Probably because it isn't as simple as it sounds and they want to spend their R&D dollars elsewhere.

Upgrade the engine installation certification (including related structural and electrical systems) to the latest Part 23, convert the installation from Cont to Lyc, comply with software, lightning and HIRF requirements, comply with software requirements, etc. Still have to end up with a price acceptable to the customer and a ROI acceptable to the BOD.

That is interesting and very believable. I was suspicious of EPS when I saw their palatial air conditioned tent at Oshkosh (where they were asking for investor money to fund development).

Guessing the Lyc would be about 50-80 pounds heavier than the Continental. Might matter in a SEP.

Here are my thoughts. Textron still makes piston aircraft and they announced "improved" versions of the G36 and G58. Cirrus is whupping the G36 and the G58 is hardly selling.

Why not hang the TEO-540 (with 375 hp) on the old B36 airframe and create an airplane that kicks Cirrus tail? It would be simpler (due to electronic engine control) and faster than the current G36. Maybe even engineer a pilot's door (the door saved Mooney....well maybe not). We already know what a Baron airframe can do with 375 hp per side thanks to the 56TC. A 220 knot 58 may find more buyers than the current G58. Frankly, I would really like to the engine on a new P210, or it would work on a Malibu.

I just don't get it. Textron acts like they don't want to sell any piston Beechcraft, but they still go through the motions and produce a few of them.

How long can Textron continue to sell 1984 x36's and x58's with 2009 paint schemes and 2015 avionics? The market (i.e. Cirrus) has left those aircraft behind. Adding a 375 hp FADEC engine (with appropriate enhancements to the airframe as a whole) could double (triple? quadruple?) the sales volume by taking market share from the C-brand alone.

Would a guy who *would have* bought an Acclaim not seriously consider a "G36T" now?

Would a "G58T" not appeal to a significantly broader audience with an additional 150 hp and, presumably, another 500 to 1,000 lbs useful? Full seat AND full tanks, you say??

It looks to me like Textron is approaching the fiscal aspect with a static analysis - i.e. "it will cost $x more and we don't think it adds additional profit to our bottom line when we can only sell 21 (?) units annually" vs. a dynamic analysis that says "if we spend $x, we can sell 34 (?) additional aircraft next year, resulting in a huge increase in incremental profit."

See, this is what happens when you put MBAs in charge of a company. They focus on their spreadsheets but have no vision.

The easy fit for the FADEC lyc is the Piper M350. To replace the 350 HP conventional Lyc. Not sure why they haven’t done it. 25 extra HP would be nice on takeoff and initial climb, or just derate it to 350 and be done. The engine is prob too heavy for Cirrus and Bonanza. 100 lbs heavier than the continental. But prob more reliable.

one of my aerostar friends talked to them about putting it into the Aerostar..

Basically it is bigger and much more complex

this is what he found

I talked to Lycoming about installing the TEO-540's into the Aerostar, they basically said no. The certification of the engine is airframe specific because of the electronics, computers, etc. that need to be installed and programed. They did say, that if I could get the Tecnam engine, which is the only one certified at the time, to fit into the Aerostar, dimensionally and calibration wise, they would sell them. However, the Tecnam engine compartment is about 13 inches longer than the Aerostar's, as well as wider and taller. Thus, the installation would have to be much more compact, think TIO-540-J2BD in the Super 2. Okay, but we could make it fit...
Second problem, the engine management computers are rather large. They would fit in the wing roots, between the engine and fuselage, but not with bleed air valves, cabin heat exchangers and de-ice valves, not to mention aux cabin heat mod. Again, we could make them fit...
Third problem, and the kicker to the whole deal... Yes, the engine is rated at 375hp, at roughly 60" of MP, but only to about 12-14K feet. The critical altitude is relatively low. The engine was designed for the Tecnam, which is not pressurized nor does it really fly above 10-12K feet, so high critical altitude was not needed. At that point, the turbo is spinning at around 110,000 RPM, I cant remember exactly how fast, but fast. The higher you climb the faster it will need to spin, which may be one of the reasons they limited the critical altitude. So, in order to certify the engine for an application that would work for the aerostar, the engineering and certification could cost 1-2 million dollars with no guarantee. Then, we take into account the certification of the engine and all the test flights on the Aerostar, the cost of the engines at roughly $180K a piece, and you could be looking at $4-5 million from start to certification. If we divide that by an estimated 100 airplanes, we're looking at 400,000-500,000 per plane just for an STC, add the engine costs and installation, and you're easily at $1,000,000 to upgrade or there abouts.

Unfortunately, they're not a "drop-in" replacement to a u2A or similar engine.

5mm /100 = 50k

About twice a year, someone makes a post about converting a Bonanza to Lycoming power, like you could just bolt a tubular mount on the firewall without major structural changes. Or adding a chute to a Bonanza without explaining how you'd attach the risers to a cabin never stressed for anything like that.

It would likely be easier to drop a small block Chevy V8 into your BMW.

Why not just instal a couple RR turboprops onto an Aerostar and not have to worry about new engine design issues and excess engineering costs?

Perhaps they sell almost no piston planes because they haven't done anything innovative in DECADES?

"Build it and they will come."

"Grow a pair."

"Kill all the accountants and lawyers and let the working stiffs figure it out."

All of these are tag lines which might be hung on a cartoon of a Textron product planning meeting. They clearly have the know-how, just zero desire to risk any cash in using it.

it has been done, Machen converted a number of A 36 s to use the 350 hp chieftain engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU3o004bXJg

Yes, I know it's been done, at a different time, under a different FAA. Still requires significant structural changes to the forward fuselage if you're going to hang 400+ lbs off the firewall.