Epic can't be insured easily- they figure out at $2m+ and saying "experimental" most people were getting shutdown at the insurance portion of things

they are chasing certification and that may change the landscape a bit

Almost all airplane deigns are ultimately old and with old systems.

Only the avionics and engines have truly advanced in the last 30 or 40 years.

Almost all airplane deigns are ultimately old and with old systems.

Only the avionics and engines have truly advanced in the last 30 or 40 years.

Au contraire grasshopper. Get out of that blue chip PC-12 and go get yourself a nice CJ3, then watch what the value does as Textron comes out with a CJ5, CJ6, CJ6+, CJ6++, CJ6-Super-Duper, CJ7 and so on...You may not see the real bottom, but it will feel like it.

I disagree with that. even though the planes in production today share a pedigree with their older brethren, the improvements in manufacturing and components is very highly reflected in better reliability. There are almost no if any parts interchangeable from a 1984 Malibu to a 2016 M350, and I would bet none between that Malibu and a 2016 M500. Fit, finish, reliability, all better. You could make the same case between a G1 and G5 Cirrus or any other aircraft still in production. The newer ones are better and more reliable, and pricing reflects that quite well.

Yes and no. The PC12 is very well laid out from a maintenance perspective and they have made the airplane to be as simple as possible. Given what it does, it's an easy airplane on the wallet.

The APEX interacts very well with the airplane.

Some people prefer new cars (like me) and translate that same thinking to planes and have the money to buy new(er) planes. I don't and until I see data that shows me older planes crash more than newer ones, I am fine spending 10% to get the same or better performance than what a new(er) plane will do. There's no right or wrong, just preference and economics.

I think the least expensive, fastest and nicest looking option is the Epic with some extra fuel mods. The white one on controller could probably be had for my budget as it has been on the market a long time. You would have to steal one of these to avoid getting hurt on the resale as the market for pricey experimentals is probably very slim.

I really think the only solution to this mission is a modified experimental airplane.

Started in 1989 I believe. The other twin engine TP's were designed 20 to 40 years prior to that date. If you review what gets worked on in a King Air vs a PC12 I bet that there are double, if not triple the amount of moving parts.

At the end of the day an airplane today is not much different than an airplane from the 1940's........got wings and engines. Incremental improvements are what set airplanes apart.

James, I'll note the new vs old, I much prefer to purchase used (I did with the PC12) as the depreciation hit was the least. In real dollar terms I bet we are not that different on a per mile basis all in, including any cost of capital.

Why would that be?

Will the Denali have half the moving parts as a Pilatus?

What payload are we talking about? Any reason you couldn't put a ferry tank in the back of a TBM?

Got more stuff on them. Back in the old days they were not as concerned with minimalism as they are now. You're Commander has far more moving parts than the PC12.


Doubtful, but they should strive for that. Cessna is playing copy the PC12, I'm not sure how much innovation and thought capital they will devote to the project. I'm hoping that it's a ton.......I'm seriously for improvement.

That is funny coming from you. That is your game, not mine.

That is funny coming from you. That is your game, not mine.

PT6 vs Garretts. Garretts are significantly more fuel efficient on a per horsepower basis.

Once the engine design is fixed, though, for turbines horsepower tends to be pretty much proportional to fuel burn. So a single turbine producing X horsepower will burn a very similar amount to two of those same design producing X/2 horsepower each. So figure a big single turbine doesn't inherently burn much less than two smaller turbines.