I carry $25MM in coverage. But $10MM in coverage was still $23K so I figured it worth the $6K for that much extra. For those of you that think $1MM is enough..... It isn't.

I can fly anywhere in North, South and Central America with that coverage but I don't think that stuff has any bearing on cost. They just kinda wanted to know where I'd be flying the most.

I operate Serial No. 40 Evolution with the bigger engine. PT6 -42 with 850 HP. This is what Lancair should of done in the first place.
TAS is 300 kts @ 35-36 gph in FL 270-280. FL 240 is 40 gph with 670 ITT. Pushing it can do the +315 kts. I like to operate the turbine in a lower ITT mentioned.
It is an awesome traveling machine. There are 2 options now on the de-ice: RDD THERMAWING, LANCAIR Boots and hopefully soon TKS by a another company. Some of the installations have had speed penalties (Thermawing) & some not noticeable (body-worked into the wing). Drawback is that the few of us that decided to go with the -42 engine (third party developed by the engineer who designed the Evo) had to go with the Trutrak Sorcerer autopilot and not the GFC-700x.
Once dialed inn there is not another airplane that has the technology the Lancair Evo has bang for the buck. * Composite, G900X (G1000 for experimental) a wing designed by Greg Cole (Perlan Proyect to break world record in altitude). Insurance is high "but" if you go the whole nine yards and insure it for $ 1.5 m. I have $ 1 m hull with $ 15 k. Not bad at all.
This airplane fits your profile: the retired guy who wants speed, pressurization flies him and his better half most of the time;it is a real 4 seat airplane; low stall speed and wants to avoid the $ 40 k annual on the TBM, Eclipse, etc. I recommend you speak to the guys that have 500-600 hrs in them so you can get a better perspective. The training is now mandatory (for the insurance sign off) * this has screened the pilots who do Not have the ability to operate these machines. The Evolution is precisely a new clean sheet design that corrected everything from the bad rep and true abrupt stall airframe of the TP´s IV´s...
* Remember these guys designed what is now the Cessna Corvalis. I know a couple that have been hit by lightning and they fly back and land safely. Don´t know the outcome on the PT6 revision & I imagine it is quite costly to get back online.....good luck

I assume you actually mean 900 foot pounds of torque right?

What engine do you have installed? Is there a limiting factor that requires that you run the engine so gingerly, or do you just choose to do so because you are satisfied with the performance that you are currently getting?

Older is not necessarily less reliable.

Newer is not necessarily more reliable.

I would expect an old turboprop to be more reliable than a brand new right off the assembly line piston aircraft.

My airplane goes inspection to inspection with exceptionally few squawks. This is apparently typical of the type as other owners report the same.

I've had near 99.84% dispatch reliability over the 7 years I have owned it. Only once did the plane not go, bad squat switch and that was a non critical flight (repo back to home base empty). Fixed the next day. All other times, I went when I wanted for any reason, mechanical or weather.

My airplane is 40 years old. Maintenance per year averages $15K. I've had inspections as low as $8K and high as $23K.

I don't have cigars to light, much less Benjamins to do it with.

Mike C.

Sounds like you need a Jetprop!

Cheers!

There's no excuse for that plane not be certified and FIKI. No, I don't really care about certification but if it was full on legit X country travel with Ice Protection it would sell like a mini PC12 or TBM. That plane is an airline killer.

There's no excuse for that plane not be certified and FIKI. No, I don't really care about certification but if it was full on legit X country travel with Ice Protection it would sell like a mini PC12 or TBM. That plane is an airline killer.

Very nice! I agree , that sophisticated plus previous model production, should be stamped by FAA. That is really economical and useful.
MC

Actually not as bad as I expected, liability starts out about $10K/year more than I'm paying now (they hate that I have no turbine time), with ~100 hrs in type drops to $3-4K more. Hull coverage starts at 2% of value, dropping to 1.5%. Requires initial and recurrent training, of course, adding to costs.

The Charles' agree.

When "Experimental" creates an airplane that "cannot crash" no matter how many mistakes the pilot makes (combination of computers and BRS) then that is when "Experimental" will take over the world. The technology exits right now. It just needs to be employed.

Build it, do a demo of it on the Today Show one morning and it'll sell like hotcakes.

I've flown the ES that is owner built and it is a pussycat. It's the only one I'm remotely familiar with and the builders/owners (husband & wife who did a really nice job) are scared to death of getting it slow. There seems to be some kind of phobia with the stall regime of the Lancair types. I'd like to know more about the slow flying characteristics of the Evo and the caveats of these airplanes. I know that a Bo is easier to mount and dismount which to me would be a primary concern.

There is actually one builder who is installing / installed a BRS in one Evolution. The stall characteristics in the Evo (as in any airplane) depend on the landing weight. I learned that this airplane once heavy (fully fueled) you have to land at bit higher speeds. + 85 kts over the numbers & also with slight power because once you power off the the big prop becomes a big break and it´ll drop out of the sky!! When you go through the training you make a simulated power off landing * This airplane once you feather the prop it glides impressively. I understand it is estimated that at FL 280 in an emergency engine shut down, feathered it´ll glide +/- 150 miles! Austin Meyer the developer of X-Plane / Xavion build one with the 850 HP engine and he is working on the auto-land system in his Evo as well as the electronic circuit breakers with another company....so it´s coming, soon I hope!

Guys, most of the innovation * in general aviation (in light aircraft) is coming from elsewhere in the world because of the cost of certification in America (Pipistrel, LSA´s) Now Mooney * China. Of course NOT the wing on the new G650!! So this type of Experimental is supporting U.S. Innovation that is not quite there in the certified...
Think out of the box- demo one & find out for yourself. Recurrent training is actually good for any high performance aircraft pilot. It brings your Ego down and fine tunes you where you might need it. And it´s not even as close as expensive as the Eclipse Jet recurrent training...

jetprop? i am 6 ' 6" tall
tried to share a jet prop with a german pilot friend of mine and planned a trip in germany
had to extract me from the cockpit, that awful rear spar limits movement and you have to have italian short legs to avoid getting your knees of the bottom of the instrument panel
absolutely no room there for a tall guy, same as the 100 brazilian gizmo
there is plenty of room for me in the evo and the room in the rear seats is better than in the front. On top if your girl has good looking legs its nice to help them get over the wing to get to the copilot seat. None of that in my old 182.