10/30/02





The following is an unofficial announcement of Engine Power Systems LLC
preliminary report on the Beech Duke crash of 10/20/02.



This information is based upon discussions with FAA and NTSB investigators,
local sheriff and a paramedic that was first on the crash site as well as
other witnesses knowledgeable in the events described.



A 427 cubic inch 500 HP V-8 engine application was developed by Engine Power
Systems LLC over the past year and installed on a 1973 Beech Duke.  An
Experimental Exhibition type certificate was issued by the FAA for the plane
in September of this year.  The type certificate contained no flight
limitations and permitted IFR and night flight with no flight test
requirements.  Following the minimal first flight tests in Florida, the
plane was flown over 1,100 nautical miles by the owner and displayed at the
Duke Owner's Association convention at Sault St. Marie Canada last month.
Due to time constraints of the annual Duke Owner's Association show, there
is no evidence at present that a systematic flight test program was
conducted by the owner or that all instrumentation crucial to the operation
of the plane and its engine was completed prior to the fatal flight.  It
should be understood that the Duke engine application was a complex project
involving a 24-volt airframe and a 12-volt engine system.



The owner of the Duke and copilot departed Sault St. Marie several days
prior to the crash en-route for autopilot and panel work in Muncie, Indiana.
Following engine shutdown, attempts to restart the right engine revealed a
dead battery.  There was an apparent problem with the 12 volt charging
system on the right side engine and a battery charger was placed on the
battery and a restart successfully made.



Besides work being done on the autopilot, the details of the specific panel
work performed are not yet available.  The work required several days,
delaying the pilot's departure to Florida.  The pilot was scheduled to
return to Canada on Thursday, 10/21/02 by scheduled airlines.  The pilot had
a meeting scheduled in Florida on the night of departure with a fellow Duke
owner.  The purpose of the meeting was to provide new capital to Engine
Power Systems LLC to fund certification of the engine package.



The engine installation included a 12-volt alternator on the starboard
engine and 24 volt alternator on the port engine.  The Duke was equipped
with standard instrumentation to monitor the 24-volt alternator system,
however no such instrumentation had yet been installed for monitoring the
12-volt alternator system.  It was the impression of the avionics specialist
that the starboard 12-volt alternator system was not functioning properly.
On the night of departure, the pilot was advised of the problem and advised
not to depart.  Additionally, the instrument panel lights were not
functional, necessitating the use of external (flashlight) lighting.



Despite the known electrical problem and lack of instrument lights, the
pilot elected to depart.  Departure occurred in rain and at night under an
IFR flight plan with known worsening conditions to the south for a minimum 4
hour flight to Melbourne, Florida.  The flight proceeded uneventfully for
approximately 2 1/2 hours at which time there was an apparent total loss of
power to the right engine.  Calculation of the battery capacity and
electrical consumption of the right side engine computer indicates that the
engine would have run faithfully for approximately 2 hours until the voltage
fell below 9 volts, at which time the engine electrical systems would shut
down leading to loss of the engine running.  The pilot reported his problem
to ATC and requested diversion to the nearest airport at Jesup, Georgia.



According to witnesses on the field, conditions at Jesup, Georgia were 1000
foot ceiling.  The field had no ILS approach and it appears that the
approach to the field was made using an NDB/GPS approach.  The pilot
reported to ATC that he had the field in sight after breaking out of the
overcast at 1000 feet.  The plane apparently was not aligned with the runway
and it is assumed that the pilot had attempted to go around to align the
plane for landing. The starboard engine prop was feathered, the wheels were
down and possibly the flaps were down as well (most of the wings were
consumed in the fire) indicating that full power was applied to the left
engine to slow descent and maneuver for landing.  One of the assumptions
being made is that the pilot never practiced single engine flight with the
new engine configuration and possibly underestimated the additional 120 HP
produced by the left engine thus causing the plane to yaw, digging in the
right wing, spinning the plane and impacting the ground.  The pilot and
co-pilot perished and were consumed in the ensuing fire.



Official cause of Accident: Pending final report of the NTSB.