banner
banner

07 Dec 2019, 12:58 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup



Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2019, 23:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 5593
Post Likes: +919
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
Gorgeous airplane.

_________________
ABS Life Member


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 14:03 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 55
Post Likes: +24
Flying a different bird lately that has the revised interior (similar to the E1000 interior) and the larger engine inlet (higher torque available at lower temps).

Couple videos showing what normal cruise is like at cold temps up high and a cruise climb at 210 knots doing 2000 fpm. We left 1300 lbs under gross with 3 SOB and ~3.5 hours of fuel.

I follow Pratt's guidelines to keep ITTs capped at 760º, but Epic's working with them to sign off on a higher limit (the engine is rated for 840º and 103% Ng max continuous). This may have been a 340 knot day if I pushed the stick forward.

Sorry for upright video formatting...

http://youtu.be/C4boUXhbW0s


http://youtu.be/y-TSjDAv_0Q


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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 21:24 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 1289
Post Likes: +849
Company: Retired
Aircraft: TN36, building Evo
With the recent changes in RVSM rules, is anyone working on it for the Epic LT? How close would that get the LT to what the E1000 promises?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 11:48 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 55
Post Likes: +24
Username Protected wrote:
With the recent changes in RVSM rules, is anyone working on it for the Epic LT? How close would that get the LT to what the E1000 promises?



I went through the legwork to ensure the plane would meet the minimum equipment portion (2x ADCs/static systems, altitude alerts, autopilot, etc), but after reaching out to the FSDO, still found that the FAA still wanted a design/engineering firm to sign off on the plane's ability to meet RVSM ASE standards.

The easiest path of resistance would be through Epic. They've been flying their test rigs at FL340 during testing, so I'll try to see if the design differences (or lack thereof) between the LT and E1000 will suffice and if they're okay blessing the LT for ASE requirements since it has already been done. I realize, too, that their LT owners aren't as big of a priority as E1000 certification, so I don't suspect they'll be in a rush to divert their efforts to LT owners.

Lastly, here's a copy/paste from the response I got through my local FSDO. Should give some guidance to anyone who's in the same boat. The next question is: who has some contact information from some design firms (if the mfg's aren't willing to do it) that can sign off on the aircrafts altitude requirements?


Please be advised that 14 CFR 91, Appendix G has been revised, effective January 22, 2019.

Below is the response and background information I received from the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division – Flight Operations Group, in Washington DC, regarding your inquiry about RVSM eligibility for your Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft, N729PW:


“Subject: Epic N729PW - RVSM compliance - Experimental

Response:
Operators of aircraft that were not manufactured under a production authorization with RVSM design approval or do not hold an FAA approved design, do not have the assurance their aircraft is RVSM capable without independent engineering analysis and testing. Operation of an aircraft in RVSM airspace without responsible analysis and testing resulting in exceeding the ASE standard would be unsafe and a reckless action. Prior to operation in RVSM airspace we urge you meet with appropriate design and engineering consultants and review your determination that your aircraft will meet the RVSM ASE standard within the operation you intend.

In response to Mr. Brown concerning operation of N729PW, operation in RVSM airspace is not possible with the current ceiling limitation of 28,000 feet. If the ceiling limitation is raised then operation within RVSM airspace becomes a consideration.

