banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 12:48 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 13:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6058
Post Likes: +4629
ugh, that's ugly, no thanks

agree with Gerry, fly around, or land and wait it out-


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 16:27 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1611
Post Likes: +272
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Username Protected wrote:
A radar pod for the Evo is in development. Pics from the factory.

That looks like a Bonanza tip tank... No thanks.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 02 May 2017, 23:08 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6715
Post Likes: +7251
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
Has anyone looked at putting a Garrett -10 on the front of the Evolution?


They put a TPE-331-6 on a Lancair IV-P, the -10 would just be overkill.

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 07 May 2017, 08:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1611
Post Likes: +272
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
What did the -6 make the IV-P do? If I'm not mistaken the -6 is ~750hp and the -10 is ~950hp no? I think the -10 would be about right. I once considered a PT6-50 for my Evo.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 07 May 2017, 13:48 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2572
Post Likes: +2329
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
Username Protected wrote:
What did the -6 make the IV-P do? If I'm not mistaken the -6 is ~750hp and the -10 is ~950hp no? I think the -10 would be about right.
This site
http://www.innovativewings.com/lancair-iv-turbine/
says a IV-P with a -6 will do "320+" knots. It gives the -6 as 840 hp. but that's the thermo rating, the gearbox limit is 750 hp. Not as much as I expected for so much power in such a small airframe, looks like it's well into the area of diminishing returns.

That said, I talked to a guy who's built probably more IVs with the -6 than anyone, 6 of them. He said the response to power changes is noticeably more abrupt than a free turbine Walter or Pratt and it makes the IV, designed for less than half that power, into a handful. The Evo should be much better able to handle it. He also pointed out that a -12 is the same size and weight as a -10 with more power yet.

Good summary of the TPE331 models and development here.
http://eamaz.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... lution.pdf


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 08 May 2017, 08:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1611
Post Likes: +272
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Username Protected wrote:
What did the -6 make the IV-P do? If I'm not mistaken the -6 is ~750hp and the -10 is ~950hp no? I think the -10 would be about right.
This site
http://www.innovativewings.com/lancair-iv-turbine/
says a IV-P with a -6 will do "320+" knots. It gives the -6 as 840 hp. but that's the thermo rating, the gearbox limit is 750 hp. Not as much as I expected for so much power in such a small airframe, looks like it's well into the area of diminishing returns.

That said, I talked to a guy who's built probably more IVs with the -6 than anyone, 6 of them. He said the response to power changes is noticeably more abrupt than a free turbine Walter or Pratt and it makes the IV, designed for less than half that power, into a handful. The Evo should be much better able to handle it. He also pointed out that a -12 is the same size and weight as a -10 with more power yet.

Good summary of the TPE331 models and development here.
http://eamaz.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... lution.pdf



That's a pretty low thermo rating for the -6. If I'm not mistaken, the -135A is in the mid 900 thermo hp range. So a -6 would be a step down from the -135A. I didn't see the thermo rating for the -10, but it makes me wonder if the -42A isn't similar in thermodynamic power.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 10 May 2017, 01:02 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2572
Post Likes: +2329
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
Just posted on the EAC FB page. At FL 240, 250 knots true. Though it doesn't show the fuel flow or CHT.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 10 May 2017, 07:15 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1611
Post Likes: +272
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
That's about what was expected. Cooler days that should be about what it tops out at. Warmer days probably about 240 tas.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 13 May 2017, 00:21 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2572
Post Likes: +2329
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
This document from the Evolution Aircraft website implies that the piston EVOP-350 is limited to 25,000 feet, where the cabin altitude is 9,000 feet. Perhaps there isn't enough bleed air from the turbos to attain full psi?

The tables have some oddities. In the first section the P-350's "Econ" cruise burns more GPH to go slower than "Normal" cruise, 215@28 vs. 230@24. Got to be a typo in there somewhere. The two later tables both show the "Econ" as 200@18, while the first table's "Max" cruise figure of 242@29 disappears, what used to be the "Normal" cruise of 230@24 becomes "Max" cruise.

The second table's labeling is confusing but I think it shows the range calculations. Time, distance and fuel burned in a climb to 25,000 feet, then cruise until the fuel runs out, subtract something (?) from that for "w/ IFR reserves", last column should be NM/gal rather than G/NM. But again, there are some oddities in the P-350's numbers. At "Econ Cruise" it climbs 20% faster (1200 fpm vs. 1000 fpm) than "MAX Cruise" at the same fuel burn and forward speed? How does that work?

The data for the turbine models, even the new ones, all seem consistent, while the piston model still seems to be more unsettled.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 13 May 2017, 08:27 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1611
Post Likes: +272
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Definitely strange. I'd love to know what they are referring to as "max" cruise and "normal" cruise on the turboprops. Is max cruise at redline? Why even list such a thing if that's the case? It's deceiving because nobody would ever fly there.

Their fuel burn numbers are optimistic as well having a -135 is getting 290kts on 35gph, likewise with the -140ag going 305 on 38. Not impossible, but not the norm.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 05 Sep 2017, 23:12 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/25/10
Posts: 75
Post Likes: +16
Aircraft: Lancair Evo -42
Username Protected wrote:
Has anyone looked at putting a Garrett -10 on the front of the Evolution?


They put a TPE-331-6 on a Lancair IV-P, the -10 would just be overkill.


That would be very good on the Evo for fuel burn and faster speed. De-rate it for take off and lower FL levels to keep IAS low and pump it up for cruise at higher FL´s and longer range! I know a great builder who wanted to go this route but after what happened to Aerotek with the -42 everyone got un-motivated of Lancair support and bad gossip- more of personally types between the two parties involved that made it not too viable unless "the" company develops it :cheers:

Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 09:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1611
Post Likes: +272
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Did anyone see the LX-7 at Oshkosh? Seems like the plane performed even better than they were expecting.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2017, 19:18 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/14/10
Posts: 161
Post Likes: +28
Location: Austin, TX
Aircraft: Formerly 1982 B36TC
How does the depreciation of an experimental like the Evo compare to a certified plane, assuming the Evo was built using a factory recommended builder assist program?

If you're throwing away 90% of your capital in the purchase, it looks a lot more expensive than a certified turboprop, even a more expensive one.

It appears like some certified SETP's, such as the Pilatus, hold their value well.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2017, 20:17 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2572
Post Likes: +2329
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
Username Protected wrote:
If you're throwing away 90% of your capital in the purchase
No chance of that. There are 6 Evos for sale on Controller right now; 5 of them between $1.1 and $1.4 mil, which is typical. Since they didn't cost anywhere near $11 - $14 million to build, there's no chance that they depreciated by "90%".

The sixth one is newly listed at $799K, by far the lowest price I've ever seen for one. A fairly early serial number (#18) and somewhat high time (1100 hours) but nicely equipped (de-ice, ADS-B) and updated. I wonder what the story is there.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution?
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2017, 21:16 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/14/10
Posts: 161
Post Likes: +28
Location: Austin, TX
Aircraft: Formerly 1982 B36TC
Username Protected wrote:
If you're throwing away 90% of your capital in the purchase
No chance of that. There are 6 Evos for sale on Controller right now; 5 of them between $1.1 and $1.4 mil, which is typical. Since they didn't cost anywhere near $11 - $14 million to build, there's no chance that they depreciated by "90%"./quote]

So the extreme case doesn't apply. What differences in depreciation are reasonable to assume for an Evo, compared to a Cirrus, a Meridian and and TBM? It seems like this is a critical assumption in determining capital cost.

Thanks.

Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.