The Epic AP is Garmin politics. It'll be in there eventually

This might deserve a thread of its own, but since the Epic is in this discussion this might be a good place to start.

One of the reasons people discuss avoiding the Epic (or even Eclipse) is concern with long term support and viability.

What would happen if a new airplane company designed the airplane* to be supportable without the factory in existence? IOW...

Use as many existing parts as possible (even from other mfrs)

Build out of riveted aluminum with a minimum of complex shapes.

Write the manuals with lots of processes referring to AC 43.13...

Would they be haamstringing themselves be losing out on future parts sales, or could this be a viable way to, forgove the pun, "get off the ground"?


*thinking SETP since adding a jet engine seems to add some regulatory complexity.

The Epic looks like a nice airplane. And it's priced well relative to what it is trying to compete with. I don't think it's competition includes the PC12 because it can't carry the load the PC12 can. It is more properly considered in the context of TBM, Meridian and maybe whatever Textron eventually introduces.

But.

The price of any asset is largely irrelevant to its cost. Cost is a function of purchase price less ultimate sales price (plus capital carrying cost of course).

The PC12, TBM and Meridian all have relatively easily predicted and reliable used pricing to determine cost. The Epic doesn't and won't for a number of years. And in those intervening years the risk that it won't be bought in large numbers, that the manufacturer won't remain in business and that used demand will be high are very significant, especially compared to the other planes mentioned.

My guess is that the Epic's "cost" will end up being relatively high. That, balanced against the risk, makes it a poor choice against any of the others in my opinion.