banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 08:05 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 04:38 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/04/14
Posts: 119
Post Likes: +53
Aircraft: Lancair evolution
Username Protected wrote:
Is the Evo insurable?

Yes I have 1.2 Hull for mine it’s expensive but I was promised a lower rate next year


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 08:54 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8010
Post Likes: +5705
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
Is it purchasable? Seems that the last round of builders is trying to make sure their airframes aren't locked away as the company goes out of business.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 08:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
Username Protected wrote:
Is it purchasable? Seems that the last round of builders is trying to make sure their airframes aren't locked away as the company goes out of business.


I know of one top-notch Evo that will be for sale soon...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 13:20 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2572
Post Likes: +2329
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
Username Protected wrote:
Is it purchasable?
There are 6 for sale on Controller right now, for cheaper than you can build one. The only reason to build any airplane is if you want to BUILD an airplane; if you just want a custom airplane, it's quicker, cheaper and easier to buy one somebody else built and have it customized. Almost all the Evo improvements that have come out over the years are retrofittable, and you don't have to get your hands dirty if you don't want to, there's no 51% rule on mods.
Quote:
Seems that the last round of builders is trying to make sure their airframes aren't locked away as the company goes out of business.
There's been good news on that front. Latest word from independent sources and the new company president (MUCH more credible than the old one) is that they've been refinanced and are paying off suppliers to get going again. He called me to set up a payment plan for what they owe me. They have 3 kits from before the hiatus that have now been sold, which should help the cash flow.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 13:35 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/19/11
Posts: 3302
Post Likes: +1424
Company: Bottom Line Experts
Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
How many Evo's have been built Dave? I seem to recall a rather poor safety record. How were guys getting into trouble on these birds?

In my mind, the Evo is another one of those great 'on paper' airplanes. The performance and fuel economy are extremely compelling. 300kts and 1,000 nm on less than 40gph is outstanding but how do you justify that type of $$ on a non-certified bird? Since it's not certified, it's not approved for known icing. How do you operate a long range, high altitude turboprop without encountering icing?

_________________
Don Coburn
Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist
2004 SR22 G2


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 15:14 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/04/14
Posts: 119
Post Likes: +53
Aircraft: Lancair evolution
Username Protected wrote:
How many Evo's have been built Dave? I seem to recall a rather poor safety record. How were guys getting into trouble on these birds?

In my mind, the Evo is another one of those great 'on paper' airplanes. The performance and fuel economy are extremely compelling. 300kts and 1,000 nm on less than 40gph is outstanding but how do you justify that type of $$ on a non-certified bird? Since it's not certified, it's not approved for known icing. How do you operate a long range, high altitude turboprop without encountering icing?


I have Goodrich leading edge boots in wings and horizontal stabilizer, windshield liquid deicer, prop heat, electrical heated cowling intake, particle separator. I have not cancelled a trip due to ice on my evo. The best is that the airplane is so slick when you encounter ice you have so much flexibility, climb, go down, go around or turn around.

evo 006


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 15:19 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/19/11
Posts: 3302
Post Likes: +1424
Company: Bottom Line Experts
Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
Username Protected wrote:

I have Goodrich leading edge boots in wings and horizontal stabilizer, windshield liquid deicer, prop heat, electrical heated cowling intake, particle separator. I have not cancelled a trip due to ice on my evo. The best is that the airplane is so slick when you encounter ice you have so much flexibility, climb, go down, go around or turn around.

evo 006


I understand that Andes. There are a number of deice options available and there's deice equipment on board but it is not FIKI certified which means it's illegal for you to enter an area of known icing. Whether you choose to break the rules is up to you but if you follow the rules up here near the Great Lakes, you cancel MANY flights from Oct-Apr. A non-FIKI bird, especially a turboprop, is highly unusable for me up here in OH for 6 mos / yr. I've encountered some level of icing on almost every flight for the last month.

_________________
Don Coburn
Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist
2004 SR22 G2


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 15:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Fiki is only an issue under part 91 if the airplane is disapproved for known ice. It’s legal unless the POH says it isn’t.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 15:23 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/11/15
Posts: 24
Post Likes: +3
Location: Houston Texas
Aircraft: P46T Jetprop
Username Protected wrote:

Chuck,
not sure I agree with your comment that the Jetprop is not a robustly built as the meridian and this may be somewhat misleading to some; I train with someone (you know him also) on the design team of of initial PA46 that would support my comment. The jetprop is simply a Malibu or a Mirage airframe, the JP flight envelop is the same as these two airframes. The Mirage, Malibu, and Meridian were all certified to the required standards at the time. Just because something is heavier does not mean it is more robust. +500 Lb to go 6-8 knots faster that the Jetprop says a lot about efficiency. The JP has as not to exceed speed of 172KTS which is the top of the green on the Mirage/Malibu.


There is a lot of beefed up structure on the Meridian. For one, the monocoque construction strength of the wings is dependent on skin thickness. The outboard skin thickness of the Malibu, Mirage, and JP is 0.032 inches. On the Meridian the wing skins are 0.040. You don't want to know what they are on the M600 ;) There is also more metal in the tail section, and the empennage is 33% larger, among others. The gear is heavier, and the electrical system is far more robust. There are almost no interchangeable parts on a Meridian and a Mirage. Even the pax windows have different stock numbers. Vmo in a turbine is more similar to Vno in a piston (top of the green arc). Not Vne. A turbine has to meet gust loads at Vmo which means that the Meridian has to be able to take a certified gust load at 188 KIAS, plus a 50% engineering buffer. That is somewhat similar to Vno in a piston. So the Meridian is certified to be able to handle higher normal operating speeds than the JP or piston. There have been several JP in flight failures, even though the Meridian flies faster, it has not been plagued with structural failures. Neither plane should fail if flown in the envelope, but the envelope (weight/altitude/speed) of the JP is smaller.


