Hello Gerry-
There are simply not thousands of experimental "turbine" airplanes flying. You can't broad brush an RV4 or Sonex into the same category as the Epic and Evo - they do not hold the same underwriting appetite with insurers. At present I think there are 26 or 28 Epics flying globally and I'm sure less than that number of Evos. The turbine experimental premium 'pool' is tiny in comparison to certified aircraft - hence the underwriting options are limited. Yes you may pay a bit more insurance premium by comparison to a certified SEL turbine and yes that 'extra' is far less than what the additional acquisition cost might be on a certified vs experimental - but this equation will never change as the number of units entering an insurance underwriters premium pool (read amount to pay claims when they occur) is substantially less in the experimental market vs certified. But your points are well taken and valid on the incremental insurance premium to insure (and what you have banked on a lower acquisition cost).

Not trying to quibble but there are currently 47 or so Evo's flying, and from what I understand they just sold kit #68 recently.

I am not going to say who, but I know one Lancair Evolution only has liability no hull due to cost. And his liability is umm, pathetic.

Tim

Going through certification, just like everything else the government gets their hands on, is extremely costly and wasteful on the obscene side.

I am not going to say who, but I know one Lancair Evolution only has liability no hull due to cost. And his liability is umm, pathetic.

Tim

I am not going to say who, but I know one Lancair Evolution only has liability no hull due to cost. And his liability is umm, pathetic.

Tim

I am not going to say who, but I know one Lancair Evolution only has liability no hull due to cost. And his liability is umm, pathetic.

Tim

I recently ran some pricing for a Lancair IVP Turbine prospective buyer....he was very experienced in a Meridian which he owned prior. That said on a $400k hull value aircraft and with only $1m in liability the annual premium (best quote from any insurer) was about $14-15k - this insuring ONLY a $400k hull!

For comparison purposes this same gent could have purchased a Meridian, TBM or PC12 at a $2m+ hull value - been afforded say $3m-$5m liability and insured it at the same premium as the Lancair was going to cost him at only $400k asset value and $1m limits of liability. Only one carrier quoted it (AIG) and they required the aircraft to have an inspection report prior to insuring. Again limited options for insuring carriers and you will pay a premium on the front end with lower limits available on liability.

Again I'm not stating the experimental market is a bad product at all - just pointing out the insurance differences between a certified machine.

I've seen absolutely horrid things that would scare you to death happen in the kitplane industry, such as loose material and inspection standards resulting in spar caps made to 1/2 the strength required, structures being build and tested with no safety margin. Part 23 standards require 1.5x safety factor and the homebuilt standard is supposed to be 2x but I've seen kit companies advertise a structural capability which had a 1x safety factor. I've seen absolutely shoddy workmanship and a laundry list of other offenses which would truly scare the crap out of you.

This is all not meant to bash the Evo in any way nor is it meant to bash the homebuilt industry as a whole. Lancair has built many sexy, fast and inspiring aircraft, without a doubt. I also applaud the FAA for allowing the homebuilt industry to flourish as they have since it has spawned great innovation and helped inspire the industry as a whole. However, my point is that there is a substantial difference between the certified and homebuilt industries and you deserve to know this if you're going to invest that amount of $.

If it were just me and my money, I'd be flying a homebuilt, no doubt. However, I have a family that depends on me being around a very long time and I know enough about the differences between certified and homebuilt aircraft to know that the added risks are absolutely not worth the performance or cost benefits.

When any kitplane company says they build to Part 23 standards, understand that the statement is hogwash. They simply do not understand the details and rigors of Part23. Generally that statement means that they have static tested the wing to Part 23 standards, which is only one of many, many requirements. Ask them this: Did they conduct a full life cycle fatigue test? Did they perform Part 23 flutter testing? Did they perform a complete spin matrix flight test? What standards and documentation do they adhere to in order to assure their materials and process are the same for every article they produce? You can't say that you develop and produce an aircraft to Part 23 standards unless your entire team has extensive experience designing and certifying Part 23 aircraft, which they simply do not.

