|
Message
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).
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).
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.
Chuck Jensen
-----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
|