"Very cool. Do you know what he sees in real world numbers? Speed, fuel flow and range?"

I think he now uses 310 knots, 58 gal/hr. I know he used to use 53 gal/hr at about the same speed. I think he hauls 290 gal, but that might be weak information.

Gerry, I just spoke to him(actually, it was more of listening to an annoying whine about the weather in Wisconsin). He generally plans 310 knots at 56.5 gal/hr. When he cranked it to 66 gal/hr it was at 329 knots- with a tailwind that put him in the 500 mph+ club.

Excepting temperature limits, he doesn't believe 5% speed is worth 20% fuel. Of course, I didn't remind him that he didn't apply this logic when he sold the A36 for the
Epic...and that was one fine A36. He did, however, make spark plug and piston proclamations, frequently.

The spread sheet may better be served by adding the costs of a true 6 seat aircraft.

I noted that you only calculated 4 seats which is of course reasonable but when we are comparing to a true 6 seat to an true 4 seat, occasional 6, the total cost difference scares people.

Per mile, you are already cheaper than a G36, and just by some quick mental math, it looks like your vision is MUCH cheaper than a comparable true 6 seat aircraft.

The spread sheet may better be served by adding the costs of a true 6 seat aircraft.

I noted that you only calculated 4 seats which is of course reasonable but when we are comparing to a true 6 seat to an true 4 seat, occasional 6, the total cost difference scares people.

Per mile, you are already cheaper than a G36, and just by some quick mental math, it looks like your vision is MUCH cheaper than a comparable true 6 seat aircraft.

Yes, I calculated 4 seats by accident, it was supposed to be for 6. That was one of the corrections made in a later revision of the spreadsheet.

The main reason why I'm comparing to a G36 is because we are targeting the new G36 and SR22-SR22T buyers. Those airplanes new are not very far off in price from the proposed experimental.

More program is not available in SETP, altough in homebuilt you can do what you want.

I very doubt you can design and build a SETP for under $1M. I hope you do.

Marc

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

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

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

Main reason yes, but remember that you have to use a lot more fiberglass to get the same strength as carbon fiber so the straight out costs of materials is deceiving a bit.