Background Information:
The rule change provides an alternate method for operation in RVSM airspace. While the original method of authorization described in part 91 Appendix G, Section 3 required an operator to submit for and obtain authorization, the new provision Section 9, does not require that.
Under the original method, Section 3, the operator is required to have appropriate procedures and policies and to participate in a monitoring program, the pilots are required to be knowledgeable, and the operator’s aircraft is required to have an FAA approved RVSM design and to be airworthy. After review of all of the above elements, the FAA issues authorization in the form of an Operations Specification, Management Specification or Letter of Authorization (OpSpec, MSpec or LOA).
Under the new provision, Section 9, the operator is required to have appropriate procedures and policies and to participate in a monitoring program, the pilots are required to be sufficiently knowledgeable, and the operator’s aircraft must meet an Altimetry System Error (ASE) performance specification not to exceed 200 feet. As stated above, Section 9 does not require an operator to apply or obtain authorization prior to conducting RVSM operations. It is important to note that while removal of the application, review, and authorization requirements for the operator reduces burden on the operator, Section 9 places evaluation and determination of eligibility for operation solely on the operator.
The FAA has published RVSM design specifications in part 91, Appendix G, Section 2 and as a part of the Section 3 authorization process requires aircraft to hold FAA approved designs. While Section 9 does not require an aircraft to have an FAA approved design, operators that choose to operate airworthy aircraft with approved FAA designs under Section 9 are relieved from the complex engineering analysis and testing that accompanies determining an aircraft is RVSM capable.“


I would recommend that you consult with the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) regarding this issue, as they are in contact with Washington regarding this issue, as others likely have brought up the same issue of experimental amateur built aircraft operating in RVSM airspace.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2019, 19:16 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 1289
Post Likes: +849
Company: Retired
Aircraft: TN36, building Evo
Username Protected wrote:
The easiest path of resistance would be through Epic. They've been flying their test rigs at FL340 during testing, so I'll try to see if the design differences (or lack thereof) between the LT and E1000 will suffice and if they're okay blessing the LT for ASE requirements since it has already been done. I realize, too, that their LT owners aren't as big of a priority as E1000 certification, so I don't suspect they'll be in a rush to divert their efforts to LT owners.
I suspect Epic will be especially reluctant to help since RVSM is one of the big selling points for the E1000 vs. the LT.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 19:15 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 55
Post Likes: +24
Username Protected wrote:
The easiest path of resistance would be through Epic. They've been flying their test rigs at FL340 during testing, so I'll try to see if the design differences (or lack thereof) between the LT and E1000 will suffice and if they're okay blessing the LT for ASE requirements since it has already been done. I realize, too, that their LT owners aren't as big of a priority as E1000 certification, so I don't suspect they'll be in a rush to divert their efforts to LT owners.
I suspect Epic will be especially reluctant to help since RVSM is one of the big selling points for the E1000 vs. the LT.


Maybe. They don't have to do much work to share ASE compliance on the E1000. LTs and E1000s are very similar in design.

I guess more importantly, they have 70+ E1000 orders that should keep their hands full for years, so there's no shortage of people in line for the certified model. The few of us that dabble with the experimental version are few and far between so I don't see them hemorrhaging E1000 sales by unlocking a few extra thousand feet for LT owners (especially since they stopped building LTs a couple years ago).

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 22:31 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 08/03/13
Posts: 1016
Post Likes: +619
Location: SW Colorado
Aircraft: C182
I helped firewall forward (nose gear, turbine, PT6A, prop, etc) on the last LT in Oct 2018. #054, N764LE (LE=Last Epic).


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 18:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 1460
Post Likes: +1488
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Really impressive numbers. What is the hold up for certification? Looks like the airframe was pretty mature even before certification efforts were undertaken.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 19:26 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 55
Post Likes: +24
Username Protected wrote:
Really impressive numbers. What is the hold up for certification? Looks like the airframe was pretty mature even before certification efforts were undertaken.


It's a new company using a newer(ish) design--one of the few (?) composite pressurized planes to go through certification. They don't really have anyone's playbook to use or prior designs to piggy back from, so it's been brute force and learning lessons the whole way.

I hear of progress every time I check in. They're certainly chipping away--last I heard were the completion of flutter trials a few months ago. Cool story: I heard the dives approached 300 kias... and this is with two planes. One Epic LT chase plane that flew as the data rig following closely to record telemetry from the flight test article.


Some things set them back like breaking the fuselage/wing stress test rig (plane is too strong.. kidding). Took months just to rebuild it.

