X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 10 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:17:31 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [66.83.119.58] (HELO lucky.dts.local) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with ESMTP id 1935308 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:05:26 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.83.119.58; envelope-from=cjensen@dts9000.com X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76BF4.3F650208" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Guess that airplane **Correction** X-Original-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:05:18 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B33E7018@lucky.dts.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Guess that airplane **Correction** Thread-Index: Acdr8mrDdeYKn1EzQDirQg+kBYV3swAAQnLQ From: "Chuck Jensen" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76BF4.3F650208 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A while back, there was a posting on the web comparing the EA-500 and a Bonanza on a flight of some intermediate length...something like from New Orleans to Charlotte. It was assumed the Bonanza would climb to the mid teens and the EA-500 to the low to mid 20s FL. Given these flight profiles, the Bonanza was as quick to CLT while burning significantly less fuel with similar payload (perhaps a bit better, depending on assumption about EA-500 crew requirements, et al). =20 Such comparisons are all about the assumptions and selections made in developing the comparison. Obviously, longer flights will often, but not always favor the jet. For instance, a flight to the WNW in the winter may harshly penalize the jet due to headwinds, but gain some of it back when headed East (but you never gain all of it back...a tail wind never gains you as much as you lost into the same headwind). =20 In sum, the EA-500 relies on many intangibles to justify the higher procurement and operating cost, namely "jets are cool", not many have them, even fewer can fly them and every 20th trip, the extra altitude will let you get over a little weather. The ultimate choice is based on the value in the mind of the buyer. =20 Chuck Jensen=20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Brent Regan Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:51 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Guess that airplane **Correction** In my original post I misstated the EA-500 cruise speed as 275 KIAS when in fact it is limited to a maximum of 275 KEAS where Knots Equivalent Airspeed is indicated airspeed corrected for position error and compressibility effects. My bad. <>The EA-500, in standard configuration seats 5 people with a sixth seat being optional and requires 2 pilots for normal operation, thus three passengers. The posted performance numbers for the EA-500 include 4 souls on board. Range is 1,250 to 1,300 nm which compares favorably to my Lycoming TIO-540 powered IV-P's 1,050 nm with 45 minute IFR reserves (standard cruise 275 KIAS @ FL240 and 21 GPH). <> My original post was not an "attack" on the EA-500. I was merely pointing out that marketing hype and reality frequently stand apart and that the performance of the Lancair(s) continues to be extraordinary. BTW, Marv is correct (again) ECBs are Electronic Circuit Breakers. The "complexity of systems integration on the EA-500" is extraordinary. I would anticipate hearing more on this subject in the future. <> Regards Brent Regan=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76BF4.3F650208 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
A = while back, there=20 was a posting on the web comparing the EA-500 and a Bonanza on a flight = of some=20 intermediate length...something like from New Orleans to = Charlotte.  It was=20 assumed the Bonanza would climb to the mid teens and the EA-500 to the = low=20 to mid 20s FL.  Given these flight profiles, the Bonanza was = as quick=20 to CLT while burning significantly less fuel with similar payload = (perhaps a bit=20 better, depending on assumption about EA-500 crew requirements, et=20 al).
 
Such = comparisons are=20 all about the assumptions and selections made in developing the=20 comparison.  Obviously, longer flights will often, but not always = favor the=20 jet.  For instance, a flight to the WNW in the winter may harshly = penalize=20 the jet due to headwinds, but gain some of it back when headed East (but = you=20 never gain all of it back...a tail wind never gains you as much as you = lost into=20 the same headwind).
 
In = sum, the EA-500=20 relies on many intangibles to justify the higher procurement and = operating cost,=20 namely "jets are cool", not many have them, even fewer can fly them and = every=20 20th trip, the extra altitude will let you get over a little = weather.  The=20 ultimate choice is based on the value in the mind of the=20 buyer.
 
Chuck Jensen 
 
 
 -----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Brent=20 Regan
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:51 PM
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Guess that airplane=20 **Correction**

In my original = post I=20 misstated the EA-500 cruise speed as 275 KIAS when in fact it is limited = to a=20 maximum of 275 KEAS where Knots Equivalent Airspeed is indicated = airspeed=20 corrected for position error and compressibility effects. My=20 bad.

<>The EA-500, in standard = configuration=20 seats 5 people with a sixth seat being optional and requires 2 pilots = for normal=20 operation, thus three passengers. The posted performance numbers for the = EA-500=20 include 4 souls on board. Range is 1,250 to 1,300 nm which compares = favorably to=20 my Lycoming TIO-540 powered IV-P's 1,050 nm with 45 minute IFR reserves=20 (standard cruise 275 KIAS @ FL240 and 21 = GPH). =20 <>

My = original post was=20 not an “attack” on the EA-500. I was merely pointing out = that marketing hype and=20 reality frequently stand apart and that the performance of the = Lancair(s)=20 continues to be extraordinary.

BTW, Marv is correct (again) ECBs = are=20 Electronic Circuit Breakers.  The "complexity of systems=20 integration on the EA-500" is extraordinary. I would anticipate hearing = more on=20 this subject  in the future.
<>
Regards
Brent = Regan=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76BF4.3F650208--