Gerry, I have no intention of offending you or any of the modern day experimental aircraft companies. I'm sure these are fine aircraft and the people who work there are exceptional people. However, it is simply a false statement to say they comply to Part 23. They do not.

There are a whole host of engineering consultants in the US with the title FAA DER, which stands for Designated Engineering Representative. In essence, these are consultants who have the ability to act on behalf of the FAA and have extensive experience in aircraft certification. Have one who has been involved in the certification of a Part 23 airplane look at the program and talk to the engineers and I assure you, he will produce a book with all the aspects of the design and testing which do not meet Part 23 requirements.

For example, Part 23 spin testing involves developing a massive matrix of every possible entry into a spin with every control input possible. A Part 23 spin program involves instrumenting an aircraft and typically equipping with a spin chute (in the event an unrecoverable stall is encountered) and then flying every one of these scenarios from the matrix. It's a massive undertaking. Then when you find a condition which is unrecoverable, you need to make design changes (wing, control surfaces, control configurations, horizontal tail, vertical tail, etc) and then re-fly.

Last I heard, typically spin programs can take a year or more and cost over $1M. Just because a company says they have done 'some spins' does not mean they are complying with the Part 23 spin requirements.

Do you recall Cessna and their spin problems with the Skycatcher? They were not required to comply with Part 23 spin testing (because it is a LSA aircraft) but they did anyhow because they understood the importance of it. These are arguably the most talented aircraft certification engineers for Part 23 in the country. How long did that delay the program? 1 Year? More? How much do you think it cost Cessna to assure the Skycatcher was spin compliant to Part 23 standards? The Skycatcher is about as simple as it gets to boot. For a larger, faster, more powerful aircraft, this is a much bigger deal.

Known Ice certification is also a very, very big deal. It involves complex engineering to determine various ice shapes which can form on the aircraft and demonstrating the ability to fly and shed ice in actual conditions. It too is a very complex and very expensive certification process. Just because an experimental has boots installed on the wing does not mean that it has demonstrated Known Ice capability per Part 23 standards. Aircraft like the TBM and Pilatus have actually demonstrated and tested to Part 23 Known Ice standards. Experimental companies do not.

Damage tolerance compliance, conformity, full life-cycle fatigue testing, dynamic sled testing for crashworthiness requirements and a whole host of other Part 23 standards are very involved, very expensive and are not part of the experimental aircraft development and testing process.

Simply put, experimental aircraft do not conform to Part 23 standards. You cannot cherry pick a few items from Part 23 and say that your design and process 'conforms to Part 23'. It's absolutely misleading and is simply not true.

Experimentals are fantastic and I drool over them just as you are Gerry. However, there is a substantial difference between experimental and Part 23 certified aircraft and it's important to me that others understand these differences.

I've worked in both the experimental and the certified aircraft industries. Although I don't consider myself an expert, I know enough about the differences that I realize the cost and performance benefits do not justify the added risk, at least for me and my family.

I recently ran some pricing for a Lancair IVP Turbine prospective buyer....he was very experienced in a Meridian which he owned prior. That said on a $400k hull value aircraft and with only $1m in liability the annual premium (best quote from any insurer) was about $14-15k - this insuring ONLY a $400k hull!

For comparison purposes this same gent could have purchased a Meridian, TBM or PC12 at a $2m+ hull value - been afforded say $3m-$5m liability and insured it at the same premium as the Lancair was going to cost him at only $400k asset value and $1m limits of liability. Only one carrier quoted it (AIG) and they required the aircraft to have an inspection report prior to insuring. Again limited options for insuring carriers and you will pay a premium on the front end with lower limits available on liability.

Again I'm not stating the experimental market is a bad product at all - just pointing out the insurance differences between a certified machine.