Saturday, January 20, 2007

Upsets

The diagram was provided by eclipseblogger with the following explanation:

"Red line is the reduced Vmo = 275 for the "A" model. The "B" model will have a Vmo = 285 (black line boundary of the envelope). The blue line is for the "A" model performance, before the drag reduction aero-dynamics mods.

The chart was publicly posted already by Bob Broders so go ahead and do with it as you wish." End Quote.

Comments on the blog have been discussing Eclipse performance on the high end--high altitude and high speed, at least however fast the Eclipse can fly.

Frankly, I can't explain the shape of the blue line curve. One would expect the max speed below 30,000 ft, yet the speed keeps increasing up to FL 350 then rapidly falls off above 350. Then again, the engine is controlled by a computer which doesn't necessarily have to follow the laws of physics.

Of more interest is the left side of the curve, the slow speed. Since early in the program, Eclipse has promoted L-39 upset training as part of the curriculum, why? Is Eclipse just being more thorough than other manufacturers or is it a genuine concern? And is the real objective recovery from high altitude stalls.

At 41,000 ft, 312 kt TAS would translate to about 150 kt equivalent (indicated) air speed. The chart reflects numbers at 5,000 lbs and a clean stall speed of about 95 kts. This 55 kt spread is pretty narrow, and gets even more narrow when the aircraft banks for a turn (think accelerated stalls) or encounters turbulence. Operating at higher weights will reduce the spread as well.

Vern like to boast how safe and fool-proof they have made the Eclipse, there is nothing to brag about here. I can't think of any other business jet operating with this small of margin.

A company in Santa Fe provides upset training in an L-39, their website provides some insight into the thrill of a high altitude stall/upset: www.jetwarbird.com/upset.html

75 comments:

Stan Blankenship said...

First Owner David Crowe has provided a little peak into flying the Eclipse and its takeoff and landing characteristics.

If he wants to offer some real insight into the airplane, then I would like for him to look in his FAA Approved Flight Manual, go to the Weight and Balance section and tell us what the actual empty weight is and provide the corresponding CG location.

Better yet, post a copy on the Owners Forum, eclipseblogger can forward it to me and I will post it for everyone else to read.

And if David is too busy to provide this information, surely someone out of the first 80 units that will deliver by the end of March will share their data.

airtaximan said...

why would the FADEC be programmed to have this performace? What is it resolving?

Kaptain Kool-Aid said...

Stan, it may take longer than you think to see actual performance numbers such as a weight and balance chart made public. The Eclipse AFM contains the following legal notice:

ECLIPSE AVIATION PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

All information and data contained herein are the property of Eclipse Aviation Corporation and are not to be duplicated or disclosed to others for any purpose without the written consent of Eclipse Aviation Corporation, Albuquerque, NM.


I can understand having a basic copyright protection clause, but barring Eclipse owners from “disclosing” information from the AFM seems a bit extreme. It would appear the ABQ gang is a tad sensitive about their actual performance numbers. Perhaps, they will remove this restriction when the “B” models are certified, but I doubt it.

Of course, it will be impossible to keep the information from leaking out sooner or later.

flight guy said...

EB,

You're starting to sound like the majority of bloggers here. Why the change in demeaner?

EclipseOwner387 said...

Flight Guy,

Stan wrote the commentary that went with the graph. Not EB.

flight guy said...

EO387,

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't catch a difference in a provider in the commentary. That would explain the difference.

Stan Blankenship said...

flightguy,

Sorry for the confusion.

The quotation marks were intended to mark the end of eb's explanation.


kka,

Regarding copyright of AFM data, this is the company that invented transparency and now they want to hide something because they obviously have something to hide.

Also, peak worked in spell check, but my above comment should have read 'peek'.

Gunner said...

Stan-
You wrote in the original post:
"At 41,000 ft, 312 kt TAS would translate to about 150 kt equivalent (indicated) air speed. The chart reflects numbers at 5,000 lbs and a clean stall speed of about 95 kts. This 55 kt spread is pretty narrow, and gets even more narrow when the aircraft banks for a turn (think accelerated stalls) or encounters turbulence. Operating at higher weights will reduce the spread as well."

Can we expect all of the VLJ's to suffer this same narrow speed envelope at altitude? I haven't seen or studied the Mustang or Adam numbers, but it seems to me they will suffer this same liability; perhaps worse, given the (nominal) slower speeds.

Gunner

Stan Blankenship said...

Gunner,

Larger corporate jets are certified at Mach .71 and above. I think all of them can cruise at or near their certified redline speeds.

Now the VLJ's come along with a max speed of Mach .64 and in the case of Eclipse, can only make Mach .55.

The Cessna website claims the Mustang will do 340 kts at FL 350 or Mach .59.

This is a subject that needs more coverage from the media. It would be nice to get some input from the FAA and NASA. It would be nice to know what Eclipse and Cessna are telling their customers in post-delivery training sessions.

airtaximan said...

you guys crack me up...

"Now the VLJ's come along with a max speed of Mach .64 and in the case of Eclipse, can only make Mach .55"

Little details designed to keep your attention, as if it mattered...

