If the kestrel had the funding of the SF50 so far do you think it would be done? Both Klapmeier projects. Kestrel has better specs than the SF50, based on the Epic, and isn't reinventing the wheel.

Not at all part of Epic. History of the plane goes back to Farnborough Aircraft in 2002 (I think that was the year). Started design as an air taxi for Europe. With the engine changes and everything else Klapmeier has mandated they have basically redesigned the plane from what they purchased in 2009 (I believe that was the year).

Tim

It is indeed not related to the Epic, other than a passing resemblance.

The Epic might ultimately beat both of them to the market, and then we'll see which one succeeds. Cirrus definitely has the history behind them whereas Epic is relatively unknown.

Not exactly.
I guess my term based on the epic is technical incorrect. But farnborough f1 later known as the kestrel was developed along side the epic lt, which was only supposed to be marketed as an EAB.
The passing resemblance is a lot more than just coincidental.

Wikipedia says the Kestral and Epic LT shared the same wing:

"Farnborough Aircraft formed a business alliance with Epic Aircraft to develop both companies' aircraft and as a result the POC aircraft appears similar to the Epic LT. The wing is reportedly the same, while the Kestrel’s fuselage is 20 inches longer than the Epic’s. The fuselage is also slightly wider and has a 27% greater volume.[10] The window and door arrangement on the left side of the aircraft is noticeably different."

It also goes on to say that they plan on changing the wing, so it would no longer have much in common with the EPIC LT other than general shape.

-Pascal

Kestrel is dead.

Maybe not totally, but on life support.

The Kestrel had a lot of good ideas and would have been a real performer had it hit market. In particular, switching to using a TPE331-14 engine which gave it significantly better fuel specifics and lower engine cost than the PT6A-67 series engine found in the PC12 and Epic. Fuel flows would have been down 20% which means 20% more range or that much more useful load, either way. HSI and OH costs are also way down versus the PT6, probably half as much.

At one time they were interested in having me fly my MU2 up to their operation and evaluate spoiler roll control, but alas, that didn't come to pass. I think they idea was to increase the flap span to get the stall speed lower (which is why Mitsubishi did it in the first place). Stall speed on a single can be a limiting thing to gross weight given the FAA 61 knot (or slightly more if you get an ELOS) limits.

It is really, really hard to start an aircraft company. The FAA is all about regulations and the established makers like it that way as a barrier to entry for others. Unfortunately, that is likely to be a short term strategy that fails long term for everybody, even the established guys.

Mike C.

A couple of years ago, Kestrel was getting in the avionics and other upgrade businesses. I always thought this was to reduce overhead costs they had committed too while waiting to get the plane certified.
Anyone know if they are still doing this?

Tim

They are moving along, and are about to build 3 conforming aircraft for the certification test flights.

It would've made more sense if Cirrus took this project up, then the jet later..

While I would choose the Kestrel over the SF50, i still believe they'll deliver the jet and it will sell well.

Klapmeier wanted to buy the jet program from Cirrus in 2009 but the deal didn't go down.

Then Klapmeier joined Kestrel in 2010.

The Kestrel is a superior concept than the SF50, IMO.

It wouldn't surprise me if in a few years, Klapmeier is glad he didn't get the jet.

Mike C.

You want to sell a propellor plane for more money than a jet with a chute? Plus a nowhere company vs. the most successful new GA company in years. Good luck.

They're both singles, btw.

Yes, because it is worth more. Look at what TBMs and PC12s sell for.

The Kestrel will go faster than the jet by a fair amount.


The last piston aircraft company to become truly successful in jets was... Cessna. Back in the 1970s.


Two radically different missions. One is long range, load carrying travel airplane, the other is a crippled ego massager.

Mike C.

FAA certification regs dumb things down to the lowest level pilot. Take the performance of the Epic LT, essentially what the kestrel started as. ( yes, not exactly the same, but damn close) and compare that to what the Kestrel will deliver. I'd take the Epic, (EAB version) better range and faster. Most of the performance loss in the Kestrel is due to having to make the stall speed requirement. The attempt to certify the Epic has had the same effect.

Kestrel looks cooler than the SF50 anyways. Who cares if it's not a jet.

Id rather have the Kestrel or the Epic. The sf50 will outsell both.

I hope the Kestrel and the Epic both get to market. I think they are both interesting planes. I have not heard anything about Kestrel's development since OSH when they didn't attend because they didn't have anything to show or talk about. At that time they needed money and were basically dead in the water from what I could tell from Googling them. If that has changed then good for them! Point me at their progress though as the websited doesn't have much to say past 2012 other than Alan's award and employees staying late through a snow storm.

I think the Epic has a better chance and from what I've seen of their experimental version, and heard from owners, it will be a terrific airplane if it gets built.

Of the three the SF50 is furthest along and has the best chance to become a reality.