On AOPA live there's a segment on this new turboprop. It's a complete refurb of a Lance IV with a PT6. Performance data is very similar to an M600. It's pressurized. Has a parachute. Price is $1.1M. With a more powerful PT6 they claim 315kts but I don't know the price or specs.

Downsides: It seats only four, It's experimental not certified (may not be a downside for some), and it's not cabin class.

Upside: you don't have to build it, I assume, as it's already been built and this is a refurb no owner participation is required.

Let's hear your opinions.

It’s been around for a few years. They did quite a bit of work to the IV to make it safer, especially the wing.

Biggest issue I expect is insurance. I’d bet not many people who can self insure 7 figures want a four place airplane.

Insurance! If it doesn’t exist, or isn’t feasible, you’re looking for cash buyers of a luxury toy

The day after this event I talked with the owner/pilot at length and inspected it:
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/04/l ... urred.html
It's a huge improvement on the IVPT but I don't see why you'd buy it when you can get a used Evolution for less.

Looking at controller.com most are priced from $950,000 to $1.9M (That's with the PT6A 850). So a used Lancair doesn't seem to be cheaper. I assume there is insurance for the plane, so what other downsides are there? For a completely refurbished turboprop and new engine it seems like a good deal.

What’s your range with four adults? Spend the same money on a TBM or equivalent and then answer the question again?

From what I can determine from the website @270 kts about 1200-1300 miles. (Depending on the weight of the passengers.) The new wing carries more fuel than the Lancair. The acquisition cost of an old TBM may be cheaper but the annual operating costs will be 3-4X higher. Same issue with buying a used TBM vs a used M600. The acquisition cost is less but the operating costs are triple. There is no question a used TBM is a more capable airplane and more comfortable for those in the back, but at a very significant cost. I was comparing this to an M600. Many people wouldn't compare an M600 to TBM.

1200-1300 miles is NOT with four seats occupied

They shove a lot of fuel in the fuselage for the long range figures, passengers are a trade off

The wing may be different on the LX7 but it’s fundamentally and structurally bound by similar gross weight and CG ranges of the IV/IVP(T) series

A used TBM 700C2, when accounting for insurance, is probably not much more expensive. That’s assuming you can insure a lancair at all. After the latest crash I would bet getting insurance at any price is going to be hard.

A refurbed meridian is another option.

This is really a luxury toy more than anything as was mentioned above.

I saw this airplane at OSH 2019 and really liked it. Very nicely done. Agree the range figures are for pilot-only. Full fuel useful load is somewhere in the 300# range but then most people don't fly 1500 nm nonstop anyway. RDD is a legitimate aerospace company (they designed and built the Perlan glider for example) and their work seems first rate. Not an E-AB scenario.

Insurance is the big limitation on this airplane (and the Evolution). A guy over on COPA wanted to buy one and couldn't get insurance for it (or an Evolution) at basically any price. On their website, they have a picture of Ken Wolf, who apparently bought the turbine version and flew it home to Florida nonstop from Oregon after purchase. Some of you may know Ken from CJOPA; he flew a CJ and then a CJ2+ for a long time and there are a couple of very good videos on YouTube featuring Ken talk about his Citations and what it costs to own them. He's a doctor (possibly retired now) living in Maine and his mission is Maine to Florida or at least that's what he says in the videos. Seems like a super nice guy who is in his 70s.

However, in his videos he notes that because he only flies himself and immediate family, he elected to forego insurance on his Citations and I am assuming he is doing the same on the LX7. Most of us are not really in that position to fully self-insure, so these airplanes are essentially off-limits. Which is a shame because they are both pretty good examples of engineering.

Having said that, if any of you have flown in a Lancair IVP/IVPT (I have a pilot friend here in Houston who flies a IVPT and have flown in it), the cabin is quite small. It's fine for short hops but I sure wouldn't want to fly 1500 nm in one. I don't think they are that comfortable. Well, maybe solo but I wouldn't subject my family to it. Fast, short little wings, and rockets off the runway for sure. But nothing like an Evolution cabin, a Piper M600, TBM, Epic or Citation cabin for sure. Very different flying experiences...

