TacAero — the Fredericksburg, Texas taildragger operation now controlled by Kevin Sutterfield — has been sued for the crash of an experimental scale P-51 aircraft. Sutterfield himself was at the controls on the aircraft’s maiden flight when he crashed within sight of TacAero’s hangar at T82.
Background: What TacAero Does
TacAero specializes in taildragger instruction and in the operation and maintenance of Rotax-powered aircraft. TacAero also claims expertise in experimental amateur-built (EAB) aircraft — specifically, the kind of high-performance, kit-built machines that come out of Europe. In fact, TacAero has an entire division devoted to reassembling experimental aircraft when they arrive from Europe, inspecting them, and then performing the FAA-required “Phase I flight testing” before turning the aircraft over to their owners.
January 5, 2026: The Crash
TacAero reassembled and inspected an experimental scale P-51 aircraft, “Just Ducky,” when it arrived from Europe in November, 2025. Midway thought the process, Kevin Sutterfield bought TacAero. When it came time to begin flight tests, despite having less than an hour total time in type, Sutterfield decided to conduct the first flight himself. Just Ducky never made it out of ground effect. Sutterfield climbed the aircraft to approximately 30 feet before allowing the aircraft to slow beneath the published stall speed. The aircraft descended rapidly and landed hard with one wheel on the pavement and one off. Sutterfield veered and impacted an abutment. No one was hurt, but the aircraft was totaled.
Just Ducky was powered by a Rotax 916iS engine rated at 160 horsepower for takeoff. To develop takeoff power, the Rotax Operating Manual specifies a target manifold pressure of at least 49.9 inches of mercury (in. Hg). The engine data show that the engine never developed more than 34.5 inches of manifold pressure at any point — on the ground or in the air. The cockpit gauges showed from the outset that the engine was not developing takeoff power yet Sutterfield attempted to takeoff anyway.
What the data extracted from the Garmin avionics show:
During the pre-takeoff run-up: The engine did not develop the manifold pressure or fuel flow required for full power, or anything close to it. The Rotax Operating Manual is explicit: if the engine doesn’t reach target manifold pressure, you’re not supposed to fly — you ground the aircraft and find out why. For whatever reason, Sutterfield proceeded to the runway notwithstanding the anomalous readings.
Early in the takeoff roll: Sutterfield admited to the NTSB that on the roll he noted manifold pressure of only 25 in. Hg — half of what the engine should be producing, but decided to continue with the takeoff instead of abort.
At liftoff: The aircraft Flight Manual’s recommended liftoff speed of 65 knots. The Garmin data shows that Sutterfield pilot attempted to pull the aircraft into the air at less than 61 knots.
In the air: The aircraft climbed at 318 feet per minute. At full rated power, the aircraft should climb at more than 1,500 feet per minute. Yet, Sutterfield continued.
As things fell apart: With the engine producing less than 50 horsepower, and airspeed decaying well below the 75-knot best glide speed, Sutterfield maintained a nose-up pitch attitude of nearly 16 degrees before the airplane descended rapidly and hit the ground hard.
What TacAero Knew — and When It Knew It
This wasn’t TacAero’s first encounter with a Rotax 916iS that wasn’t producing power. In November 2025 — just weeks before the accident — TacAero flight tested a different experimental aircraft powered by a Rotax 916iS. During that program, on one takeoff roll, the engine developed only 20 inches of manifold pressure. TacAero’s pilot did exactly what the Rotax manual requires: he aborted. TacAero’s mechanics investigated, resolved the discrepancy, and the rest of the program went without incident.
Why Sutterfield chose to attempt a takeoff instead of abort in this case is unclear.
TacAero and Sutterfield have not yet responded to the lawsuit.