LANCAIR EVOLUTION - the GREATEST Four Seat Plane

[@pushing2throttles]

Are you kidding me? The astetics of the evolution is gorgeous! What a beautiful plane!

[@Captndarty]

Now way. The windows kill the ascetics. Terrible looking and poor visibility. And no they don’t have to be that round for pressurization.

[@blaze6655]

The Evolution with the PT-6A turboprop engine is nothing short of incredible. Solid, well designed, easy to fly, turbine reliability, very comfortable and roomy, great payload, with jet like performance. Very few others out there can cruise at 300kt in the flight levels above most of the weather and then land at 61kt (stall speed) which incidentally is the same as a Cirrus SR22. Stall characteristics are so benign practicing them is really a non-issue which is something you wouldn't want to do with a Lancair IV. One other thing that makes the Evolution truly remarkable is its near sail plane glide ratio. At 18:1 it’s about twice that of any comparable airframe. It's so great that at its typical cruise altitude it within glide range of an airport in the lower 48 states. If you can competently fly a Cirrus SR22/Bonanza/Cessna 210 you can fly the Evolution if you commit to the training needed for its high performance and flying in the flight levels. Its truly a docile plane to fly with tons more power. Even thought it is marketed as a "kit plane" it really is not. Almost all Evos are professionally built with the owner partnering with a "professional contract build/maintenance shop that has extensive expertise with the plane and composite construction. All the complicated and integrate work is completed by the professionals while the more basic work is completed by the owner to meet the FAA rules. In essence the professional build shop ensures each plane is built to meet very high quality standards and then tested by certified test pilots thoroughly before being turned over to the owner. In my opinion most Evo's are built better than certified planes. Regarding its accident history. The reality is most of the accidents have been due to pilot error and not airframe issues. Problem is the Evo's performance attracts an owner/pilot that can afford it but may not have the ability, experience or commitment to training to fly a plane with this kind of performance. The Evo's jet like performance can easily get ahead of an owner/pilot not ready, prepared and trained for it or fails to maintain proficiency. It's one thing to cruise around at 170kt / 8,000ft in a Cirrus or Bonanza but entirely another at 300kt / 28,000ft in the flight levels where you are mixing it up with the big air carrier jets. In reality it's not the plane but the Pilot that's the Evo's Achilles heel. Recognizing this, the Evolution Owners Group has in recent years worked hard to develop and implement a certified recurrent training and safety program with professional training organizations like Elite Pilot Services. They have also worked closely with the build/maintenance shops to maintain the fleet and sponsor improvements and advancements for the Evo including many safety products like the BRS ballistic parachute system now being available, new advanced avionics & autopilots and cutting edge thermo radiant heat de-icing systems, military grade door seals just to name a few. Despite other comments about the manufacturer (Evolution Aircraft Company) being out of business the are in fact still in business and actively support the fleet with parts and factory support. While the Evo is not currently in production, it may not stay that way for long. With only about 90 in existence they are becoming highly sought after and if you are lucky enough to own one its not uncommon to get unsolicited inquiries from others looking for one. Nothing out there competes with it in its price/performance category. How do I know all of this, well I own and fly one.

[@Dwaynesaviation]

The Evolution is as great as it gets

[@DaneJasper]

Are they in business, and are kits still available? Or just supporting the existing fleet?

[@blaze6655]

@@DaneJasper Yes. Evolution Aircraft Corp just announced a manufacturing JV with JMB Aircraft in Czech Republic to resume production.

[@speedomars]

The SR22 over the numbers speed is 71kts. The SR22T over the numbers speed is 79kts. The roll probems in the Evolution caused crashes and that led to insurance issues. But now Evolution may be back as the company is partnering with JMB in the Czech republic.

[@colindoney3564]

How does it do in icing conditions? The only thing that makes me second guess this aircraft is the fact that cruising in the flight levels would make avoiding icing conditions nearly impossible, which if it doesn’t do well in icing, defeats the whole point of going up that high

[@XX629-Bulldog]

1:23 previous Lancairs were NOT metal aircraft. Composites have been Lancair’s mainstay forever.

[@StudioRV8]

Yeah, not sure where he got that information. They were NEVER metal.

[@jeffstillwell6802]

Dumb robot…

[@lannvannoy5350]

You need to do a follow up video on the LX7 for the lancair 4P and evolution.

[@andrewday3206]

The LX7 is impressive and possibly faster. I believe the Evolution is wider and overall larger inside…

[@speedomars]

The LX7 is a IVP with a different wing attached. The engines are not new either.

[@brucecuratola6389]

I had researched the SR 22 but never heard much about its competition. Thanks for putting this video together.

[@speedomars]

This plane is NOT a competitor with Cirrus. It is a different animal entirely. It is carbon fiber and has a chute, but that is the end of the comparison. Cirrus does not have a jet-prop option and is not pressurized.

