Extra 500 - why so rare?
 

I read on AvWeb that the Extra 500 is closing in on its FAA certification and that Extra is gearing up for a major push in the US market. The 500 has had its EASA certification for some time.

But the weird thing is how few, if any, of these aircraft you see around. Not that I expect to see them at my local airfield, but at least in videos online or at shows. All I keep seeing is the one factory demo and that's about it. Very little online about them.

Maybe my taste is weird, but I happen to think that the Extra 500 is one of the most gorgeous aircrafts ever made. I love that high wing sleekness - it looks like a bush plane and a business jet all rolled into one. Rugged. I'd much rather have that than a TBM850, if I had that kind of money. Which, incidentally, when it comes to turboprops - isn't that much: £1 million. That's a lot less than an 850. Granted, it can't fly as fast as the 850, but it burns only 19gph! That's just marginally more than a high performance piston, and in an real term money spent, probably less (as Jet A1 costs less).

So, why so rare? Cheap, certified, roomy, luxurious, 1600nm range etc - what's not to like?

(BTW, that's Walter Extra himself flying it in these pictures).

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/extra1
http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/extra2
http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/extra3

I wish them the best of luck in the US and hope they sell tons of 'em. Read more at:

Extra Aircraft

I saw one parked at Losinj LDLO the other day.

I think they have made only a few of them so far.

Yes it looks a very nice plane - much more economical than most other turboprops. They tried very hard to sell me one at Friedrichshafen 2010. I do think it really has a lot of potential, as a step-up for piston pilots who do not have the 10x higher funding, not to mention the vastly different mission profile to even make use of such a machine, to get a TBM or similar.

Perhaps people are worried about the company's financial stability. It went bust recently, and god knows who is backing it now. If it is a bunch of vulture capitalists, you need to watch out. Just look at the Diamond/Thielert fiasco, and the utter fiasco of the Eclipse. You can run an Extra 300 (a simple plane) if the company goes, but you will have a lot of fun running a 500 without a parts and certification backup.

I think they're back from bankruptcy and have new strong funding. And what I like about the company is that Walter himself is very involved - he test flies, he markets and is generally the guy you talk to - it's got that family business feel even though he might have new partners now.

I hope to see more of them. So, Peter, why don't you get one?:ok::}

Because I never buy v1.00 of anything.

Why not?

Because I am hardware/software developer :) :) :)

Extra 500
 

I fly an Allison turbo-prop conversion of the Cessna P210, by O&N Aircraft in USA. The Silver Eagle

It is UK based and N registered for the usual reasons, mainly access to an FAA I/R by the owners.

We get 205kts tas at 19-23000ft (certified ceiling) using about 23-25 us gph.

The Extra looks a good replacement although it is heavier because of the carbon construction, 3000lbs versus 2650 for the P210T, both have the same MTOW.

With the long range tanks the Extra will only have a two person payload but a much lower cabin height due to the 5.5 psi. The 210 has 11000 ft cabin at FL220 with 3.35 psi.

The quoted 19gph of the 500 seems a touch optimistic, as 25gph is normal with the 210 and same engine at normal cruise.

The 210 has the edge on field performance operating normally off a 650 mtr. grass strip at our home base.

We will watch the Extra with interest.

As a side note - isn't it funny how the carbon maffia has bamboozled everyone into thinking that if an aircraft is made of carbon fibre, it will automatically be lighter? Far from the truth - they're often heavier. Resin isn't light.

Even more astonishing is the hate aimed at wood - did you know that Birch wood is 1.7x times stronger than Aluminium in Modulus of Elasticity? People simply refuse to believe that. In canoeing for instance, a wooden cedar strip kayak will beat both a carbon fibre and an Aluminium one hands down in weight.

So Robin, Extra (the aerobatic ones) and the rest might have gotten it right: a wooden wing doesn't corrode, doesn't fatigue and it will almost always be lighter.

So long as you keep it dry, and make sure nobody has bent it while you were not looking ;)

I flew this aircraft a few days ago in Dayton Ohio as a demo flight, it is serial No1 as 10540 says but they pretty serious about bringing it to market.

It handles beautifully and ticks a lot of boxes, on a cosmetic level I could not like it, the Shape looks very bloated but the upside to that is the cockpit and rear 4 seats are comfortably roomy.

The rear seats are quite utility in feel and appearance but I am told more crash resistant than say a Piper Mirage, but definately not the more luxurious feel.

