Epic 1000 is now Certified

Looked for a ballpark price but couldn't find one.
 
Well you gonna ask at least once :p It does seem like a good competitor, in terms of performance, to the VisionJet and Honda Jet. Not a 1:1 comparison but enough to look at all three.
 
At that price, you might as well get a Vision or a Honda Jet.
 
Did the price change from EXP to Certified?
 
Cheaper than a TBM for the same performance and they sell plenty of those. I don't think the AP is fully integrated yet though.

A surprising number of people who can afford these prices get scared off by the type rating and annual training requirement of the jets.

It blows my mind how many will spend a bunch more for a TBM than an equivalent used Mustang.
 
Can it be certified without an autopilot when the G1000 Nxi has an AP integrated?
 
I wonder how the cabin is, for pilot comfort. I've heard that the TBM is a tight fit.
 
RudyP said:
Cheaper than a TBM for the same performance and they sell plenty of those. I don't think the AP is fully integrated yet though.

A surprising number of people who can afford these prices get scared off by the type rating and annual training requirement of the jets.

It blows my mind how many will spend a bunch more for a TBM than an equivalent used Mustang.
Click to expand...
And the payload with full fuel is much better. TBM is only 891 lbs. The Epic is 1100. One of the owners of one of our SR22s has been talking about getting an Epic for a long time. Now that it finally received certification, he may actually get one.
 
For some people, the extra runway length requirements of a jet vs. turboprop is a factor in why they do not buy the jet as well. Runway performance often is a large factor in why some people buy a plane. I am one of those people, as is about 90% of the pilots I know.
 
Compared to the VisionJet and the Honda Jet the average speed (282) and climb rate (4000 ft per minute) seems a lot better as well. There is just no parachute or auto land.
 
RudyP said:
Cheaper than a TBM for the same performance and they sell plenty of those. I don't think the AP is fully integrated yet though.

A surprising number of people who can afford these prices get scared off by the type rating and annual training requirement of the jets.

It blows my mind how many will spend a bunch more for a TBM than an equivalent used Mustang.
Click to expand...
A jet doesn’t fit everyone’s needs. It will cost a lot more to maintain a jet than a single turboprop. Most jets don’t have the large baggage door a TBM or a Pilatus has.
 
jallen0 said:
Compared to the VisionJet and the Honda Jet the average speed (282) and climb rate (4000 ft per minute) seems a lot better as well. There is just no parachute or auto land.
Click to expand...

Who actually needs either a chute, or auto land?
 
Bonchie said:
People that can't fly airplanes.
Click to expand...

Speaking for only myself, if ever I felt that I need either, forget about both, is the day I simply stop flying, because there is a bigger problem I have to work on.
 
Shuswap BC said:
For some people, the extra runway length requirements of a jet vs. turboprop is a factor in why they do not buy the jet as well. Runway performance often is a large factor in why some people buy a plane. I am one of those people, as is about 90% of the pilots I know.
Click to expand...

Grum.Man said:
A jet doesn’t fit everyone’s needs. It will cost a lot more to maintain a jet than a single turboprop. Most jets don’t have the large baggage door a TBM or a Pilatus has.
Click to expand...

Both valid points but there are considerably more TBMs out there than Mustangs and they cost 50% more. IMHO that is more than you would expect just from people who need to get in/out of short fields and need a big baggage door. I know a lot of owners of both and the lower training requirements for a SETP are definitely a factor for most owners.
 
RudyP said:
It blows my mind how many will spend a bunch more for a TBM than an equivalent used Mustang.
Click to expand...

If you have a jet mission, the Mustang is a great plane. But the typical GA pilot with mixed missions does not really have a jet mission. The Mustang is phenomenal for 500-800 nm missions from well maintained runway to well maintained runway. The typical GA pilot flies average missions much shorter than that, and often wants to get into less than ideal runways close to destination. Otherwise, why not just take the big aluminum bus like everyone else? Throw in wanting to fly into short runways, contaminated runways, high and hot runways, high short contaminated runways ;-) Go really far non-stop... The TP is just a more capable and versatile aircraft. I do agree that the training requirements for the TP's are more palatable than the mandatory type ratings and yearly 61.58 proficiency checks. Now I would debate anyone that says the typical training for a TP initial and recurrent is less than needed. I think most flying the modern TP's do enough training, helped by the fact there are high quality sims out there for the new aircraft. Those that want to shortcut do so at their own peril. Just to add that the Mustang is a legitimate $1000/hr to operate. That means even if you want to go out and shoot some approaches in the local aerodrome, throwing a $20 bill out the window every minute. TP's are much more economical to operate.
 
Last edited:
RudyP said:
It blows my mind how many will spend a bunch more for a TBM than an equivalent used Mustang.
Click to expand...

Well, to start with, the Mustang is only about 20 knots faster than a TBM, but costs easily double to operate. It also requires somewhat longer runways, a type rating, etc...

NoHeat said:
I wonder how the cabin is, for pilot comfort. I've heard that the TBM is a tight fit.
Click to expand...

I manage to fit in the TBM, and I'm 6'4" and 300#.

If you're flying yourself, you can make more room by either turning around or removing the middle row of seats. The club configuration does limit the amount of seat travel in the front two rows otherwise.

Clip4 said:
Never run out and buy a new model.
Click to expand...

The people at Epic would be happy to hear you call their airplane "New". It's newly certified, but it's at least a dozen years old. That's probably part of why it hasn't exactly made a big splash in the market. They've been promising a certified version for so long that now it's like "Meh" at best.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Well, to start with, the Mustang is only about 20 knots faster than a TBM, but costs easily double to operate. It also requires somewhat longer runways, a type rating, etc...



I manage to fit in the TBM, and I'm 6'4" and 300#.

If you're flying yourself, you can make more room by either turning around or removing the middle row of seats. The club configuration does limit the amount of seat travel in the front two rows otherwise.



The people at Epic would be happy to hear you call their airplane "New". It's newly certified, but it's at least a dozen years old. That's probably part of why it hasn't exactly made a big splash in the market. They've been promising a certified version for so long that now it's like "Meh" at best.
Click to expand...

Compare a generation 1 Cirrus or TBM to the later generations. Each generation got better and so will Epic. Epic will have some things to iron out.
 
Shuswap BC said:
But dang that Mustang would look sexy even just parked in the hangar.
Click to expand...

Owning a jet versus a turboprop is an especially big incremental hassle for you in TC-land Grasshopper. :(
 
That 1500 hp Merlin would sound sweet, and I would love to fly a Mustang. Completely impractical I know...but dang...
 
Shuswap BC said:
That 1500 hp Merlin would sound sweet, and I would love to fly a Mustang. Completely impractical I know...but dang...
Click to expand...
Desert-Jet-Citation-Mustang-Exterior-N929ST.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top