I flew in the piston powered Evolution in formation with a turbine & the Legacy at SNF years ago. Like Doug said, the turbine is a fine plane. The Evolution is a little too much plane for a standard piston engine IMHO. Now with a 500HP V8 or IO720.....

The other two planes had to keep slowing down and waiting for the piston Evolution.

It did fly sweet though.

From Sun-N-FUn

http://kitplanes2.com/blog/2016/04/lyco ... evolution/

When I saw the first flying prototype in 2010 of the piston-evolution I thought it was a game-changer. Unfortunately the challenges Doug referenced with the iE2 engine seemed to take the concept off-the-table. I had periodic conversations over the last 5 years with Lancair's regional salesman in my area and they acted like they didn't even want to talk about it.....kind of implied that I was crazy for not focusing on the turbine.

The specs for the fuel economy, cruise speed and range are extremely attractive. In fact, I think you could make the argument that any trip over 1000 nautical miles, the piston version is faster (block-to-block).

It will be very interesting to see how this engine performs going forward.

It seems everyone is missing the fact YOU can build a Piston Evo if you want to and there is no need to spend 118K for a 540.

Simplest way would be just use a TIO 540 with a RED mixture cable and fly it like a "Normal" aircraft as the computer stuff when perfected would be quite nice it just not worth the the 70K difference even if it worked perfectly.

Point two from everything I have read (I don't KNOW just read)the CHT is just too high.
Computer controls can do a lot of things well but changing the structural strength of hi temp aluminum is most definitely NOT one of them.
More than likely airflow in and out in the engine cowling could cure that.

Now to build the BEST piston solution with at least somewhat available parts and for a much more reasonable cost for 1/2 or less of 118K I would do this.
Start with a used 350 HP twin turbo,two intercooler TIO 550.
As the TAT deal at high percent has about 255Hp and the 'stock' TIO 550 with 7.5 CR has about 262HP at 75% I think a combination of the two would work well in the EVO.
Start by doweling the case half's----Use 8.5 CR pistons---Twin turbo's and coolers--Then a moderate NP would produce Take off power around 400 HP and a Hi cruise of around 280 or 290 HP .
As we have no actual info on the wetted area or Flat plane number of the EVO nor do we have a actual HP number at altitude from the Pratt/EVO we have very little info to calculate from.
How ever according to TAT V-Tail (not station wagon) press releases we 'Think" we know that airframe will run about 240 mph on 255HP at 17,000F and if we had 290 HP it should run about 250+ mph and that's a Bonanza--EVO would naturally be quite a bit faster but we have no real info to calculate from.
The engine described above has no magic or unobtainable parts and would be simple to build and provide good Performance in an EVO for reasonable money.
Come and give me a ride when you get it done.

Lancair seems to be trying to standardize their airplanes. Yes, it's going against the spirit of experimentation. I like the idea of electronic control; it might allow pistons to approach the reliability of turbines. But I'd rather not be a beta-tester.

I'm a little confused about the costs of the PT6 - used or unused. Finished costs of Evos are said to be around $1.4m. Given the range of costs I've seen, the engine isn't a big part of the total. My guess is a piston-powered Evo will still cost more than $1m, and any savings will be a small fraction of that. Efficiency and hence payload seem more likely reasons to chose piston over turbine.

Efficiency doesn't translate into an overwhelming economic argument for pistons given the cheaper price of Jet A. Shorter flights, with proportionately more time at low altitude will make more difference to fuel flow, and most people make a mix of short and long flights. It's only on longer flights that the reduced fuel flow of the piston will compensate for the extra 200 lbs. weight of the engine. (Thanks for a superb write-up Doug)

Here's a subjective reason that matters to me. I like flying relatively low where I see more detail. My experience at turbine altitudes is very limited, so maybe I wouldn't notice.

A question about the airframe. How does the high aspect ratio affect the ride in turbulence? Is it another reason to opt for a turbine - to get above turbulence quickly?

Ashley

The skinny wing is only 133 sq feet, vs. 175 sq feet for the Mirage at similar weight so it has a higher wing loading, hence a better ride in turbulence. But it has a similar stall speed to the Mirage despite that higher wing loading, a testament to the Evolution's advanced wing design.Very much so. Speaking as someone who's been flying turbocharged for years, to make high altitudes really usable you need rapid climb. High altitudes are great for smoothness and getting above the weather but the longer it takes to get up there the farther you have to be going for it to be worth doing. A rapid climb lets you get up to smooth-n-clear on all but the shortest trips. And the specs show the turbine Evolution max rate of climb is twice that of the piston. In the real world of cruise climbs to keep cylinder heads cool (not an issue with the turbine, of course) the difference is likely even greater.

RE: build your own evo and pick your own engine

you'd spend $700k on an airframe, call it $50-100k on avionics, and another $100-150k on labor and put an $80k engine on it?

there's a reason nobody has done this yet

No, it's not just flaps, it's a better wing. Other than the unusually high aspect ratio the Malibu/Mirage's wing wasn't pushing the state of the art even when it was designed in the 1970s. It uses the same NACA 23000 series airfoils used by Beech in the Staggerwing , Twin Beech and Bonanza/Baron/King Air. In contrast, the Evo's wing was designed in the 2000s by Greg Cole using far more capable computer tools than would have been available to even the largest aerospace firms just a decade or two earlier. The Evo wing is also thicker, with 20% more fuel volume (168 gallons vs. 140 gallons) in 3/4 of the wing area of the Mirage.

The new Piper M600 is a rare example of a wing being completely redesigned for an existing airplane. (Other than the switch to swept wings in the 50s, the only other examples that come to mind are the Spiteful, and maybe Piper abandoning the Hershey Bar, although I hesitate to call that a clean sheet redesign.) According to (preliminary) specs published by AOPA, despite a higher wing loading than the M500, the M600's new wing stalls 3 kts slower clean and 6 kts slower dirty. And even with the same engine and fuselage as the M500 but a thousand pound higher gross, the M600 is faster. A great example of just how much has been learned about wing design since the Malibu's wing was designed in the 1970s.
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... ot/f_piper

Thanks Dave. I've only now looked at the wingspans involved. The Evo's is only 37 feet, compared to 43 for the Mirage. Higher loading and shorter span: good and better for the ride!

Ashley

Lancair Delivers First Piston Evolution
New pressurized single-engine kit model offers impressive speed and range.

http://www.flyingmag.com/lancair-delive ... ODgwMzc2S0

Anyone know the critical altitude for the Lycoming YTEO or its BSFC?

Ashley

It's the same engine, they just don't flat-rate it down as far. The M600 gets that extra power only at lower altitudes, once they climb past the altitude that the -42 will produce 500 HP both models will have the same power. At max alt of FL280 at max available power the two show similar speeds despite the 600's greater weight. But it's early days yet, the specs are still not settled, witness the recent boost in top speed of the M600 to 274 kts by raising the limit IAS at lower altitudes where the full 600 HP is available.

I say stick with the Turbine... Jet A smells better!



...but I'm prejudice because I only do "jet" acquisitions!