The Rolls Royce engine is of course very proven and I guess can be maintained anywhere in the world.

this one was equipped with a R9 Avidyne which is nice kit but the radio was on the yoke which was weird.

it was generally very well made, excellent aircon which you would need as only one rear door, Fuel flow around 20 GPH or less of Jet A1 is very attractive, and yours for I think $1.65m USD

Have a few pics I should be able to post later.

I would not hold it against the E500 that it is a 2-seater when filled right up. That - a long range when travelling light - is a highly desirable feature.

I may be mistaken but I thought I saw a D-reg one taxiing out as I was arriving at Old Buckenham a few weeks ago. I believe it commutes to
Switzerland/Germany from there.

The planes isn't as amazing as the marketing specialists try to make it look. In the POH the greatest range shown is 1588nm. But that is attained at only 40% power where you will be doing only 165kts and you will need nearly 10 hours.

Not many people like being in the air that long. The best power setting of 55% at 25K ft leaves you with a range of less than 1400 nms. Still quite good. The problem is that getting to 25K ft takes quite a while because its climb rate above 20K ft is so anemic that few people will go that high: at 25K ft at ISA it can only do a ridiculous 175fpm, at ISA +20C is drops below 100fpm. A Jetprop will still do 1300fpm and 1100fpm repectively under the same conditions. Most people would fly the EA-500 plane in the mid teens where its cruise speed is almost respectable(for a turbine) and range is 1000nm.

IMHO the plane is underpowered. That is why you can fly it very economically, but if you cash out $1.5-$2 mil for an airplane you are interested in speed rather than economy.

With less comfort, you'd be able to fly a $300k Mooney achieving same speeds and range.

This plane is obviously aimed at a market gap between the high end pistons and the TBM.

High end pistons have plenty of issues: engine management and mostly not making TBO if used to the full, high cockpit vibration levels compared with turbines, an awesome oxygen usage at FL200+, and one cannot compare the cramped cockpit of a Mooney with the cockpit of the E500. Sure one would not want to sit in a Mooney for 10hrs, but the ability to do a 1500nm nonstop flight in 9-10hrs is a plus, going to the further corners of Europe where the matrix of avgas/customs/opening hours gets pretty sparse. I've done three 6hr flights in the last 2 weeks, and for a good reason, avoiding loads of useless airports and useless fuel stops. Long range does have a market, even in a 2-seater. If you can do door to door, you will beat an airline anytime on the total trip time (especially Ryanair which makes you drive 20% of the GC distance in the opposite direction ;) ).

The TBM costs about 5x more per mile than a high end piston. It goes about 2x faster. The despatch rate is probably 99%. And you pay nicely for that... But it still can't outclimb any respectable CB, so its ability to cross serious frontal weather enroute will not be much different to a plane whose ceiling is 25k. You will still probably be in IMC, using radar to find gaps. And a plane with a 25k ceiling will outclimb most non-frontal weather.

The Jetprop is very good but with the PT6 will cost more per mile (on the DOC) than the E500. OTOH you can buy a used JP, or a used PA46 and convert it, total cost about $1M for a reasonable example with the stronger PA46 hull, and it will cost a lot less than a E500 which doesn't exist on the used market.

IMHO this is a tough market to break into. There will be precious few IFR piston owners with the dosh to buy anything at/over $1M. Perhaps 1% can. And I think those who have $1M can also afford $2M or $3M... There seems to be a continuous spectrum from zero to say $300k among what I call normal working people, but the bigger amounts are the sole province of people who have a big business, or have sold a business, or made a fast buck somewhere, etc. And those spending $1M or $2M will be doing their due diligence, and will go for a proven solution (Jetprop, Meridian, TBM, etc) because they (well, perhaps excluding some bankers) have made their money with the application of a lot of care and patience in their business.

The EA500 comes near to $2M once you have all the goodies you want. Although I would wish that new aircraft find more acceptance in the markets, it is very hard for new competitors to make up for the experience of the established players.

Take your $2M and get a used TBM 850 and you will have more ceiling, range, speed and prestige and after a few years you will still get more money back for it than for the EA500.

Cobbler, stick to thy last.

Well, I really hope it does well just because the market needs another option.

The TBM 850 is of course a pretty bird, I'll be the first to say that. Everyone loves it just like everyone loves BMW's. Myself, I've always enjoyed left field cars and left field products. It's how I'm wired, I suppose. Whenever all my friends went straight for the BWM dealers the minute they got credit (:eek:), I always drove Citroens, Fiats and Saabs and crazy stuff like that. I wouldn't buy a BMW in a million years. I appreciate them and think they're great cars, but they're not quirky and individualistic enough for me. I suspect it's the same with airplanes. I have zero interest in Cirruses and the stuff most pilots seem to want. However, this bird ticks all my boxes and that's why I'm rooting for it and hope it does well.

