Epic Victory

Ken Ibold

Ken Ibold

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
5,889
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
Got to fly the Epic Victory single engine jet today, making me the 4th person on the planet to fly it. This is a pure prototype, so there was no interior, the panel was rudimentary and the seats sucked. Furthermore, it has a few minor handling quirks that need to be worked out. OK, all of that is predictable given the recency of the program.

What would you predict the approach speed would be for a 320-knot jet? Try 85 knots on final. Dirtied up at altitude, it would fly all day at 65 knots. At the slow end of the envelope, it flies like a big single -- which is exactly what it is. But it also climbs at 3000 fpm, goes like a bat out of hell, comes down like a rock when you want it to, and it has pretty good control harmony -- somewhere between a Baron and a Seneca.

It needs a little work. Some ventral strakes are likely because there is a pronounced Dutch roll. It needs aileron trim added. But I think this airplane will be a winner.
 
It's a tough job ya got, Ken, but somebody's gotta do it.
 
Last edited:
FlyNE said:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=239518#239518

:needpics:


Kenny,

It's on the "show all smileys" page
Click to expand...
Geeze, I went to that page. I must have glossed right over it. I'll go back to sleep, now.

Besides, I need to rest for an early flight in the morning.
Sleeping.gif
 
excellent Ken. You think they'll be able to get it worked into a certified version? That is the goal right?
 
Big whoop I got a ride in my neigbors Dodge Minivan today.

Sounds like awesome fun Ken:D
 
That's really neat to hear, Ken, both on the performance of it and the fact that you got to fly it.

And I second the above statements:

:needpics:
 
About the pix ... I'm still in Bend and I don't have the cable with me to download the pix off my camera. We did shoot some air to airs, going all the way to Mt. Shasta in search of good light. I also got some nice statics of the exterior. So maybe tomorrow...
 
I'm just glad that the Victory is not made by the Pyrrhic Aircraft Company..... I am sure I couldn't afford it if it was! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rofl::goofy:

-Skip
 
Ken Ibold said:
About the pix ... I'm still in Bend and I don't have the cable with me to download the pix off my camera. We did shoot some air to airs, going all the way to Mt. Shasta in search of good light. I also got some nice statics of the exterior. So maybe tomorrow...
Click to expand...

all is forgiven, thanks for the exciting report!
 
Ken, you need someone to hold your notebook or keep your laptop charged or fetch snacks or something? I'd be happy to tag along on your adventures!

What are they expecting to charge for this little beauty, anyway?
 
flyersfan31 said:
Ken, you need someone to hold your notebook or keep your laptop charged or fetch snacks or something? I'd be happy to tag along on your adventures!

What are they expecting to charge for this little beauty, anyway?
Click to expand...
U-build is about $900K, certified, about 1.3. There is one customer who has already started building his. The fuselage halves are together already.
 
Ken Ibold said:
U-build is about $900K, certified, about 1.3. There is one customer who has already started building his. The fuselage halves are together already.
Click to expand...

uh dont you mean "building" ?

or maybe "There is one customer who has alread started watching his be built" ?
 
tonycondon said:
uh dont you mean "building" ?

or maybe "There is one customer who has alread started watching his be built" ?
Click to expand...
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

The customers I talked to there are actually taking a pretty active role in the builds -- even ticking off the floor workers by insisting on modifications. Actually, a lot of the builder/customer-conceived mods are making the LT a better airplane, which is really part of the idea, I think.

But, yes, they are loopholing the "amateur-built" certification to a certain extent. I'm OK with that, as a lot of the certification rules are absurd.
 
Ken Ibold said:
But, yes, they are loopholing the "amateur-built" certification to a certain extent. I'm OK with that, as a lot of the certification rules are absurd.
Click to expand...

such as the whole purpose of the rule being for "recreation and education"? I hardly can conceive how a turbine pressurized cabin class cruiser fits into that but whatever.

I doubt any of the 'builders' will be getting repairmans certificates for their new birds.

edit: ok fine i can see how it fits into 'recreation' but this type of application doesnt seem to be anywhere near the original intent of the experimental amateur built rules.
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
such as the whole purpose of the rule being for "recreation and education"? I hardly can conceive how a turbine pressurized cabin class cruiser fits into that but whatever.

I doubt any of the 'builders' will be getting repairmans certificates for their new birds.

edit: ok fine i can see how it fits into 'recreation' but this type of application doesnt seem to be anywhere near the original intent of the experimental amateur built rules.
Click to expand...

I do not understand your position here, Tony. The size and complexity of a plane affect its cost and the time to build, but in no way robs it of the ability to be built by an owner, and that owner can clearly learn a great deal from the experience.

If I had (1) a rat-heap of money, and (2) the time to commit, I'd dearly love to build something like this, and you can bet your a$$ I'd participate for real.

There are some "build assist" folks out there who are definitely gaming the system; lots and lots in the RV world I know (and one presumes in other popular designs, as well- not picking on the Vans Air Force).
 
SCCutler said:
I do not understand your position here, Tony. The size and complexity of a plane affect its cost and the time to build, but in no way robs it of the ability to be built by an owner, and that owner can clearly learn a great deal from the experience.

