Surely RDD have the same incentive to shave consumption as Lancair or Epic? (I've just noticed the 135's fuel consumption (and speed) on descent is higher than in cruise, but that's a minor problem.)

If we stick with your numbers for consumption but give the Evo-135 your capacity, nothing substantial changes from my previous analysis: you edge out the Epic on range with 45 min reserve, rather than vice versa, the Epic covers the ground marginally faster than you but would eat into its reserve. The Evo-135 would be noticeably slower and have seven minutes more reserve.

The conclusions aren't changed. All three have roughly the same range at their top speeds. The Epic is slightly faster than your Evo-42, which is noticeably faster than the Evo-135.

40 gph is probably hopeful for the Epic even with fuel dialed back to 265 kts. But with nearly 100 gallons more fuel, its still-air range is likely substantially greater at lower speeds than either Evo.

Adding headwinds might swing the ultimate range advantage back to your Evo-42. Say the Epic driver is matching your speed, burning more yet relying on the Epic's extra fuel capacity. A head wind will mean both airplanes take longer. The Epic is burning more per hour so the headwind will cost it more fuel than Evo-42.

I'm convinced. If six seats are necessary, there's no contest. Otherwise there is a contest, but it's very much in your favor. You have to really want long range. If so and you're prepared to sacrifice speed AND buy much more fuel then maybe the Epic will give you better range unless there are howling headwinds. ANd winds often howl, I'm told, where turboprops fly.

Ashley

Surely RDD have the same incentive to shave consumption as Lancair or Epic? (I've just noticed the 135's fuel consumption (and speed) on descent is higher than in cruise, but that's a minor problem.)

If we stick with your numbers for consumption but give the Evo-135 your capacity, nothing substantial changes from my previous analysis: you edge out the Epic on range with 45 min reserve, rather than vice versa, the Epic covers the ground marginally faster than you but would eat into its reserve. The Evo-135 would be noticeably slower and have seven minutes more reserve.

The conclusions aren't changed. All three have roughly the same range at their top speeds. The Epic is slightly faster than your Evo-42, which is noticeably faster than the Evo-135.

40 gph is probably hopeful for the Epic even with fuel dialed back to 265 kts. But with nearly 100 gallons more fuel, its still-air range is likely substantially greater at lower speeds than either Evo.

Adding headwinds might swing the ultimate range advantage back to your Evo-42. Say the Epic driver is matching your speed, burning more yet relying on the Epic's extra fuel capacity. A head wind will mean both airplanes take longer. The Epic is burning more per hour so the headwind will cost it more fuel than Evo-42.

I'm convinced. If six seats are necessary, there's no contest. Otherwise there is a contest, but it's very much in your favor. You have to really want long range. If so and you're prepared to sacrifice speed AND buy much more fuel then maybe the Epic will give you better range unless there are howling headwinds. ANd winds often howl, I'm told, where turboprops fly.

Ashley

I agree wholeheartedly. Much better than simply looking at cruise speed, fuel rate and capacity. It brings home the 28 kt increase in cruise from the EVO-135 to 42 buys 20 mins on an 1100 mile flight, but increasing the speed another 19 kts nets only 5 mins.

Ashley

I agree wholeheartedly. Much better than simply looking at cruise speed, fuel rate and capacity. It brings home the 28 kt increase in cruise from the EVO-135 to 42 buys 20 mins on an 1100 mile flight, but increasing the speed another 19 kts nets only 5 mins.

Ashley

Now do it in a 125 knot winter headwind.

One advantage of the jet is that it goes high enough to often see reductions in wind speed.

Right now, over MO, 125 knots at FL300, 65 knots at FL390.

As the winds pick up, the speed and altitude difference becomes more significant.

Mike C.

Now do it in a 125 knot winter headwind.

One advantage of the jet is that it goes high enough to often see reductions in wind speed.

Right now, over MO, 125 knots at FL300, 65 knots at FL390.

As the winds pick up, the speed and altitude difference becomes more significant.

Mike C.

Here are some updated progress pics.

Holy cow, it even LOOKS fast!!!

One awesome looking machine!

I have a trip set to head out to Oregon and do the airworthiness check on Monday. Looking forward to seeing the plane. Seems like it's been a while, especially since I haven't seen the paint job in person yet.

Wow! What's the test-fly plan?

Gerry,
Your plane looks great. You're going to love her. Paint and instrument panel are to die for!! Thanks for sharing your build experiences here. I've thought of building one. Couldn't fly AF or VAC missions in an experimental so for now I'm where I'm going to be.

Commenting on winds at altitude, where your lowest fuel consumption is, they are almost always howling in the winter. Welcome to the world turboprops live in. Many of my flights are east/west. A 950nm flight basically requires a fuel stop going west in the winter. The two legs are usually about 4:15-4:30 in the air. Same flight East most of the time is 3:15. No stops. FL 280 and FL 270. Flying lower like you mention is possible in a TBM but usually that would be in the clouds where the inertial separator is engaged which robs power and speed. Sometimes lots of ice too. So most of us live up high and enjoy the sun.

I never land in the mountains IMC without 100gallons+, which is ~1.65 hours. VMC my minimum is 60 gallons, 1 hour. My first year flying the TBM I never once landed with less than 100 gallons. Yes I'm careful and conservative. Please get acquainted with your plane and its fuel usage down low shooting approaches and traveling to an alternate. Numbers as you know are much different than a piston. BWTHDIK

I believe test flights will begin about a week or two after the sign off. Maybe even sooner. Hopefully I'll be bringing her home sometime early March.

Thanks for the advice. I do have 450 hours of turboprop time as well as having ridden in my brothers TBM and now PC-12NG. I'm quite familiar with the winds aloft issues as well as added fuel usage down low. I agree 100% that you need to be intimately familiar with fuel usage at lower altitudes. I rarely fly direct east/west directions so headwinds aren't typically that big of an issue for me however in my area they sometimes sweep north/south pretty strong from time to time.

I'm curious about your flight time that you stated going westbound on a 950nm trip. Did I read right that it took you 8 hours and 45 min total time? That would only be 108kts ground speed. I've never seen headwinds that bad. Wouldn't that be roughly 160kt+ headwinds to make you go that slow? Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. Could you elaborate for me please? What was your TAS and fuel burn? Thanks.

Sorry for the confusion. Frequently have 100+ Kt headwinds. This Tuesday HW averaged 91kts for the trip. 4:38ish total trip time, one stop.

TBM can slow down and make a trip slower. Did that one day last summer. Didn't want to stop and pulled power back and with an average 38kt HW made it non stop in 4:36. Had 62 gallons on landing VMC. Wife three full size dogs and luggage.

Youll have fun! I'm sure about that.