$1.3m is to insure an Evolution homebuilt that as 60 units flying. Now imagine insuring your Abbett Flyer Mark 1 with no known history, apple and oranges.

Gerry, blanket statements like I made are not good practice and I shouldn't do that - I apologize. I will simply state that there is an exceptionally high likelihood that an experimental aircraft company which claims they 'comply with Part 23 standards' are in fact not, for a whole host of reasons.



That's very good to hear Gerry - thanks.

Well that is why I brought up the comment about the manufacturing compliance for part 23. I haven't had anyone tell me that they were fully part 23 compliant. Just that they were part 23 compliant from the manufacturing standpoint. Again, this isn't something I know for fact. Just how I perceived what they were telling me.

Gerry, you seem to have a deeper interest than just to satisfy your own needs. As I mentioned, I'm not an expert but I do have relevant experience in the experimental industry and (2) start-up a/c companies.

I'd be more than happy to give you the benefit of my experience and knowledge for whatever it's worth. Shoot me a PM if you're interested in chatting...

Don,

Yes I do have a much greater interest than just satisfying my own needs. I'd like to do something good for GA as a whole. If I thought it were possible to make a single engine turboprop, certify it, and still sell for under $1m then that is what I would do. Unfortunately I don't think that is even remotely possible. For instance, in the experimental market, customers have the option to buy a new engine (roughly $565k for a -42 or -52) or they could buy a good used engine (roughly $150k for a -21). That allows us to give lots of options for our customers and enabling them to dictate their cost much better than a certified airplane would be.

The engine options alone can change a build to be anywhere from $850k with one engine all the way up to $1.3m+ for a new engine and other options. If the plane were certified it would basically allow us to offer only one engine and it would be at new cost, then the cost to certify would bring the sales price up over $2m easy. I would want to get the plane to part 23 compliance as much as possible without adding all of the extra cost it takes to do it through the government.

I'm sure you can see I have a passion for this type of thing. And to anyone here, if there are any moments where I have or will be short with you, please don't take it personally. I sometimes let my passion get the best of me and often want to take back how strong I come on from time to time.

I asked a guy about experimental aircraft and the part 23 claims (he's in the experimental market). This is what he had to say:

"Part 23 compliant means that the aircraft has been evaluated to FAR Part 23 flight characteristics, etc. and meets these regulations. This is far different from getting the FAA involved and establishing a certification number and going through the certification process. It does mean that if you had a "conforming" aircraft and conducted these tests; the aircraft would pass. "conforming" means that the aircraft has been built to the documentation and witnessed by an FAA DER or an FAA official."

"From what I understand Cirrus originally had listed a 12,000 hour life limit to the SR22 airframe. According to some people I spoke to recently (mechanics), their most recent documents showed that they lifted that limit. The reason there is a life limit on airframes is because metal loses tensile strength over time. Carbon fiber can bend and flex a million times and will not lose strength."

My understanding is that life limits are required for everything certified under the current FAR 23. Also, Cirrus says (cf. Klapmeier, last week) that the FAA won't let that life be any higher than 12,000 hours to start with no matter what it's made of. This was in reference to their Vision jet, which is all carbon and pressurized like the Evo.

The FAA and the government in general likes to broad stroke rules (one size fits all mentality). So if they have a life limit of 12,000 hours I have a feeling that a big part of that is because when the rule was made 95% of GA airplanes were being made out of aluminum. However, there is a big telling statement in what he said. Yes, they set a life limit to start with, but I know for a fact that it can be increased, and if it can be increased then it can probably be removed all together (although I admit that is probably unlikely given how the FAA works).

I would like to add to the discussion about structural testing and certification.

The experimental safety record is not as good as certified, but that number is not quantified well. Only as of the last year the faa and eaa have started to collect surveys and data from experimental owners to get an idea on utilization and how many hours the experimental fleet flys to compare to normal ga aircraft. The data that has been collected and sorted through by the experimental organizations and the NTSB shows that the build and design of these aircraft are not the cause of fatal accidents. The largest causes are engine failures, fuel system design/build, and pilot training, with training being the largest category. To my knowledge, structural failure is very rare in experimentals and usually only results from a builder redesigning the plane on his own and not following the factories instructions. The lancair community has done tons of research and outreach to bring the accident rate down and none of it has to do with the structure or build of the plane. It is almost always the lack of pilot training and proficiency. Where part 23 comes into play with the lancair is that it stalls at a much faster speed and has a critical wing, which would never pass part 23 certification. That does not make the plane unsafe, only that people jumping from a part 23 C172 do not understand what they are getting into with a plane that flys more like a jet than a single engine piston.