I also think this aircraft will be much more versatile - I doubt a pilot would think twice about taking it into a short grass strip, whereas they'd probably be terrified to do that in an 850 or a Jetprop. And getting closer to your destination is handy for time savings, not to mention cheaper.

Underpowered is of course subjective. Compared to the other single engine turboprops - for sure. Or maybe they're overpowered?

What I like is the range and the reliability of turbine of this type. I've never understood why aircraft manufacturers put in such small tanks - I understand I can't fill the plane up with people and go +1000nm, but when I'm alone and have no baggage, why not? Empty tanks don't weigh a thing.

Now, where did I put that 1.6 mill dollar wad again?

Yep - no mistake.

It is flown by a friend of mine. Great little aircraft. Although I think that one is a 400 - even rarer!

I saw an E400 at Cranfield a year or two ago. Looked very comfy inside and with a solid build quality. It was used by some property manager who had a hired pilot flying him around Europe.

The E400 uses a very unusual water-cooled Continental engine, IIRC.

On the E500, I recall they were going to have a certified ceiling of 25k. Any plane which can reach 25k is not "underpowered".

I've taken a glider to 27,500' and it was still climbing at 100-150fpm. Only stopped climb because I was concerned about oxygen consumption/reserves. Nice to know that even without an engine it's not 'underpowered' Heheh :-)

I think the 400 has been discontinued now. And maybe it had something to do with the fact that that water cooled Continental had a TBO of 800hrs!

There's a good review and article about the Extra 500 in the latest issue of Flyer magazine, if anyone's interested.

And here's a brand new promotional vid:

YouTube - EXTRA 500

I think that the diesel burning pistons will offer best performance / economy over a "cheap" TP and provide the ideal stop gap for the "moderately wealthy" pilot (as opposed to the super rich). For example a DA42NG will be far cheaper to buy, maintain and operate than the E500, will burn half the fuel and will cruise only slightly slower at similar levels with equal if not better range, and has two engines.

If one can afford mega bucks then I'd go for something that can cruise at 250-300kts, ideally a Phenom VLJ.

Under a million dollars will buy a used B200 King Air which has all the capability one needs....good load carrying, good range, good for the higher flight levels, reasonably quick, great avionics and reasonable times left on the engines. Add another quater of a mill and you can have zero timed engines with 3600 hrs left on them. Of course you get a KA maintenance bill to go with it...

With all the problems that have been associated with diesel flying and the complexity of twins I am not so sure.

A single turbine still beats twin diesels in my mind by a long way and I'd pay a premium for it if i could afford it.

Diesels are in my view (much) more than a decade away from being the replacement we'd all hoped for

I think it will be a few years before a DA42 (and Mr Dries) will be trusted again by people shelling out their own £400k or whatever, and a SE TP is always going to be a lot more reliable than a piston twin.

However I think the E500 is too expensive, but this is because it is a victim of the standard aircraft marketing philosophy which is that no buyers are positioned between the high-end piston market, and the traditional PT6 TP market.

I totally agree the gap is surprising large, assumed to be only caused by the cost of manufacturing of a turbine?

There were some mini turbines due to come onto the market, I believe in the region of 250 hp. Any news on those and their expected pricing?

Rather than introduce diesels, small 180-200 hp turbines would seem the way to go....

except for fuel flow i expect.

The RR300 and RR500 are the brand new small turbines from Rolls Royce. The RR300 is going into the Robinson R66 and will soon be seen in a couple of fixed wings as well, so that's promising. We might se a lot more of those in the future.

I don't agree that the EA500 is overpriced when you compare it to TBM's and PC12's. It's half or even a third of the price (in the case of the PC12). Now, it's still too expensive to be an alternative for people stepping up from high performance singles - that I agree on. But compared to others in its segment, it's cheap.

That, and the huge cost of pressurisation. It is a catch-22: a turbine does poor MPG unless you fly high to get the TAS gain (then it does merely mediocre MPG :) ) which means FL250 or so (much higher means RVSM which is more hassle) which rules out oxygen as practical (masks for all, and a huge gas consumption), which means pressurisation, which makes the whole thing bigger, heavier, use more fuel, cost a whole pile more money, so to make it attractive you have to load it with fancy kit, shiny cocktail cabinets, and then it really does cost a load of money :)

I think there is a market around the £700k mark for a SE TP with a FL250 ceiling (same as any decent turbo piston tourer) provided it delivers a half reasonable MPG at FL100-180, which is the choice cruising range on cannulas, or even without oxygen (FL100).