One thing they do have is good funding. No matter how long it takes, I think they'll see it through.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 09:39 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 09/27/08
Posts: 111
Post Likes: +12
I worry/wonder what has taken them so long to get certification? I remember going to oshkosh 10 years ago and hearing that certification was around the corner. Remember going to Oshkosh 3 years ago and hearing it was coming "this fall".
I'm glad TBM has some competition, but the performance numbers aren't any better than the TBM. I Fly a 930 and it flys 315 true in any temp andy weight and will do 325-330 when cold in cruise. It's RVSM, FIKI (and good at shedding ice), is great in turbulence, and most importantly for me, there are more than a million flight hours across the fleet and Socata is very safety conscious and financially stable.
I hope they get the bugs worked out and achieve certification. Is good to see folks innovating and is great for the industry.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 19 Apr 2019, 10:34 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 1289
Post Likes: +849
Company: Retired
Aircraft: TN36, building Evo
Username Protected wrote:
I remember going to oshkosh 10 years ago and hearing that certification was around the corner.
That was under the wildly-optimistic then-CEO, before he was arrested and convicted of fraud. Then there was the bankruptcy, everybody laid off, their factory sold, court approves new owners, buy new building, start hiring, etc., all of which took years. It was only 6 years ago (2013) that they even launched the certified E1000 program. Pilatus took 10 years from project start to certification in 2017 of the PC24 and Pilatus had done certifications before. The E1000 is Epic's first certification, it was never going to be as quick as the sales people said.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 23:03 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 07/19/18
Posts: 249
Post Likes: +88
Aircraft: On the hunt...
Fascinating to follow this beautiful aircraft and *epic* development story. One of the questions I've had is what deviations have been approved under 14CFR/91.319 and how difficult were they to get. For instance the proviso that experimental aircraft not be operated over densely populated areas among other. Each limitation can be waived under the Part, I just wonder what limitations have been waived and which still exist?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 01 Nov 2019, 21:02 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 55
Post Likes: +24
Lawrence, I'll try to dig up the language from op specs on the airworthiness cert. Curious to how it reads exactly.


Days are getting shorter. An early AM departure to LA meant leaving in the dark and watching the sun peek up over the Sierra Nevada. Fun to use the VFR corridors (SFRA) to shortcut through the class B, but it requires pulling back from 260-270 kias in the descent to <250 kias below 10,000 MSL, then <200 kias below the class B over SMO, then <140 kias on the SFRA corridor (No turbojets. SF50s, no soup for you! Kidding)

Wrapped up the day with some farming.


http://youtu.be/82j8liT7OMs


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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 01 Nov 2019, 21:36 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 3415
Post Likes: +2904
Aircraft: MU-2, G44
Saw this Garrett powered mini Epic today in Vegas, has to be that one prototype they made.


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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Epic LT
PostPosted: 01 Nov 2019, 21:54 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 08/03/13
Posts: 1016
Post Likes: +619
Location: SW Colorado
Aircraft: C182
A Epic Escape! I think 2 were completed.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next



uAvionix (banner)

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 2007-2019

.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.uavionix-85x50.png.
.rtc-85x200.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.lopresti_85x50.jpg.
.FreeFlight_85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.Electroair.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.byerlyaviation-85x50.png.
.ForeFlight.jpeg.
.cubcrafters.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.Showalter.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Anrim_85x200.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.fortner-85x50.jpg.
.tas-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.jetacquisitions-85x50.png.
.garmin-85x200-2019-11-01.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.tulsair-85x50.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.methodseven-85x50.jpg.
.Bendix_85x50(1).png.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.L3_85x100.jpg.
.jetaviva-85x50.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.hpair-85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.airplanesusa-85x50.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.Trace.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.McPeck_85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.selectairparts-85x100.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Steel_85x50.jpg.
.sureflight-85x50.jpg.
.weatherspork_85x50.jpg.
.Outright_85_50.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.wildblue-85x50.jpg.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.westsky.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.