Chuck,
You are insinuating the JP “plagued with structural failures” which is far from true to the facts. There have been structrual failures for the PA46 airframes, the Malibu, mirage and jet prop including the many inflight failures ( Malibu’s and Mirages) in the late 1980s and early 1990s which resulted in a complete recertification of the PA46 by Piper. In addition the certification of the JP was the third certification of this airframe. There has never been an airframe failure of a PA46/P46T due to a structural deficiency. I am only aware of two inflight failures of a JP, one being loss of control in night IMC and another flew into a level 5 thunderstorm. I am also aware of another JP that flew into a level 5 thunderstorm and properly recovered from the encounter. Any airframe will break up if you exceed the limitations of the airframe. I do not know if there has ever been an inflight break up of a Meridian. Your comments about the increased strength of the meridian airframe are correct in that if you want to go faster then structures need to be strengthen to pass the certification required load factors. How much stronger is that new wing on your M600 versus your old M500? Is the wing on the M500 inferior? No. Same goes for the JP, Mirage, Malibu. All of these variations all great airplanes. Perhaps we have been fortunate to date that no one has been stupid enough to fly a meridian into a level5 thunderstorm and loose control and then exceed the design limitations and break it up. The accident and fatal statistics support that neither the JP or Meridian has an advantage over the other. As with any airplane, accidents occur because “you cannot build a foolproof airplane for fools are so resourceful” quote from an unnamed aerospace design engineer.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 15:28 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/19/11
Posts: 3302
Post Likes: +1424
Company: Bottom Line Experts
Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
Username Protected wrote:
Fiki is only an issue under part 91 if the airplane is disapproved for known ice. It’s legal unless the POH says it isn’t.


Haven't heard this one before, Charles.

So are you saying that any experimental (regardless of what type of deice equipment is / is not present) is legal to fly into known icing conditions?

_________________
Don Coburn
Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist
2004 SR22 G2


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 15:50 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/30/08
Posts: 5607
Post Likes: +805
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: SR22
I can share that our clients with JetProps have had them for a long time. They are very happy with the aircraft. One of them flies it coast to coast twice a year.

I like the Meridian solely based on the published speed limitations, ramp presence, and Avidyne glass. Yes I like the old Avidyne glass I had in my SR22, so simple and intuitive.

AG

_________________
TRUE-COURSE AVIATION INSURANCE - CA License 0G87202
alejandro@true-course.com
805.727.4510


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 16:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
Fiki is only an issue under part 91 if the airplane is disapproved for known ice. It’s legal unless the POH says it isn’t.


Haven't heard this one before, Charles.

So are you saying that any experimental (regardless of what type of deice equipment is / is not present) is legal to fly into known icing conditions?


Most car3 airplanes aren’t disallowed. 35 bonanza, 182, piper cub - all legal. That’s why they issued the non-fiki AD for the twin cessnas. It wasn’t prohibited before.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 16:40 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14128
Post Likes: +9073
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Username Protected wrote:
I can share that our clients with JetProps have had them for a long time. They are very happy with the aircraft. One of them flies it coast to coast twice a year.

I like the Meridian solely based on the published speed limitations, ramp presence, and Avidyne glass. Yes I like the old Avidyne glass I had in my SR22, so simple and intuitive.

AG


Alejandro, do you think a claim would be honored if an incident occurred on one of those flights and it was shown the plane was likely operated at say, 400 lbs over gross?

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 18:10 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2572
Post Likes: +2329
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
Username Protected wrote:
How many Evo's have been built Dave?
I think the 3 kits just sold are serials 91-93. I've seen "first flight" announcements for planes with serials in the mid-80s for sure, but not everyone worked that fast (I think the record was 4 months). I'd put "completed and flying" in the 75-80 range.
Quote:
I seem to recall a rather poor safety record. How were guys getting into trouble on these birds?
The NTSB database lists 5 events. In order, they were: 1) Inadvertent gear up, no injuries, minor damage. 2) Nose gear collapse on landing, no injuries, minor damage. Fatigue crack from when the nose strut was overstressed being towed. 3) Pilot incapacitation for undetermined reason (the first fatal and total loss). The last two don't have probable cause yet, and came in fairly quick succession after the first fatality so they stick in the mind: 4) Windshield blew out followed by a deliberate gear-up landing (no fatalities, total loss). And 5) last year's fiery crash in Mesa, AZ (two fatalities, total loss). Pilot was dealing with an emergency, witnesses report he was low and slow in the pattern, and his other plane was a Husky.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Piper Meridian vs. Rocket Engineering Jetprop Conversion
PostPosted: 31 Oct 2018, 12:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/30/17
Posts: 198
Post Likes: +159
I gave serious thought to an Evo before the reorganization, but since that time a number of build shops have gone out of business as a result of the hiatus (including Fibercraft in FL, the one I had considered using). Beautiful airplanes, great numbers, but the questions around company support and viability, build/service shops and insurance availability are real question marks for me. Those issues are driving me towards a used certified airplane rather than a used Evo (e.g., a Meridian). But I do hope that the company gets its program together and moves forward. Once you cross the 100-airframe mark, I think most of the bugs get worked out and sounds like they are pretty close to that.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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

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