When it comes to engine failures and fuel starvation, the certified GA and experimental world are about on par. People keep running out of gas and flying aircraft into the ground in bad weather equally.

My biggest complaint with the evo and lancair IV p is that the aircraft is very capable but without FIKI. I own a lancair 360 and fly everything up to jets. I would not think of flying a IV P or evo in the flight levels routinely without FIKI. As much as I love the performance of the evo & IVp, I do not think it belongs in the flight levels in weather. So If I were to spend a million plus for a traveling machine, I would want the capabilities of an all weather aircraft and the experimental world can never be certified for FIKI because they are not certified and could not be.

That is a very odd comment to make. You just made an argument for the kit market from a structure standpoint. Basically saying that the perception of a kit being unsafe structurally is incorrect since they aren't part 23 certified. Yet you won't fly one unless it has FIKI, even though FIKI is impossible on a kit plane because you cannot have FIKI on a non part 23 aircraft. Even if the system is exactly the same as a certified plane. Aren't you making the exact same argument against not having FIKI certified that people are making against the plane not being part 23 certified??

Also, for the record, the IV P and other Lancair planes do have a high stall speed. The Evo however stalls at 61 KIAS just like certified airplanes, which is why they try to claim part 23 flight characteristics.

You are correct that I am stating the same argument for part 23 and FIKI. It is possible to have the equivalent equipment to be FIKI on an experimental, but since it is not certified it can never legally fly in known ice. In our current regulatory state an experimental will never be FIKI certified, so it does not matter how much equipment testing is done, if it is not certified you can not go in ice. I'm not saying the experimental market could not build and test the equipment to do it, but as it has been mentioned earlier it is very time consuming and expensive.

Why I said I would not fly the IVp or evo in the flight levels is because they do not have the equipment capability or certification to do so in an all weather environment. Once you get into the flight levels with very cold temperatures and weather, the aircraft needs to have the equipment to deal with that.

The eclipse had the same issue when it was certified without FIKI or GPS or a working weather radar. Even though it could fly in the flight levels, the pilots could not fly into a cloud. A couple friends of mine used to fly those early eclipses for dayjet and would tell me horror stories of trying to fly that plane up there without the equipment.

Well yes, that is a lot of equipment to not have and try to fly a jet that high. I fly my Bo in the flight levels all of the time and the only thing I have is prop heat. I don't have TKS or anything else and have never had issues. I've put on over 200 hrs a year. If there is a lot of weather then yes, I agree that you shouldn't fly those planes up there, but it's not like weather is such an issue that you can never go anywhere.

Just curious, but what were you referring to by saying that the Evo doesn't have the equipment to fly in the FL? From my understanding the Evo has just as much equipment or more than my Bo.

What I originally said is that for a million dollar plus airplane, I would not "routinely" fly in the flight levels without all weather capability. What I'm getting at is that if you can send a million plus and want an all weather capable aircraft, there are many other options, and I think others here have hit on that subject before.

Any airplane which can match the Lancair Evolution in performance costs a lot more to own/operate then the Evolution. And this has been beat to death already.

Lastly, the known ice issue is a real vague area. There are many experimental aircraft which fly in "known" icing conditions. The real question is what are the limitations the FSDO will place on the aircraft.

Tim

But that's the point, the "rest of the package" is the problem. It's a quantum leap over the expense of a piston. You're used to it so you don't see it as a problem. Like a lot of people, I'd like a step up from a Cirrus-class airplane, and would expect to pay more for it, but proportionally more, not the order of magnitude more that certified turbines, even used ones, demand.

For those intrigued by the Evolution but want cabin class and more seats, consider the Epic Escape, a 92% (??) scale of the LT, which makes it similar in size to the Evolution (within a foot in span, length and height). One was built with a TPE-331 but came out with a CG issue. China got the rights in the bankruptcy and it's now on their website as the Primus 150 w/ a GE engine of 850 hp, lighter than a PT6, better sfc and cheaper lifecycle costs. First flight this year, they claim. AFAIK, China got the certified production rights but the current Epic retained the kit rights to all the designs.