[@kize32]

JMB VL3 is SR22 competition

[@speedomars]

@@kize32 Wrong. The JMB is a two seater with retractable gear and cruises at 150kts. It uses a Rotax light sport engine. It is basically a light sport with retractable gear, a 20kt too fast cruise speed which disqualifies it as SLSA. The SR22 is a fully certified aircraft, four seat (a fifth seat for a child) with fixed gear, a Continental non turbo IO-550 with 310hp (high performance) and a constant speed prop. And cruises at 165kts.

[@vincent5]

@@kize32 that’s even more wrong haha

[@almerindaromeira8352]

Once again in your videos I have to say that a G3X is not inferior in any way to a G1000. The G3X has to be paired with a external GPS nav/comm and autopilot, but that's a feature: ot makes it much more customizable than the G1000. Most people get a g3x and a gtn 750, but you can up to 4 g3x screens and a gtn 750 and a gtn 650 and a g5 just for good measure. And FYI, the G3X is now offered for certified aircraft also.

[@pilotpeego1820]

Awesome video! Well done!

[@DeepWebDiary]

Its ground counterpart is the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution

[@DC3Refom]

Austin meyers favourite aircraft he has the turbine model I cant afford one😂 but i can get to with some fun with a digital with as realistic physics , fm model as possible

[@SailFlyTri]

This video is idiotic. Lancair’s were NEVER, EVER “metal airplanes”

[@hughmarloweverest1684]

Amazing, so firm, so fully packed!

[@antoniog9814]

9:08 You need to correct the video. You say it climbs at 1500 ft/min, but the video shows 15,000 ft/min? I prefer the video's rocket climb.

[@wernerdanler2742]

I noticed that too. Just a typo. Or was it? Mmmm

[@kevincrockett5155]

Nice plane. I'd have a hard time picking it over a Meridian.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@Jwmbike14]

Previous Lancairs were metal airplanes? Not a single Lancair was metal, even the very first prototype, Lancair 200, was composite with a foam core wing. Thats a pretty critical mistake that wouldn't have required more than a wiki search.... Bad writing?

[@doesntmatter3068]

Nice sales pitch!

[@bryanjedi8242]

Didn’t the manufacturer close it’s doors due failures?

[@gregoryhill7960]

My beautiful new ✈ aircraft

[@lincolncottingham2432]

Climbs much slower at 15,000ft/min. Typo in the bottom right 9:10

[@wololo10]

Lets do a Cozy MKIV with this engine

[@novinthomas7725]

What is the useful load, can it fit 4/6'3 guys or is plane made for 2 adults and 2 kids under 10

[@lannvannoy5350]

My understanding is, 4 adults and 225 pounds of luggage

[@blaze6655]

Useful load with full fuel is about 950lbs. Limiting factor is tires. Plenty of hp for more payload if you wanted to chance the tires. Back seats would be cramped with two 6’3 guys but it’s doable. Two adult females would be very comfortable. Front has plenty of room. Way more than a Piper Meridian.

[@toddfleury7324]

What model Lancair had a metal fuselage?

[@thezeek2745]

None

[@antoinelemasson]

Have a look at LX7 aircraft 😉 Same but better and cheaper

[@Kavack]

Huge difference in useful load. I don’t see pricing of lx7

[@flymachine]

Doesn't compare, youre better off comparing the Evo to a TBM

[@thezeek2745]

Cheaper. You have to an IV-P to convert into an Lx7. And it’s a million just for the upgrade

[@Jay-hr3rh]

Is this airplane pressurized?

[@gavinclaassen6440]

All Lancair's are composite, none of them were metal, its impossible to make those complex shapes out of metal unless it is melted and cast in a mold to form those shapes. I have been in aviation with my father since the 1980s and the first Lancair 235 to get a write up in an aviation magazine was a composite airframe.

[@aaronhargrove7460]

Is Evolution Aircraft still in business?

[@Dwaynesaviation]

Not in the US... they closed down and moved to Czech to work with JMB aircraft

[@Stubby0266]

Lancairs were composite

[@markg4459]

From a company no longer in business. Good luck finding parts & support maintaining this complex plane. Beautiful bird but not practical given the lack of support.

[@dwightbarnell4295]

back in production this summer I've heard.

[@arthurbrumagem3844]

@@dwightbarnell4295 a friend of mine has his in Oregon at the “ plant “ getting a stronger nose wheel assembly put on. Fast plane but I don’t think I would want one

[@dwightbarnell4295]

@@arthurbrumagem3844 Not right now anyway, not until the company comes back online and the insurance rates go back down. I have heard the nose assembly is a little on the weak side.

[@arthurbrumagem3844]

@@dwightbarnell4295 my friends collapsed on landing a couple of years ago. Having a turbo prop rebuilt isn’t cheap or fast

[@blaze6655]

@@arthurbrumagem3844 there is a newly engineered HD front nose gear now available. Much beefier than the first gen unit. Ours just had it installed. Nose problem issue is now a non issue.