If I had (1) a rat-heap of money, and (2) the time to commit, I'd dearly love to build something like this, and you can bet your a$$ I'd participate for real.

There are some "build assist" folks out there who are definitely gaming the system; lots and lots in the RV world I know (and one presumes in other popular designs, as well- not picking on the Vans Air Force).
Click to expand...

1) Check out their website, www.epicaircraft.com no mention anywhere that you will actually have to help build that experimental turboprop or jet. They just make it sound like you put your money down and come pick it up.

2) I guess from my perspective the whole point of building your own airplane is so you can work on it (i.e. get the repairmans certificate). obviously that is not the goal of most of their customers.

3) I have no concern with 'builder assist' programs as long as the builder is actually hands on helping through the entire process (see #2). I talked to a similar company, comp air i think, at oshkosh, and they said that your part in building their 6 seat pressurized turboprop was to come to the factory for 2 weeks and help them glue together the wings and fuselage. after you left they installed the engine, interior, and whatever else was left. My impression was they did all the 'dirty' work. I wouldnt consider that to be 'amatuer built', i personally would call that 'factory built'

Of course when i get a ton of money and just as much time, I'll probably be right next to you buildling my jet :)
 
Tony, I think we agree, then. If this whole thing is a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" deal, then it's not kosher... I guess...
 
I think the thing is that while $900K is a lot of money, it is still $400K less than the 1.3M for the certified version. If all you have to do is go to the factory for 2 weeks and help them glue together the wings and fuselage it might be a good use of your time. :dunno:
 
tonycondon said:
1) Check out their website, www.epicaircraft.com no mention anywhere that you will actually have to help build that experimental turboprop or jet. They just make it sound like you put your money down and come pick it up.
Click to expand...
That's misleading on their part. The customers there are definitely in the trenches. Most stay for a couple of weeks, then go home for a while, then come back for a couple of weeks, then go home etc over the course of a year. (Personally, while I don't mind getting my hands dirty I'd rather have a pro build my airplane than me just because they're more skilled.)

Remember the 51% rule does not say you have to build 51 percent of the airplane; it says you have to be able to fill in 51% of the squares on the task checklist that says you've done it. You can install one wing rib and have someone else do the rest, and still check off the "install wing rib" box.
 
What's the fuel capacity/range (fuel burn)?
 
Merf said:
What's the fuel capacity/range (fuel burn)?
Click to expand...
They list 1200 nm range (with reserves) at econ cruise of 250 knots with full fuel of 900 lbs. Full fuel gives you cabin payload of 1,900 lbs. Max cruise is 320 knots. I saw fuel burn of 60 gph at 235 knots true, but we were low, 12,500 feet. So basically it performs like a TBM 850, carries 250 lbs more, has a bigger cabin, and costs 1/3rd as much.

These figures are all with the Williams FJ-33-4 engine, but they'll be swapping to the Pratt 615 for the experimental version and 617 for the certified version. More thrust, so probably a little more top end and a little better low-throttle power response.
 
Sounds like it's more the size of the Pilatus, Ken, is that the case? Potty? More a King Air alternative as far as size and capacity? Of course, insurance availability is better with the certified version and that can make a big difference to one protecting assets that might carry several passengers. Some folks have a year to work on a plane; others simply could not take this much time away from where they are earning the money needed to pay for this. Financing can also be a big consideration; much different for an experimental being built by the owner than a certified plane that is completed.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Sounds like it's more the size of the Pilatus, Ken, is that the case? Potty? More a King Air alternative as far as size and capacity? Of course, insurance availability is better with the certified version and that can make a big difference to one protecting assets that might carry several passengers. Some folks have a year to work on a plane; others simply could not take this much time away from where they are earning the money needed to pay for this. Financing can also be a big consideration; much different for an experimental being built by the owner than a certified plane that is completed.
Click to expand...
Dave,

Smaller than a Pilatus and no potty. Cabin is 14.5 ft long, 4.7 ft wide and 4.4 ft high. TBM cabin: 13.3 L x 4 W x 4 H. Pilatus: 16.9 L x 5 W x 4.8 H. Actually, the cabin is almost exactly the size of a Mustang's.

Max weight is just over half what a Pilatus is. (9965 vs 5500)
 
The payload with full fuel sounds impressive. Is it just me or does this sound like one of the only truly viable VLJs in terms of payload and range?

And yeah, it does look nice, too....

-Felix
 
Ken Ibold said:
Dave,

Smaller than a Pilatus and no potty. Cabin is 14.5 ft long, 4.7 ft wide and 4.4 ft high. TBM cabin: 13.3 L x 4 W x 4 H. Pilatus: 16.9 L x 5 W x 4.8 H. Actually, the cabin is almost exactly the size of a Mustang's.

Max weight is just over half what a Pilatus is. (9965 vs 5500)
Click to expand...

Ken:

What are the external dimensions? Wingspan etc. Actually, I don't care for the full fuel payload; I'd rather have the flexibility to carry more fuel and less payload which is not an option here.

Best,

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top