full psi?

The tables have some oddities. In the first section the P-350's "Econ" cruise burns more GPH to go slower than "Normal" cruise, 215@28 vs. 230@24. Got to be a typo in there somewhere. The two later tables both show the "Econ" as 200@18, while the first table's "Max" cruise figure of 242@29 disappears, what used to be the "Normal" cruise of 230@24 becomes "Max" cruise.

The second table's labeling is confusing but I think it shows the range calculations. Time, distance and fuel burned in a climb to 25,000 feet, then cruise until the fuel runs out, subtract something (?) from that for "w/ IFR reserves", last column should be NM/gal rather than G/NM. But again, there are some oddities in the P-350's numbers. At "Econ Cruise" it climbs 20% faster (1200 fpm vs. 1000 fpm) than "MAX Cruise" at the same fuel burn and forward speed? How does that work?

The data for the turbine models, even the new ones, all seem consistent, while the piston model still seems to be more unsettled.

Definitely strange. I'd love to know what they are referring to as "max" cruise and "normal" cruise on the turboprops. Is max cruise at redline? Why even list such a thing if that's the case? It's deceiving because nobody would ever fly there.

Their fuel burn numbers are optimistic as well having a -135 is getting 290kts on 35gph, likewise with the -140ag going 305 on 38. Not impossible, but not the norm.

They put a TPE-331-6 on a Lancair IV-P, the -10 would just be overkill.

Did anyone see the LX-7 at Oshkosh? Seems like the plane performed even better than they were expecting.

How does the depreciation of an experimental like the Evo compare to a certified plane, assuming the Evo was built using a factory recommended builder assist program?

If you're throwing away 90% of your capital in the purchase, it looks a lot more expensive than a certified turboprop, even a more expensive one.

It appears like some certified SETP's, such as the Pilatus, hold their value well.

No chance of that. There are 6 Evos for sale on Controller right now; 5 of them between $1.1 and $1.4 mil, which is typical. Since they didn't cost anywhere near $11 - $14 million to build, there's no chance that they depreciated by "90%".

The sixth one is newly listed at $799K, by far the lowest price I've ever seen for one. A fairly early serial number (#18) and somewhat high time (1100 hours) but nicely equipped (de-ice, ADS-B) and updated. I wonder what the story is there.