[@trehl639]

Half the text is copied verbatim from Flying magazine, and the rest of the information just seems to be rephrased. Do you pay them royalties for using their journalists’ work?

[@rileyswing9731]

Woah woah woahhhhh

[@DanFrederiksen]

One major problem. 1.5 million dollars and it's a kit plane you have to build yourself. Therefore very very far from the greatest 4 seater.

[@matthew1464]

Hi

[@mukhiddintashpulatov8865]

👍

[@stellahighton74]

And no icing protection! All at around 1.2 million. It will be flying around looking like an ice cube most of the time.

[@blaze6655]

That’s not true. There are several Evolutions equipped with traditional inflatable de-ice boots. Problem is boots extract a speed penalty of about 20-30 kts as they dirty up a bit the Evo’s super smooth laminar airfoil which is why most owners haven’t elected to go that route. But that’s not the only option. The super advanced German Villinger electric thermo deice system is in flight testing on three Evo’s as of this writing. So far it’s proving to be very effective, robust and efficient. The system is only 5 nano meters thick which does not interfere with the Evo’s laminar airfoil unlike traditional inflatable boots so there is no speed loss with the Villinger system. So far about 20 Evo’s are in line to have the system installed after testing is complete.

[@blaze6655]

@@abel4776 it’s an option if desired. Several have BRS parachutes installed.

[@alexs3187]

@@abel4776 now? It’s been around for a while

[@alexs3187]

@@abel4776 I thought you just meant the turboprop Evolution, sorry. No idea on the chute. I’d be more interested in the DA50RG or 62 anyway. No chute on either of those.

[@speedomars]

You can add hot boots to the plane.

[@AndyMatrix]

The range sucks. LX7 have a 2100nm . on top of that , the plane is ugly, back window is a fail . . I dont get it!

[@johngilbert1325]

It's not a great plane. It's very fast, and very difficult to fly. They did cost 7 figures to build but people sell them for far below a Cirrus because they're near impossible to insure- for a reason... They end up as smoldering craters at a ridiculous rate. They're not great planes.

[@zendoc49]

thanks for setting the record straight

[@av8rshane491]

LX7 is a much better airplane.

[@EVOT-N621SS]

You are confusing the evolution with the lancair IVP. Totally different planes and vastly different safety records

[@tobberfutooagain2628]

Absolute bullshit.

[@robertodiniz7314]

15000ft per min lol

[@Dwaynesaviation]

What?

[@robertodiniz7314]

@@Dwaynesaviation there is a mistake on the Piston Slide

[@robertodiniz7314]

@@Dwaynesaviation other than that good vídeo! A lot of work I can see

[@Dwaynesaviation]

Thank you so much... I highly appreciate

[@andylewis210]

Why can’t you just narrate in a normal voice???

[@joncox9719]

Great design and concept, FAST! But, too hot for the average pilot and most of them were crashed causing the company to go out of business! And former Lancair designs were COMPOSITE, not metal! Poor research on this video!

[@thezeek2745]

That’s the lancair IV-P. This is a safe plane. Part 23 stall numbers.

[@joncox9719]

@@thezeek2745 Yes, but still a "HOT" plane that is too much to handle for the "average" pilot! One of the more perplexing crashes was in the Phoenix area, the guy lost electrical power, "No big deal" on a beautiful crystal clear day and crashed a perfectly good plane and was killed! Most aren't up to the performance!

[@speedomars]

The Corvallis was composite as was the IV-P. The Evolution ran into trouble when some of them were crashed by low-skill pilots. Insurance companies backed away from them. The planes are fine, but not everyone can be a customer or be able to pilot one.

[@novinthomas7725]

Looks like a Cirrus could be a better choice

[@Kavack]

Why? More expensive, slower and less useful load.

[@flymachine]

in what sense?Unless youre referring to the vision jet which also falls short, the SR22 is smaller, much slower, unpressurised, can't fly nearly as high, less useful load and all that for a higher cost...???

[@alexs3187]

Honestly, a used Malibu or Meridian might be better than both.

[@caryconrad3298]

Turbine Prop not Turbo Prop

[@DaneJasper]

Turboprops are turbine-engine prop planes. The Evolution is an example, or the King Air, PC-12, TBM, etc.

[@caryconrad3298]

@@DaneJasper in the 40s this in-distinction started, it was wrong then and is still wrong, my private crusade

[@blaze6655]

I think the naming convention started with the other name descriptions for the three general classes of turbine engines: TurboJet TurboFan (both high and low bypass) TurboProp I agree all use a turbine engine as their core power source, its just the method of "final or primary drive" that differentiates them, each having a sweetspot on the performance/altitude/fuel efficiency curves an airframe designer/manufacture selects for its mission profile. How it got shortened to "Turbo" is a mystery to me.

[@jonbutzfiscina1307]

Another awkward side stick control.

[@alexs3187]

@@abel4776 exactly!

[@larrysmith6797]

Poorly written, horribly presented and factually incorrect.