Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Home Builders and Sport Pilots' started by ktup-flyer, Oct 20, 2017.
Evolution is a plane???
For manufacturers of general aviation planes, the ideal customer is a poor retired person. That’s because his estate can’t sue for much after he dies in a crash.
Evolution attracted the opposite.
Nice concept, bad practicality.
$1.5 mil and
1. Experimental, no flying over densely populated areas.
2. Non FIKI airplane, how often does that work in the real world.
3. Non-cabin class, no potty.
So for that kind of money you can get a thousand hours at Flex-Jet, get fed, take a leak, and watch a movie. Or buy a legacy Citation and have a half million left over for fuel.
That's the reality. Join the Navy and fly fighters if you want a rocket ship, the millionaires probably are over that.
It was a fantastic platform though. Still unproven and experimental in the end and extreme high performance mixed with unproven experimental design / construction, at high altitudes, doesn't compute. Vans yes, FL 290 don't think so.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don’t know if it’s universal, but check #9 from my Experimental Light Sport Operating Limitations:
If it sounds familiar, here’s 91.119, Minimum Safe altitudes, in part: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
Seems essentially a distinction without a difference.
Good point but the problem with "experimental" is the moniker that gets the attention of an over ambitious FAA inspector, then it's a year or two of very extensive certificate action. Unfortunately it's guilty until proven innocent with the FAA. Google the L39 incident, fly by past the iconic Hollywood sign, took many lawyers and a few years to clear up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That restriction is no longer included in Experimental flight limitations. Also, you can have older restrictions updated and that limitation will go away for experimentals which previously had it.
The one I posted for my Sky Arrow, which in essence remove that limitation, are from 2009.
Curious, is that limitation now completely gone?
Well, I'm sad to hear that it looks like they're going out of business. I flew the first piston Evolution and considered it a nice flying airplane. The controls were smooth, the handling was crisp but honest, it had a very high gear speed, and while not as fast as the IV-P, it wasn't slow by any means. The turboprop version made more sense for a lot of reasons, although the piston did have advantages, including a longer range.
Lancairs have always been planes that had a high percentage of crashes associated with them for the fleet. They're high performing airplanes that unfortunately are sometimes flown by low performing pilots. The Evolution was a lot more docile than the IV (or even the 320/360), but still very fast and not a plane for amateurs.
Back in the 1970's Jim Bede was offering an unbelievable kit with unbelievable performance for an unbelievable low price. I was salivating all over the pages of FLYING magazine when I first saw it and even had the money to plunk down on one of the first ones. The ad shown in FLYING was very professional and it showed the -5 actually flying and another picture showed the entire unassembled kit laid out neatly on the ramp. Cool! I'm a born skeptic and that part of me said "wait and see." So I waited and saw what became the biggest experimental aircraft fiasco of that time. It tainted the whole industry for years to come and taught a good lesson...let someone else be the beta tester and keep my my coins in my pocket until the plane has flown and proven itself thoroughly.
The promises made to consumers should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it concerns buying a kit plane. Wait for full development to see if it's a safe aircraft with performance figures that live up to the manufacturers claims. This requires patience as I know how intoxicating it can be to see videos and display ads that promise you latest and greatest in aviation if you'll just put down a deposit while we develope the aircraft of your dreams. I've seen it many times over the last 40 years and expect to see happen again and again as there is always fresh blood to to keep the cycle going.
The most ironic thing is Darwin actually had a copy of Mendel's paper outlining his findings inches study, unopened.
I think what's going on with Evolution aircraft was an eventuality. When experimental airplanes first came out the were day VFR ships for a couple people. They might have been fast, they might have been able to land in nothing, but they were recreational vehicles. What Evolution has built is a mini airliner. It flies at jet speeds in the Stratosphere, with pressurization and other complex systems. Flown by amateurs, and did I mention built by amateurs? I don't think all the training in the world will make that safe, unless the pilots are trained to airline standards. And I think it still wouldn't be that safe, since the pilots aren't flying all the time.
Sorry, just the way I see it. I am unsurprised that insurers are starting to wake up to this.
This is not and has never been an issue.
My OPLIMS were issued in 2015 under 8130.2G and verbiage is still there:
Under 8130.2H maybe they have removed it, but like I said above, it's not an issue and IMO it's not worth the hassle of getting new OPLIMS.
8130.2J is current.
It has the knowledge that you seek.
I have the knowledge. And the oplims are sitting in my airplane. If you're trying to make a point for others, a cryptic post won't accomplish that.
