11 Jul 2025, 13:40 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution? Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 14:49 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 10/17/12 Posts: 682 Post Likes: +581 Location: Ellijay,Ga (N Ga Mts)
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
|
|
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.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution? Posted: 10 Apr 2016, 22:28 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2852 Post Likes: +2795 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How does the high aspect ratio affect the ride in turbulence? 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. Quote: Is it another reason to opt for a turbine - to get above turbulence quickly? 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.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution? Posted: 11 Apr 2016, 11:53 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/04/08 Posts: 1799 Post Likes: +1404 Location: MYF, San Diego, CA
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How does the high aspect ratio affect the ride in turbulence? 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.[quote]
Thanks for the response Dave. I calculate the wingloading is 44% greater for the Evo. How does the Evo have a 61 kt stall speed with a smaller wing and greater gross weight than the Mirage? The Mirage has big Fowler flaps. Are the Evo's simply bigger still?
Sheldon, you said the Evo was a little too much airplane for the 350 hp Lycoming, but the take off length and climb rate seem pretty good to me. Is there another parameter I should consider regarding performance?
Ashley
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution? Posted: 12 Apr 2016, 01:14 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2852 Post Likes: +2795 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I calculate the wingloading is 44% greater for the Evo. How does the Evo have a 61 kt stall speed with a smaller wing and greater gross weight than the Mirage? The Mirage has big Fowler flaps. Are the Evo's simply bigger still? 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
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution? Posted: 13 Apr 2016, 19:28 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/16/15 Posts: 3465 Post Likes: +5001 Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 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
While the M600 has the same engine, aren't they running it harder in the M600 to get M500 speeds? I know they are allowing 600 HP on take off and climb, but have not seen the power tables to see what they allow in cruise, whereas the M500 is limited to 500 HP.
_________________ Chuck Ivester Piper M600 Ogden UT
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Piston-Powered Lancair Evolution? Posted: 13 Apr 2016, 23:57 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2852 Post Likes: +2795 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: While the M600 has the same engine, aren't they running it harder in the M600 to get M500 speeds? I know they are allowing 600 HP on take off and climb, but have not seen the power tables to see what they allow in cruise, whereas the M500 is limited to 500 HP. 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.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|