No doubt. The Evo is super expensive for what you get. But you need to compare "new to new" to get the whole story. Yes, I'd take a certified plane the Evo also. But I don't think it'll be that way forever.

Exactly Correct! Calling an amateur built experimental an amateur built experimental is clearly ridiculous.

Now if anyone responds to this post and calls me Eric it will clearly demonstrate the poster's lack of credibility.

You are correct, and it is likely due to the amount of power. With that said, even before we knew that reduced power was SOP, people were commenting about how the control surfaces "looked small". My beef is people saying the control surfaces look too small on the basis of a photograph alone.

Why? The surface can't be large aerodynamically and yet be small visually.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to see an 850 HP airplane, see the rudder, and think it is too small.

The human mind has a pretty good sense of when things don't "look right".

Mike C.

Not sure my visual rudder sense is either good or accurate. I still think that the Aerostar rudder looks too small every time I see one.

Why 2 place? Isn't it a genuine 4 place?

Ashley

Why 2 place? Isn't it a genuine 4 place?

Ashley

4 seats and 800 lbs payload is what I have read.
Ashley

I expect you are right Ashley.

Exactly, the TMB 850 has an engine capable of producing about 1800HP installed but they limit the plane to 700HP on takeoff and 850HP in other operations.

Similarly, the Evolution has an engine installed that is capable of producing 1100HP (very similar to a -45), but Pratt limits the gearbox to 850HP (in the -41 and -42) and builders are further derating the engine to around 550HP to match the airframe requirements. Heavy derating is the key to high altitude engine performance.

First let me say I like this plane. If I had a mission specific purpose, I might own one.

The down side side is you have to enter over the wing. Its a very high wing. This plane did not have seats in the rear but if it did there would be no room for any luggage. None.

I think the baggage compartment is adequate. Its also inside the pressure bulkhead which is nice step up from the IVP. This is a shot with the back seats in... Id be happy with it

Wouldn't it be a pretty easy solution to link the available HP of the engine to the airspeed indicator?

So, for example, full throttle at 0 KIAS = 400 HP for takeoff (or whatever the rudder can handle). Full throttle at 200 KIAS = 850 HP for high altitude cruise. Properly limited that way, it seems like you could have a stable aircraft with enough HP to go really fast, but still be relatively idiot-proof at low speeds. And piloting should involve putting the lever forward and leaving it there until time for descent.

In the modern day of FADEC engines and fly-by-wire, that should be possible.

Just thinking out loud here. I have no engineering degrees or aircraft design experience. But I would want that feature if I owned an airframe capable of rolling itself with engine torque.

Until you get a pitotstatic blockage....

You would need some serious redundancy/complexity to get that certified. I'm just not seeing transport category-type redundancy and fly-by-wire being used in this category of airplane for a while. Heck, the is there even a civilian fixed wing installation for a fadec PT6B yet? Everything seems to stick with the PT6A.

And at the end of the day, it's a problem, but is it a big enough one to offset the increased complexity/cost? If a SETP with those features costs as much as a jet with those features, most people are just going to buy the jet for greater mission cabability.

There is a large baggage area aft of the rear seats with a separate baggage door aft of the 2nd row of seats on the right side. Nice amount of baggage area, though not quite A36 space. I looked at these quite a while at OSH and was satisfied with the baggage space in addition to 4 seats.

I am just going to have to work much $$$ harder to justify one of these over my miserly A36TN.