I was simply pointing out that 8130.2J is current, not 8130.2H. So if someone wants to know what operational limitations would be issued today, they need to look in J. I did not think there was a need for a long explanation and I certainly had no intent of being cryptic.
My bad. Doesn't change my position that it's not an issue.
Specifically, Appendix D, para D-4.f which lists 5 instances where the flight over densely populated area prohibition (among a few other things) will be added to the OPLIMS. The exact same verbiage was in Appendix C of 8130.2H so nothing changed going from version H to version J in this regard.
I assumed you were being an internet wiseguy. There are a few of those around. ;-)
Are you aware of anything in J that creates additional limits on the use of EAB's?
Oh, I can be a wise guy as well but in this case it wasn't the intent. I guess I should have used an "I am serious" smiley.
Nah, that one doesn't work.
J mostly is a mass consolidation of repetitive verbiage that existed in H. All of the common steps for various types of airworthiness certificates were pulled from the specific sections and placed in their own section. This dropped the number of pages from 322 to 197. There was some content and policy changes as well but I do not recall all of the specifics off the top of my head. I do not believe any significant changes were made to EAB certification procedures or their oplims.
I think this also applies to the Cirrus Vision jet. Of course it's certified but the parachute is not an answer for experience, proficiency, and currency.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Piston experience, single pilot turbine in the flight levels mixed in with airline traffic... a disaster in the making!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The vision isn't RVSM, so won't be mixing with airline traffic any more than folks in PC-12's, TBM's, etc.
There are single piloted turbines already, have been for years. Cessna Citations for one.
Yes, single pilot but only with exemption and check out, not a casual check ride either. Also insurance requirements and common sense generally dictate otherwise. You will typically not see many single pilot jets being flown, and certainly not by low time pilots. Plus the Citation cost (DOC and acquisition) usually mandates professional crews anyway, the boss usually wants to be in the back with redundancy up front.
The Vision is squarely aimed at low cost market, a "step up from a Cirrus". PPL pilots with an IR that typically fly a hundred or so hours a year at 10000 feet. IMO believing this marketing crap is a total folly. Single piston experience hardly provides the kind of experience required to be in ANY kind of a high performance, pressurized jet. The jet learning curve is in the right seat, not Cirrus transition training to a jet. Money does not buy brains. At FL2-something, changing arrivals and runways, a bit of weather and icing, with any kind of an abnormal, these amateurs are going to be so far behind the airplane it will be disastrous.
Only my ATP 25000+ hr opinion. Time will of course tell.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thurmond Munson was pretty low time.
TBMs and PC12's can be RVSM. PC12 service ceiling is FL300, TBM is FL310.
Service ceiling has no bearing on RVSM other than being able to get above FL290 where it matters - Are their PC12's with the necessary certs to meet RVSM?
who knows why Otto has to do it
You should get out more. I see a lot of owner flown SETP or small Jets; such as the Citation.
No shortage of single pilot jets where I park my lowly piston plane. But you are correct, I don't know any flown by low time pilots. These guys are mostly pros flying airplanes for private owners or small private corporations. A few retired airline pilots in the mix too. The owner flown high performance stuff Is mostly TBMs and Meridians, with only a few exceptions at my home port.
Yes, both ICAO and FAA.
Consider me surprised. Does anyone actually operate them up there?
hangin' on the blades
I don't get how they are qualifying for the 51% rule. I doubt very much that people that can afford a million dollar homebuilt airplanes are actually building them. They are actually being built by " owner assist" shops. The feds know this and it's going to screw the true homebuilders.
Think the exploding windshield had anything to do with their demise?
You expect the Vision is going to start mixing with airline traffic and Gulfstreams some day?
Just saw this posted over on COPA, referring to the SF50:
"Over the past 5 days, we've delivered 5 aircraft to customers. The highest serial number delivered is now up to #27. We have 4 additional deliveries scheduled through the end of the year."
I guess this can be seen as a flood or a trickle, depending on one’s prejudices.
Cirrus received its production certificate from the FAA only on May 2 this year. It is targeting 100 deliveries in 2018. 31 deliveries in the first partial year of production, as it is ramping staffing and production, seems quite reasonable.
Given how much more regulated manufacturing airplanes is than automobiles, Cirrus deserves credit for being far closer to meeting its production and delivery goals than Tesla.
I don't think the SF50 is ever going to win awards for beauty, but any close examination will demonstrate it's an incredibly well thought out airplane. So good imo I don't think it will need to go through the major evolutionary improvements the Cirrus piston fleet experienced. And I was anything but a Cirrus fan until I examined the SF50 up close. I think they will sell every one they can make. Kudos to them.
I know that RVSM is Cirrus' goal...