The EA-500 misses the mark IMO. There are other airplanes out there that I'd much rather have. It just doesn't have the performance. IMO something that is going to be successful has to break the mold to some degree.

Gerry,

The Lancair Evolution can carry four people with fuel fuel and plenty of baggage. The main reason people buy a six person plane is to make the plane useful with four people and bags.

You would have an even smaller market then the Evolution. If you really want to go this route, you can do it. But do it a lot cheaper. Here is the fundamental issue with composites.
Fiberglass is about $7 bucks a yard.
Carbon Fiber is around $90 bucks a yard.

Based on discussions with people at Lancair and Velocity the Carbon Fiber saves between 10-20% weight over fiberglass. For a commercial jet flying a thousand hours a year this weight savings can be huge in terms of efficiency. For a home builder flying 50-100 a year the weight savings versus cost savings will take a couple of centuries for payback.

You would be much more likely to be successful by going brute force with fiberglass making the plane heavier and just having larger airfoils with a bigger engine.

And if the price is right, I might be interested (your proposed price is not right).

Tim

I think buyers are drawn to "new" aircraft versus exceptionally well maintained "used" aircraft for tax reasons. I believe Bonus Depreciation" is only available on "new" equipment and if someone has their current aircraft depreciated to $0.00, they are inclined to roll the basis into a more expensive product - thus "new".

As for the experimentals - the Lancair model with professional builder assist requires a comparatively minimal commitment versus a typical RV project. Based on my conversation with Lancair, it's not 51% of the build time - it's 51% of "completed tasks". This can amount to installing the final rivet on an element requiring several hundred rivets...You "completed" the element! Still a bit of a pain-in-the-rear to fly out to Bend, OR 4-5 times to "complete" 51% of the the components! but I think they have this model operating pretty well. Admittedly not for a large segment of the aviation market but a viable option to obtain modern/ leading edge aviation technology for close to $1MM.

That's definitely true, especially in the sense that few (no?) six seaters are really comfortable (or loadable) with six full grown adults, even 3 couples.

Part of being "useful for four plus bags" is the case for "pilot up front, other parent in the back with the two kids and a dog". Two adults up front with two kids in the back works once the youngest is 5 or 6, but before that, it's really nice to have an adult in back with the kids in club seating.

I don't think I'd have a smaller market than the Evolution. I think I'd be directly competing with their market. Just because it has 6 seats doesn't mean you have to use them all. You could take the rear seats out and have more room for baggage. As I said, we'd design the plane to carry full fuel and at least 1000 lbs useful. Where is the tradeoff?

Fiberglass is cheaper per yard, but it's nowhere near as strong. It would take a lot more fiberglass to get the same structural strength. In doing so your cost to build wouldn't be that much different and you'd sacrifice a lot of performance. On top of that fiberglass can crack and break a lot easier than carbon fiber. No thanks.

That's definitely true, especially in the sense that few (no?) six seaters are really comfortable (or loadable) with six full grown adults, even 3 couples.

Part of being "useful for four plus bags" is the case for "pilot up front, other parent in the back with the two kids and a dog". Two adults up front with two kids in the back works once the youngest is 5 or 6, but before that, it's really nice to have an adult in back with the kids in club seating.

Anyone that would have interest in such an airplane please express interest to my email: gabbett1@gmail.com

Thanks

Bump

Gerry,
Save your $1m and buy this TBM.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 286895.htm

Fly it part 91 and dont worry about it. You still got over 2000 hours of flying on that engine.
When you want to sell it will still be worth good $$.

More of a classics guy but for 6 seats, 200kt and decent range and fantastic ramp appeal I would go with the Griffon Lionheart. I don't think many were completed but that's the experimental I dream about. (The Lionheart is composite Beechcraft Staggerwing look alike)

Gerry what does OT: mean?

Marc,

Any downsides to an early 700? What is Payload and Range?

Mike

OT = Off Topic

Tim

There are a few problems with experimentals. For one they are more expensive to insure. Compare say a Lancair IVP piston and a P210. Much more. The other thing is many pilots simply will not buy an experimental. I don't care how many build pictures or what high end shop built it, they simply do not have a set of standards for producing an airplane. Anyone who has built and airplane knows those build books are more like guidelines in many areas. For some that freedom to do that is the lure. But that market is very small for someone looking for a seven digit airplane, not large enough to constitute the R&D to bring an airplane to market. The last thing is they simply don't hold value. In a start up experimental, you are one fatal accident away from your airplane taking a serious cut in value. Express made a good aircraft but had a fatal accident and never really took off. Same with Ravens.

Stands for Off Topic.