The relevant article is this one:
http://austinmeyer.com/2016/06/14/844x-ups-and-downs/
Knowing Austin’s obvious knowledge in aerodynamics and other relevant subjects, I would see a lot of possible traps for pilots with more cash than capability. My own very brief experience with the 4P would point in the same direction… a great performer but it comes at a price.
Which does not mean that it’s a bad airplane, but like Austin, people need to know what they got themselfs into and how to master it. Otherwise, things can go wrong very fast and with predictable outcome.
Thanks, MD.
This is the one I particularly remembered:
I don’t think anyone needs to be accused of “badmouthing” the aircraft, given the above. How much is a gear up in an Evo?
Peter wrote:
Hull cover is something else; a justifiable omission if you can afford to throw the plane away. Lots of people do that in light GA too, sometimes because they feel they cannot afford hull cover.
In the US, among people I know, about half carry hull cover on ‘fun’ planes. For heavy iron it’s probably higher than that because they are so expensive to fix. Most people don’t like the idea of throwing away a plane, but if they could fix it themselves with their own resources it’s less expensive and less hassle to self-insure the hull. Obviously in that circumstance those with more spare cash and more spare time are more likely to self insure, regardless of the complexity of the plane.
The best thing about insurance being non-mandatory is that you aren’t asked to prove you have it, that’s your own business.
what_next wrote:
Yes and no. Sad because everyone wishes that very complex machines could be designed, built, operated and maintained by amateurs. Not so sad (for me) because it shows that very complex machines are best designed, built, maintained and operated by teams of experienced professionals (thereby making sure that my job(s) are safe).
he he. What most people don’t realize is that most kits requires a lot of thinking. I have lost count of all the minor and slightly major modifications I have done to my Onex, a plane that is all but “complex”, and on paper is built within “6 months”. RVs are no exception for that matter, although the newer generation of kits are rather well made. The LAA have lots of info on all the “weird” things that must be changed and fixed on common kits (to satisfy the LAA that is, but nevertheless). Kits are very far from IKEA quality. The Carbon Cub is one exception though, it is an exceptionally well made kit.
Usually this things don’t really matter. The fixes and changes people do is more of a practical matter. To make it easier to maintain, easier to change things, more comfortable to fly, to adhere better to best practice design principles if for no other reason than just for the sake of it, and a slightly better peace of mind, and so on. But I agree with you with the Evolution. I have always though it was a cool, but completely ridiculous. At some point the complexity reach a threshold that cannot be overcome by the power of the will alone, fancy production or cool sales ideas, you need good old fashion engineering competence and experience (a team of engineers and lots and lots of money )
Done.
So what will happen to the 80 flying examples? No more factory support means no parts. I suppose they can fly on until something breaks and then it’s off to the museums…
Still strikes me that a company like that can be forced into closing by insurances for cases I hardly see the airplane at fault. Another nail in the coffin for US makers? And not only certified ones by the looks of it now?
No more factory support means no parts.
If the factory can make the parts anyone else should be able to make them too. Should be no problem with a kitplane.
Assuming you can get direct support on the PT6, maintaining the Evo on a homebuilt basis should be OK if you have access to top-class composite (I mean specialist aviation composites, not fibreglass boats etc) repair facilities. This will be required from time to time due to the way it is constructed. Based on what I have heard, the engine will be the least of the problems. The story of the Epic is getting rather similar to this; in the Epic case owners ended up suing the factory for alleged failure to deliver parts they had paid for.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Still strikes me that a company like that can be forced into closing by insurances for cases I hardly see the airplane at fault
When you sell complex stuff, advertised as easy peazy, to people with bags and bags of money, you better deliver on the promises. You don’t want to be sued by people with bags and bags of money, for any reason. The kit industry is full of stories like this. In the beginning, the customers are self sufficient and result oriented enough to fix things themselves, do the needed changes, make it work. Then to sell more kits, and to make more money per kit, you have to:
Instead of selling kits to result oriented doers, you end up more and more selling “kits” to people who’s method of solving stuff is by using money and lawyers. When people like that gets irritated by your poor design choices and less than optimal quality, or simply get frustrated that their practical and engineering skills were non existent, they will “solve” their problems and broken self-image the only way they know how to.
…none of which appear to be relevant to the Evo, which allegedly was sued by the estate of people killed in an accident…
