The Cirrus SR22 G5 airframe uses more carbon fiber than the previous G3 which created an allowance for 200 lb gross weight increase. The Evolution is practically 100% carbon fiber and it is a pressurized airframe with a cabin pressure differential of 6.5psi, which provides an 8000 ft. cabin altitude at FL280.

Standing next to the two airframes, you can easily see the Evolution is much larger and more robust.

This is my point exactly. They are way too expensive for a non certified airplane. I don't care about cabin class, but if I'm not getting that and it's not certified, then the cost needs to reflect that.

You cant take an Epic out of the country? Didn't know that.

When I priced it a few years ago, you can do it for under a million. But then you have a lot of labor into the plane, and also would be using a used PT6 which has about 1000 hours left on it. If I could have afforded the plane, I was going to look to replace the PT6 with another used one from converted KAs which were much cheaper then new.

Tim

I said it could be done. Not that I would do it!

Tim

Its very complicated to fly an homebuilt out of the country. Basically you would need an approval from every country you visit. Then try to insure your $1.3m turbine homebuilt aircraft after you spent the last 2 years of your life to build it.






You cant take an Epic out of the country? Didn't know that.

Its very complicated to fly an homebuilt out of the country. Basically you would need an approval from every country you visit. Then try to insure your $1.3m turbine homebuilt aircraft after you spent the last 2 years of your life to build it.

Bahamas, Mexico etc. is "out of the country". I fly down there all the time.

It's not about performance. It's about "can you sell it". Nobody buying an airplane wants to so severely limit their options.

Also, "Lancair has been selling planes for years" doesn't mean much. How profitable is the company? I never see homebuilt planes on the ramp.

I too wish I could tinker with my plane as if it were a homebuilt.

I think there are less people that fly out of the country than there are that buy home built airplanes.

And as I stated before, the hope would be to eventually bring the plane to certified status.

I'm doing a lot of research on this right now. It would be awesome if it could be brought to market in the mid $800k range with relatively basic avionics (basic as in modern but not a G900X) and options to go up from there.

I have been looking at the Evolution for a few years now. Just an incredible airplane from design, construction and performance. I was not aware that Lancair would would even sell someone a complete kit without utilizing the professional builder assist.
The option that really looks attractive to me is the piston version. This uses a Lycoming TEO-540 iE2 (350 hp with twin turbo-normalizing and electronic ignition). I saw a prototype 3-4 years ago and it seemed the perfect airplane (for me). 240 knts, pressurized with 8+ hours of endurance. For ice protection, there is an electro-thermal system that is supposed to be very effective and well suited for this aircraft (Kelly Aerospace - Thermawing system).
I have had several conversations with the salesman and he recently told me that a piston version is being built now and will be on display at Sun-N-Fun. Looking forward to seeing it!

Just curious, but why a piston and not a PT6-21? You'd get better speeds with the -21 and a much better reliability record.

From what I understand the -21 can be bought quite cheap.

There are folks putting cheaper motors on these.

Apparently someone in Russia bought one and wanted to put a PT6A-20 on it. I worked with Lancair/Garmin on the getting the right parameters into the G1000 engine gauge ranges for the -20.

Why one would buy an airplane of this price and saddle it with a -20 is beyond me, but that's another conversation.

So yes, I don't see why one couldn't install a -21/-28/-34 engine if they wanted too.

For my mission a high performance piston has more utility. While I occasionally fly 1000 nautical mile trips, many of my flights are 250 nautical miles or less. A turbine seems to excel when flown in the flight levels but not an ideal choice for the 150 nautical mile flight. While I understand that the turbine can certainly do that trip, I'm led to believe that it isn't efficient in that role. Additionally, frequent flights of this nature may result in higher turbine maintenance.

There was an article written a few years back in AOPA magazine about flying a turbine Evolution and a piston Evolution from Oregon to OshKosh. While the turbine was 80+ knots faster! it had to stop for fuel. The piston version had the endurance to make the trip non- stop. Block to block, the piston was faster

Now if a high performance turbo-normalized diesel with 350-400 hp became an option, that would really sharpen my interest.

Hello Folks,
I have kit # 40 and I can tell you a bit of my experience. I had been following the proyect since when Lancair presented the turbine demo in Reno in 2008. It was originally marketed as a 320 kt airplane. When I found out about the firewall forward kit from Aerotek I decided to buy the kit since I had done research and the 135´s and 135A were or are doing almost 290 kts at max ITT, etc. and the -42 firewall kit is an advance in technical aspects vs. Lancair FW kit. designed by a former Lancair engineer * which I heard he won the dispute with Lancair about propietary rights
As it was clearly mentioned here Lancair took my decision to go with the "other" company terribly. They canceled my GFC-700 delivery and this delayed my proyect quite a bit (more than a year!). I had made the decision to sell it before taking delivery because of my frustration. I took the training so I could experience the performance in the Evo on primer / no paint & interior. I can tell you this: It flies like nothing in the market! it climbs at +4000 fpm, stalls at 61 kts with a very docile stall, can fly pressurized up to FL 28 easlily burning +/-35 GPH and cruising 280 kts and with the -42 can go up to the speed that Lancair originally promised (with a lot more fuel burn of course!). It feels SOLID in turbulence. Once I flew the airplane all my headaches with Lancair were forgotten. I had to go with the Trutrak Sorcerer which does about everything the GFC does except with one or two more pushing buttons.
I don´t agree with the current management of the company. They could be selling a lot more kits if they would let customers choose their avionics, engine, etc. * a Garming 600 can reduce the costs dramatically. Also I would go over an overhauled -21 than any piston engine. This could put you in below the $ 1 m mark. Recent kit serial #´s will get you most of the squawks already worked out.
Options on de-ice: Lancair has now come up with a pneumatic boots with a most probable speed penalty. Also the RDD system from Kelly aerospace. * Also a slight speed penalty.
Weather: No radar which for me flying in Mexico could be a problem since there is no satellite WX. I decided to install the Avidyne TWX tactical weather detection system. Hopefully it will do the job.
Downsides: Insurance is quite expensive but easily insurable with training. Fleet is having an excellent record vs the IV´s which have a terrible stalling manners. This should reduce insurance costs....
Hoping to finally get delivery on the completed Evo mid January...can tell you more by then!

Cheers to All & happy holidays-

I looked at both the Epic and the Evolution fairly carefully last year at OSH (after visiting where my money was actually going at the Cirrus exhibit ). I was much more impressed with the Epic. They are both in the same ball park more or less in terms of cost. But the Epic was roomier and easier to get in and out of for the pilot. The cockpit on the Epic was better too IMO.

At Epic they have an owner assist program that probably skates right at the edge of legal but I suspect that that is how all the planes get built. They probably have the same deal at Evolution but without checking me for a wire they wouldn't talk about it. Epic plans a certified version of their plane in the next couple of years I think.

The construction quality of what you could see on both planes looked excellent. But, as you know, it's what you can't see that counts. I spoke to owners of both airplanes (a couple each) and heard nothing but rave reviews. But, I was also at the manufacturers display…

My conclusion was that for the money I'd buy a used TBM.