Most European non-frontal tops are FL100-160, and frontal tops need a jet (or an F16 :) ) to outclimb. So a FL250 ceiling would be rarely used except for the TAS gain, and then only if pressurised.

IMHO 250HP is not enough. 400HP is much more saleable; translating into a decent short field performance too.

Yes but the E500 is only about 1/3 of a TBM850 in perceived value :) And you could have a wedding in a PC12 :)

Not another wedding, Peter, please!


:ugh:

Extra are to build a new factory at Montrose, Colorado.

Not another wedding for me, too :ugh:

Still paying for the last one...

:)

IO540
 

The O&N Aircraft Cessna P210 turbine conversion fits the bill. Allison C17 turbo prop.
205kts/FL200 25gph. 4 hour range with 4 occupants. 5+ with two occupants.
Less than a million $
Full refurbish, Garmin 600 glass cockpit.
Operates happily off 700 metre grass strip here in Berks.

Can you get a TP conversion for the Baron 58p ? That would quite a nice touring aircraft.

Very funny :) :) :)

I got one to BIRK last night. I thought it was pretty cool but the landing gear seems a bit strange for me.
I hope they will thrive in the US but I think pilatus pc12 is better. We get a lot og them through BIRK.

Hi,

there's a TP conversion for the BE58 P done by Royal Turbine, the boys and girls converting the Malibu into the "Jetprop DLX" and the Duke to the "Royal Duke":

Cougar Baron

Financially, it doesn't make sense to me, the conversion lifts the plane into the C90 pricing ranges, but I guess the initial climb rate alone is worth all the money, it's between 3800 and 4600 ft/min - not really practicable on the most SIDs but a lot of fun on a VMC departure :-)

Kind regards,
Peter

Ha ha :} Yea but my point was that one could take an existing piston twin, picked up relatively cheaply with lifed engines, do the works on it by doing a TP conversion, fit swanky avionics for a lot less money than say a TBM. One could have a real go places, go fast, "as new" aeroplane?

I'd quite like one of these:

http://www.royalturbine.com/images/R...e006-small.jpg

And wouldn't cost much more than an Extra 500. Out performs the TBM700 in many areas (half the runway for starters).

Those performance are something aren't they?

Long Range Cruise (25,000ft) 260 ktas
Fuel Flow 52 gph
Max VFR Range (no wind) 1,000 nm

Taking into account the cost of A1, its almost doing the same mpg as a Warrior! Would be interesting to know what its performance at lower levels is. How does it compare with the PA46 jetprop?

When I bought my TB20 in 2002, I worked out that a TBM700 cost the same £ per mile as the TB20, in cruise fuel burn.

Sadly that hides a huge vast massive difference in the diameter of the (French) barrel which a TBM owner is bent over, compared with the diameter of the barrel which a TB20 owner is bent over.

Reminds me of that old joke about the barrel with the hole in it, on a ship...

In aviation ownership, happiness is inversely proportional to the diameter of the barrel.

A turbine is a pretty bad barrel, no matter what it is mounted in. At the TB20 level of playing, you have to always be able to write a cheque for say £30k if something goes badly wrong. Obviously you hope you never have to, but that is the kind of capability you need. At the turbine level, the cheque writing capability is £300k. The dealer can dress this up any way he likes, into (not unimpressive) low costs per mile, mission capability, etc but ...

The other barrel is a highly integrated glass cockpit, but you get that in a C172 these days :) Anything goes wrong, it's a flight+hotel job at the nearest Garmin dealer.

Now combine these two great advances in aviation, and you are talking big money as soon as something is not right.

Obviously if you had £10M before you started this, it's not an issue.

Why did the GrobG140 never appear?Grob G 140 TP performance and specifications

Firstly, GROB went bust ;)

But long before then, I had some emails with their marketing head and they priced it at 1.4M euros which is probably about the cost of a brand new Jetprop, etc.

In Jan 2006, the man said "The project has not been abandoned but put on priority 2 as we are fully booked with our Jet program."

and that was that...

At some air show I spoke to them about the silly price and they said it was designed to be a military trainer so built to a high standard.

As the software developer pointed out and as i am a Business Analyst better to wait for v2.0. Let the other find the AD/SB first.