Building a Lancair Evolution

[Sylvia Else]

I found that the manual for building the Lancair Evolution, a four seat
turboprop single, is available for download, without registration, from
Lancair's web site.

<http://www.lancair.com/media/builderupdates/Evolution/EvolutionManualRev10_8_18_2014_Locked2.pdf>

All 55 Mb of it.

I thought some might be interested.

Sylvia.

[Cees Binkhorst]

And photograps to make building easier ;)
http://www.flyingmag.com/photo-gallery/photos/lancair-evolution-making

Regards / Cees

[Sylvia Else]

I won't be building one. The only reason, of course, is the lack of
deicing equipment (other than on the prop).

Sylvia.

[Paul Saccani]

Not sure where you get that idea.

Deice is an option for wings, tailplane and windscreen, but standard
for the airscrew.

There is a deice kit for flight into known icing conditions, using
boots, but this tends to create more problems than it solves, and
costs US$45,000, plus the windscreen glycol deice for US$1,500. The
money isn't usually the obstacle, just the increased maintenance and
the effect on performance.

It can fly into probable icing conditions without the extra deice kit,
but not known icing conditions.

Every Turbine Evolution owner/builder that I know decided that the
full deice kit was a lot more trouble than what it was worth.

If it was me, I'd be a lot more worried about certain peculiarities in
the U/C plumbing and sequencing that can make alternate extension damn
nigh impossible with some hydraulic failures. Of course, as a
builder, you can get around that....
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

[Sylvia Else]

I suppose it depends how you want to use the aircraft. The thing is
clearly capable of flying above most weather, leaving only the problem
of reaching those heights and descending from them. In overcast
conditions with an icing level in the cloud, an aircraft that can't go
into known icing is going to have to stay low, which is less
comfortable, and takes longer, and may not be feasible at all. So if you
want a reliable personal air transport that will get the job done, it
seems to me that you need deicing.

If it's just for fun, then flying in cloud and on top may not be that
attractive anyway.

>
> If it was me, I'd be a lot more worried about certain peculiarities in
> the U/C plumbing and sequencing that can make alternate extension damn
> nigh impossible with some hydraulic failures. Of course, as a
> builder, you can get around that....

There's an emergency bypass valve that's suppose to allow the gear to
lower under gravity. Since it connects the two sides of each of the
three gear actuators together, it's hard to see how that can go wrong,
absent some gross error in the pipework, particularly if the hydraulic
pump is disabled by tripping its breaker.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

If the asking prices for low time used Evolutions are anything to go by,
it looks as if one could build these with the intention of selling them
shortly after the flight test period, for profit.

Not that I'm thinking of doing that, but I wonder if people are. The
main problem would be finance to cover the time from purchase to sale.

Sylvia.

[Paul Saccani]

On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:30:48 +1100, Sylvia Else
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>> Every Turbine Evolution owner/builder that I know decided that the
>> full deice kit was a lot more trouble than what it was worth.
>
>I suppose it depends how you want to use the aircraft. The thing is
>clearly capable of flying above most weather, leaving only the problem
>of reaching those heights and descending from them. In overcast
>conditions with an icing level in the cloud, an aircraft that can't go
>into known icing is going to have to stay low, which is less
>comfortable, and takes longer, and may not be feasible at all. So if you
>want a reliable personal air transport that will get the job done, it
>seems to me that you need deicing.

With more experience, you would appreciate that "known icing
conditions" aren't very common, whilst probable icing is the one that
usually creates issues.

>If it's just for fun, then flying in cloud and on top may not be that
>attractive anyway.
>
>>
>> If it was me, I'd be a lot more worried about certain peculiarities in
>> the U/C plumbing and sequencing that can make alternate extension damn
>> nigh impossible with some hydraulic failures. Of course, as a
>> builder, you can get around that....
>
>There's an emergency bypass valve that's suppose to allow the gear to
>lower under gravity. Since it connects the two sides of each of the
>three gear actuators together, it's hard to see how that can go wrong,
>absent some gross error in the pipework, particularly if the hydraulic
>pump is disabled by tripping its breaker.

And yet I've seen it happen, causing about $600,000 worth of damage in
the unavoidable belly landing. Insurance covered most of it, in that
case. Take a look at how the uplocks work, and the alternate system
plumbing.

7 Feb 2010 Amateur-built Lancair IV-P
Augusta (ALA), WA
Nil [Injury] Serious [damage]
During initial climb, the pilot received an unsafe landing gear
indication. The aircraft continued to Jandakot where the pilot
conducted a wheels-up landing.
Subsequent inspection revealed that an hydraulic flare fitting had
failed on the landing gear pressure line.*************************

In this case, a single point of failure rendered the alternate
extension method inoperative, it had the illusion of redundancy, not
the actuality of it.

What happens with the standard system is that all fluid is lost quite
quickly, due to the pressures involved, and due to a design issue, the
system intended to prevent that can not work. So you get left with a
belly landing. The reality is, it doesn't work as documented.

[Sylvia Else]

The Legacy also has a gravity gear down function. That should work even
if all the hydraulic fluid is lost. I can't find any discussion of why
it didn't work in that particular instance, though it won't if there's
too much friction. It's supposed to be tested from time to time.

It also won't work if the hydraulic line is blocked, but there's a limit
to what can be achieved without having explosive bolts to sever components.

Sylvia.

[Paul Saccani]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:31:26 +1100, Sylvia Else

As originally designed, it can't work in my opinion. I've looked at
the aircraft in question. There is a shuttle valve which should move
in response to a loss of pressure, to prevent the loss of all
hydraulic fluid. Due to the striction and spring pressure used, it
can't do that. This renders the alternate system useless, it simply
pumps all the fluid out of the defect in the other system. You can't
unlock the uplocks, so you can't use gravity to lower the
undercarriage. The accident aircraft has been modified to prevent a
recurrence.

>It also won't work if the hydraulic line is blocked, but there's a limit
>to what can be achieved without having explosive bolts to sever components.

No such extreme measures are needed.

It is actually pretty common to find intended redundancies in aircraft
systems that aren't real world redundant. That's why you have to keep
a good look out for them, so you can catch them before someone gets
caught out.

[protra...@gmail.com]

Excuse the late interruption into your conversation guys, I don't' meant to be the know-it-all, but honestly gentlemen, I hope to influence you to be more conservative. After 13,000 hours flying jets all over the world, i can confirm if you need reliable transportation by air, you must have de-ice capability. Perhaps in certain parts of the country its less an issue, but anytime you are in visible moisture and the outside temperature is close to freezing, or below, icing is an issue. it's too late to realize this after you begin to accumulate the stuff and you don't have protection. And, ice will accumulate faster and faster once you begin to "dirty" the airframe.
As far as options, in my early days, i flew aircraft with certified TKS weeping glycol wings. They are extremely aerodynamic, making a stronger and smoother surface than regular painted aluminum. The system works as both anti-ice and deice. A small reservoir provides hours of protection under normal use. Its a great option. Beats the heck out of dying or damaging stuff on the ground cause you're stupid.
Rgds,
Dave
G550, GV, GIV, Falcon 900EX, DA-50, PRM1a

[Sylvia Else]

Sadly, it seems the manufacture of the Evolution kits is no more,
apparently as a result of some high profile accidents that may have had
nothing to do with the design.

Sylvia.

[lubin...@gmail.com]

Evolution Aircraft is back in production 6/1/2019