Yeah but up high you would see 220 or so TAS. Still not worth 1.5 mill.

Yeah but up high you would see 220 or so TAS. Still not worth 1.5 mill.

I think it's a great idea. I think it's something a lot of people would be interested in. Did they have to make it so ugly? I couldn't buy that.

I just looked at it again to see what Jason was talking about - I must have been confusing it with another aircraft. Why didn't they blend the wing in? That IS ugly.

I'm ok with the speed and fuel burn. It's probably faster than my Bo on the same amount of fuel. I think there's a big market for a plane with these specs.

But it's a new design. Why not go ahead and at least give it some sex appeal?

For some reason I am not buying that those little tiny wheels make it a good grass strip airplane.

Whenever I see a high wing retractable, I think of the additional ordinary maintenance...the crazy jacks to swing the gear...then the gear never seems like it could be sturdy enough, either.

Well I just flew it.

They are at Hobby today and I emailed about taking a look at it. They said they had a slot in the morning so I went out there (I just got home). I went up and did a demo flight...just me and the demo pilot. I did all the flying. It was fun. I'll share some more details but have to do a little work right now - damn job.

oh, Jason and other Atlanta folks, they are going to Atlanta tomorrow for a few days. He said they've got a demo slot free....it's a fun flight, if you've got time it's worth it for the experience. I'll give you the guys name/number if you want.

If I wasn't flying to MDW in the morning I'd do it.

i think he's doing demo flights on saturday too. i'm not sure what slot he had free (either tomorrow or saturday?). in any event, it's an interesting plane. i'll try to describe flying it and my impressions shortly.

Just depends how sturdy you make the gear:

http://www.wallpapers-free.org/wallpape ... master.jpg

+ Turbo Commanders.........especially with -10's.

The gear reminds me of the "Quest Venture" or something like that, very close together and complicated. It was two place shaped like a bubble bee and very fast. my guess is that if you took all the specs, speed, range, pressure, a/c, ff, of this airplane and put it into a big G36 for 1.5mil you guys would be loving it. but as is, it's ugly and the gear is scary!

http://x32.com/2009_thunderbirds/2009_06_06/F-16-01.jpg

The gear reminds me of the -16's.

PIREP


Initial impressions
were good as I walked around the airplane and stepped into her. Definitely roomy in the club arrangement and decent baggage space behind the rear most seats. It's a bit of a squeeze walking up to the cockpit, but there's good headroom and it's easier than in the meridian/malibu fuselage.

cockpit
Up front it took some up/down back/front movement of the seat before it felt right. I was able to get comfortable and it felt good, but I bet a really big guy could be driven nuts up there. Probably not a good airplane for the guy over 6'2" or so, or really large - but what airplane is?

The demo plane had a 2 screen avidyne R9 set-up. Fuel and engine instrumentation gauges were not integrated, instead they were analog and scattered left and right. They said this will be fixed and that they will be displayed on the flat panels. There will also be an option for a 3 display set-up. Someone made a boneheaded decision to put the keypad for the R9 system mounted on the pilot's yoke. It's a terrible arrangement, and they say they are going to move it down the the pedestal (good idea).

flying
Starting the engine was delightful. Nothing like turbines spooling up and hearing the unique whine of the small allison. Taxiing was easy enough, but at the idle stop you got cooking so lifting the thrust lever over the gate and pulling into beta helps slow down. Pushing up the power on the takeoff roll is also a smooth affair. The thrust lever handle is a little wimpy; kind of a finger thing instead of the better fist thing. But along she goes and doesn't use much runway. rotation and climb out are normal and I really have no memory that stands out. really very easy and simple, didn't take very much rudder at all after rotation, and she is a good performer. Oh, you have to keep retarding the power to keep the ITT below it's 750 deg limit (IIRC).

Houston tracon held us at 3000 for a little bit, then up to 8000 for the demo. It was a typical hot day but the A/C worked well. Scattered clouds that we were soon on top of and then it was all about flying. Did steep turns, climbing turns, descending turns, straight and level. The airplane flies well by hand, but perhaps a little heavy on the controls. Ok, forget the perhaps. This is an airplane that takes a meat fist to push around. But, having said that, when you put her in a turn, she stays in the turn - pretty nicely designed that way. I tried it in all directions, and man you set up, say, a 20 deg bank and let go and she just stays there. Also, it felt very stable and was a nice ride in the bumpy Houston skies.

we did a little cruise demo, but really didn't have time to set it up properly. However, down low at 8k we were TAS around 190 and fuel burn of 24 gph IIRC. They say you can true out up high at 210 TAS right around 21 GPH. From what I observed I certainly believe it will do that.... Now this is where the airplane really shines and why I think it will succeed in the market. True, 210 kts is no speed demon for a turbine...but 21 gph makes for truly great economics. I know, it doesn't have much of anything on you TC/TN A36 guys wrt speed and fuel flow, but it does have a turbine engine, cabin class, A/C and most importantly pressurization. It is an extremely economical turboprop.


Approach and landing
Well this was a little different. It felt like a turtle. It has a lot of flap area and in the pattern she just really slows down. Felt like we were crawling on our long right base to 12R at HOU. The demo pilot (who was a heck of a good guy), told me the speeds to hit and it was pretty easy to hit them. Can't remember them all, but over the fence was 80 kts and it was easy to nail it. The whole approach felt like a 172 to me as compared to my P baron. Then there's the landing and this was WAY different. It would take some getting used to. You land it more like a jet than you do a bonanza. There's really no flare, just establish your approach speed and descent rate and take that to the concrete. weird for me. I guess there's a little back pressure before touchdown, but I overdid it like everyone else does the first time (he tells me).


Well that's it. at 1.7 Million it fits in a unique place in the market and I think it will appeal as both a step-up airplane (from something like a new bonanza) and a step-down airplane (from something like an old cheyenne). I guess a lot of guys think it's ugly. I don't personally, I think it's kind of sleek looking. I like it, but I also like the Avanti look. But really I'm a traditionalist as the ultimate beauty to me is the Duke and the King Air 200. Anyway, I give the EA-500 a good review.
Economics: A+
Looks: B
Flying qualities: C (but I hardly hand-fly anymore it seems)
Performance: B-
Mission capability: A
Avionics: A (once fixes are complete)
dispatch reliability, support: ?? (we shall see)