I would argue a flight with a stop is close to double the risk of one the same distance and no stop. That may matter to some people, at least at the airplane choosing point.

What about a Epic? Seems like it fits the bill?

Are there any issues with flying a Epic since it's an experimental?


Mike

When the Epic E1000 is delivered next year, it beats all the others in speed, price, range (1650 nm):
http://3w0z92pp4tr2x6xhj4d00l3h.wpengin ... 6.5.15.pdf

I've worked on a couple Epic LT's over the past several years. It's no where near as robust and well built as a PC12, not even in the same ballpark. I do think it's a neat airplane, but has that experimental feel in my opinion.

I don't agree with the numbers on that chart. Posted my flight to vegas and I had an average TAS of 255.... Not 223.

How does the Epic have an "average TAS" of 280?

I like the Epic. I wonder if the certified version really will be out next year?

I don't agree with the numbers on that chart. Posted my flight to vegas and I had an average TAS of 255.... Not 223.

How does the Epic have an "average TAS" of 280?

I like the Epic. I wonder if the certified version really will be out next year?

At the end of the day, if you can't get your airplane serviced easily it puts a major damper on ownership. I want the Epic to be successful but I wouldn't be the first to buy one. There are 4 brands I'd be willing to buy as an "owner operator" simply because there's a service network for them.

Can you expand on this please? From the surface, the airplane looks robust, polished and nicely finished. What did you see under the hood?

so it weighs less and goes faster, got it...

I didn't see anything structurally wrong. Some things just stuck out to me. For instance, the cabin door/steps on the PC12/TBM/etc feel rock solid and well built. The cabin door on the Epic is so flimsy it makes and an old 421 door feel like concrete steps. The landing gear system is quirky and it took a bit of research to track things down. Some of the gear parts had to come from McMaster Carr (which is nice in some ways ($)). The big issue that I see is there is no maintenance manual, only a build manual, which leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion. It also seems that there have been many changes between serial numbers, but that will probably be fixed when production starts as well as many other issues. Apparently the landing gear has been redesigned for the production models. So lighter and faster? Absolutely. Will you ever see an Epic operating in a 135 workhorse environment? I doubt it, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be a good owner flown plane.

Epic is way smaller than a PC12.........They have a 67a engine on the 'soon to be certified' version.......will compete against the TBM and the Kestrel (if that comes to market) but not the PC12/KA or 'soon to be certified Denali'.

It's a good looking airplane. Have one at KPMP and the guy loves it.

Agreed, but I would still take a TBM for basically the same reasons. There are several TBM's at my home base that are still operating over the 12,000 cycle life limit (extension under DER approval/STC I believe). The airframes are still in pretty good shape. I'd hate to see the Epics that I've come across at 12,000 cycles.

So, I took a long cross country yesterday (KORL-KLBB-KSQL) and had some time to ponder this thread a little... and I'm not sure whether a 1500 mile range is a number that matters. Reason being, when you go all the way across the country, it is often more than 1500 miles. So even in such an airplane, you're making a stop. The difference between a 1200 mile airplane and a 1500 mile airplane going 2100 miles is moot. They both make a stop. (I suppose it depends whether you have a 1400 mile mission you do frequently, but I don't.)

FWIW, I was pretty happy with my range westbound yesterday, I got 1100 nm (KORL-KLBB) into headwinds that averaged about 35 kts and shut down with 650 lbs in the tanks, which at my cruise fuel burn (460pph) was 1.4 hours. Even down low it is about an hour, so still a pretty good reserve.

At some point in this thread there was some argument about how quick one can make a quick turn. Alas, yesterday for me kind of proved Jason's point - my "quick turn" was an hour due to various FBO snafus and slowness. The one a couple days earlier was better, but still about 40 mins of total ground time. I've had the occasional 30 minute turn, but there are frequently things that make it take longer. Sigh.

It is amazing to me how slow most FBO's are. For being in the "speed business" the staff is almost always completely clueless. Sure enough I get through fueling and other services quickly and when it comes time to pay there's a computer error or the network is down or the new guy doesn't know how to do credit cards or they printed out the whole bill without deducting for my CAA membership and they have to do the whole thing again.

Last week in Vegas I had a 30 minute debate with the girl behind the counter over what a "GPU" is. Since I didn't need the GPU but for start up they wouldn't bring out a GPU. Instead they brought a little cart with a car battery on it for a "jump start". They kept using the word "jump start". I finally said "guys, I don't know what a jump start is". They said "well then you should have ordered a GPU". I said "I did order a GPU". They said "well, if you need it for less than 30 minutes they signed you up for a "jump start". I felt like I was taking crazy pills. Then they wanted to readjust my whole bill for a "GPU" instead of a "jump start". This stuff happens to me constantly

I agree with your range assessment. Nothing "single pilot" is going to fly 2100NM. They will all need a stop. For me, Atlanta to Colorado and Utah is the main trip and that's about 1300 miles.

My current milk run is from KTEX to KFXE and back. Going East is non-stop, west requires a stop most times.