There was an article on this plane in the last US AOPA magazine. They spoke well of it.
They glossed over Epic's bankrupcy problems (in the typical slick need-the-advertising fashion) so I hope those people who allegedly paid for cheap little bits like PT6 engines and didn't get them did eventually get them...
But it does look good - for US pilots who can do all their flying in a US Exp aircraft which cannot usefully fly outside the USA.
Where the other split-off from this design is - the former Farnborough project, later called Kestrel - I have no idea. They recruited a former Cirrus founder.
In the meantime, Socata is happily selling the TBM for $3M+...
EPIC seems to have a certified E1000 model
If this is real, it is amazing!
From their brochure, the performance looks good compared to say the much more expensive TBM
Peter wrote:
EPIC seems to have a certified E1000 model
This had been advertised for several years now. It isn’t certified, it is going through certification. It has always looked good but I guess until certified noone knows the actual specs or price.
I don’t want to sound like a boring old man resisting novelties but still, I find myself to be very comfortable not being the first one to try a “new thing” when it comes to aviation.
Many new ventures have attempted to come up with new products on the market, some have succeeded as the Eclipse is flying for example but at what cost and with such confidential volumes compared to original plans. Others almost make it and fail, to try again and sadly fail once more. Think of the SJ 30 program in its prime time (I thought the performance part was definitely fulfilled there)….No everyone has the power to drive a program such as Honda did!
So, when buying an airplane, my focus is on having the peace of mind to know I checked for:
1. Company track record.
2. Certified product with enough history
2. Performance calculated for most flight missions and add good margins to that. In other words, if you want to go 1000 miles with 4 aboard, you should narrow your search for airplanes that will do this easily not at the edge of their capabilities.
3. Market Depreciation and resale value: A discount on a new product is a bad sign for future value. Stability is key.
4. Maintenance costs: A Falcon 10 is cheap, great performance from a well know manufacturer BUT… maintenance is a MAJOR aspect of ownership.
5. Support network
5. Warranties.
Like Peter said, all this is going on while Daher is outperforming the market by selling a new TBM 900 for $3.9M. It is not just because the airplane looks good and flies fast. Daher (Socata) is a well established company with a long history and is financially secured. Their products are cautiously developed and strongly built. They hold their value, come with 5-year maintenance, further extended warranties and a good support network: This is why these airplanes are selling and everyone is happy.
Now of course, some are willing to take chances and get thrilled by risk (financial or operational). I can understand the fun part but I am unwilling to play the game.
I don’t want to sound like a boring old man resisting novelties but still, I find myself to be very comfortable not being the first one to try a “new thing” when it comes to aviation.
David, you are a Socata TBM dealer…
This had been advertised for several years now
So they are just lying. Fair enough
davidfabry wrote:
Their products are cautiously developed and strongly built. They hold their value, come with 5-year maintenance, further extended warranties and a good support network: This is why these airplanes are selling and everyone is happy.
After the TB20 they really got their act together….
More players in the market is a good thing. A lack of competition is why TBM can get away with that pricing. But as with the Cirrus Jet threads, let’s not underestimate the cost of certification or the challenges even when it is “just about done”.
Did you see this?
Pratt & Whitney Canada recommended a redesign of the cowling’s air intake, widening the mouth and moving it closer to the propeller, and this improved intake efficiency by about 20 percent, Schrader said
Hmm, how is this to be interpreted. 2% would be a huge improvement IMO, but 20? That’s no improvement, that’s a re-design from something that’s way off, to something that works.