I'm going by their website numbers. Whether they are true or not is not for me to judge. They claim 1547nm in 5.4 hours with a one hour reserve. That's 286nm/hr @ 28gal/hr.
With a 1600lb useful load and 640lbs of people(160lb per person avg.) that leaves 960lb of fuel or or 143gal. That works out 1.3 hours less air time or 371nm less.
1547-371=1176nm with full fuel and 4 passengers. Less if they weigh more, more if they weigh less.
These are pretty good numbers. Are they real? You'd have to ask owners what their true results are.
If you're mission is 1-2 people and occasionally four it seems like a possible consideration.
My mission profile is trips from the NY, NJ area to W Palm Beach,FL - about a 1000nm trip.

Due to the redesigned wing, the main spar is much lower and the cabin has much more room. I am 6'3" and was very comfortable in the plane. They have needed to add shims and thicken the seat cushions to raise up the front seats people under 5'8".

I did 5.6 hours in a -20 turbine and still landed with over an hour of fuel averaging 260KTAS; I pulled the power back some to extend the range. I can confirm the -20 will do 265KTAS to 270KTAS. There are a few with the -135 and it will do 310-315KTAS on much higher fuel flow of course.

Ken has the piston version and it has crazy range. 180 gallons at 12.5 gph at 235-240KTAS. He does the 1000NM trip with only 120 gallons on the plane and a ton of reserve.

I have flown the piston version of the lx7 and it is definitely a lot roomier than the IV-p.. hip and shoulder room is improved as well by how they redid the steering control linkage and gained cabin width… I flew an evo at the same time and the lx7 was a much more comfortable cockpit, the evo has a more roomy back seat and pressurized luggage … but from the pilot and co pilot seat, the lx7 was significantly more comfortable … insurance is $30k.. on par with the Evo…

As for cost comparisons to a TBM… the TBM will eat your lunch on maintenance costs and the lx7 will be pennies on those dollars and dollar for dollar purchase, you will have state of the art new panel on the lx7 and likely a much older panel on a similarly priced TBM.. on resale value.. that is a big unknown…

On engines, given the lx7 is 5.0 psi cabin, I think the -135 is too much motor… the evo with a 6.5 cabin alt can fly 28k all day comfortably.. the lx7 maybe not so much…… I think the lx7 is a better match with the -20.. maybe the -28…

Very good to know with regard to the cabin being larger than a regular IVP/PT. Sounds like a great BasicMed airplane in either the piston or -20 flavors ... I don't recall what the performance numbers are like at FL180 ... but presumably similar to what my M600 does - 235-240 knots at about 1200 TQ (with about 44 gph on the -42A in my airplane). I assume that the -20 is more fuel efficient at that altitude. I will chat them up again at OSH this year.

Something to consider down the road ... thanks!

At 17,500, the -20 will do 265-275KTAS at 34-35 GPH. Pull it back to 30GPH and it trues out around 255KTAS. At FL230, I get 267KTAS at 28GPH. At FL200, I get 271KTAS at 32GPH. All of these numbers are running at 690 ITT. This is all flying in the south at an average ISA+10 or more. At ISA 0 or less it will obviously do better.

The -135 is mainly if you just want to break the 300KTAS barrier. It flies around at barber pole all day long and climbs at 3000FPM off the runway with power to spare and not having to watch ITT limits.

The one in the AOPA video has a -28, and the owner sees around 285 to 290KTAS at altitude with around 35-37GPH fuel burn.

The G3X panel is very nice and RDD has done a lot of work making the plane easy to fly with a simple switch layout and redundant electrical systems. The plane also has an electrical deice system and fully automatic fuel system.