If Eclipse's "claims" were possible, there would be no competition. Do you think everyone out there is stupid?

Vern puffed a great product f0r years (like Microsoft) and then (in character)delivered garbage.

The sophisticated competition let Vern proceed, and then 4-5 years after the E-clips launch, they jumped it. The E-500 configuration was locked, and the door was WIDE open for strong competition. The only issue left, which has been highlighted again and again, is the price. Vern still claims 2500 orders, and the price that reflects a resulting dramatic shift in volume production. Cessna, Embraer et als...do not subscribe to this "lie". Of course, they could have offered discounts to their buddies for a few thousand orders...a la Dayjet (read Daydream), but they did not. They are real companies with boards, and shareholders and product lines and heritage and integrity. Dinosaurs according to Vern-bern.

At this point, his buddy Ed has been relegated to the VC auditorium circuit in Boca, because he has no money and no real business. Therefore, Vern has no order-book. Vern’n’burn has a few hundred orders, just like Cessna - think he'll able to deliver for half their price for long?

Dream on. The “value” you folks sometimes refer to is a cheap plane…which is not possible.

The plane itself is garbage, and the competition is there...sorry, the “fear and superstition” a la Microsoft failed in the 50 year old aerospace industry. Predictable enough, but not for arrogant pricks. $1 billion, later is proof.

GO HOME to Slate (another Raburn pipe-dream monumental failure based on advanced technology) - with your mouse between your legs...your approach is scary and dangerous when passengers lives are at stake. Dangerous as opposed to “revolutionary and innovative” as you would have the whole world believe.

Its almost over, except for the misdirection regarding a few knots here and there, some payload range charts and other little herrings. Its almost over…

Gunner said...

airtaximan-
I, for one, wish you'd stop pulling your punches and tell us how you REALLY feel.
;-)

Gunner

Stan Blankenship said...

airtaximan,

Sorry to disagree, but as long as the bullshit flows the money is going to pour into this company and keep it going. But like you, I don't think the program can stand on its own merits.

bambazonke said...

I cannot confirm this independently of the source I received it from so take it for what it is worth. This source that is not prone to BS told me that he met a test pilot who had resigned from the EAC program because he thought that the plane was dangerous. He said that the aircraft was difficult to fly at Gross Weight in IMC, and secondly in high speed descents the plane was prone to a phugoid (sp) oscillation. Maybe some of these items that Stan is describing are manifesting themselves in the conditions highlighted by this pilot.

If EAC are telling the 1st 100 or so position holders that they are going to retrofit their aircraft, here is a prediction; these planes will never get the mods. As every day turns on the calendar, and more eeks out about their product this company gets deeper and deeper into the abyss.

Even at the $1m price tag, this plane with all it's limited range, payload and supposed handling characteristics will have no appeal to the market that they have aimed it at, the Air Taxi market. Looking at the numbers that have been put out there by Bob Broders this plane has no payload. If his numbers are fed into Jepp Flitestar, the aircraft is a full fuel 980 mile plane. That is with a full fuel payload 370 lbs of payload. The 370 lbs payload comes from using EAC's 'configurator' to put in the specs of a part 135 aircraft, giving an empty weight of 3775 lbs. Some of these programs like Day Jet and Jet Alliance have both declared that they are using 2 pilots. With full fuel, this means no pax!. So the KA brigade will say the the Air Taxi market is 300 miles or less. Well the problem with this scenario is you will not be able to get high enough to make a Jet work, and the jet speed will have no advantage over the 'stone age' King Air that also has a commodity called 'baggage space' something that is absent from the midgejet, small thing, but this is important to Joe Public. There are aircraft with better payload, efficiency and flexibility available to the 'Air Taxi' market (if it exists) that can do this job.

I can't wait for the first aviation journalist with some balls to ask KKA to re define and explain this 'paradigm shift' that he has been talking about for so long.

Cessna have demonstrated the size of the owner flown jet market, with the R&D costs that EAC has sunk into this program, it cannot be sustained or give a return of any kind with a production of 50 aircraft per annum. This is also a message for the other VLJ manufacturers in the market, who ar coming in to further dilute this thin market,(Adam etc) they are spending a huge amount on an 'ego' jet, and there are no market to support the egos of the likes of KKA.

baron95 said...

I don't see any problem on the low speed end of the envelope. 55KIAS between cruise speed and stall speed is very reasonable and adequate. Many jets and many piston planes have less.

The problem I see is at the high-speed end of the envelope. At FL350 there seems to be only 15 KTS or so between the high-speed cruise and the MMO for the A model. The B model claims a higher high-speed cruise (+15 kTS or so), which will put the blue line and high-speed black line very close together.

Push the nose down without reducing power, get an updraft with autopilot on, etc and you may get flutter or a mach-tuck or whatever behavior forced Eclipse to a very low MMO.

airtaximan said...

Can someone please explain to me, why after 8-9 years, we are asking performance and safety questions about this plane? Did all the advanced technology, computer design tools, innovation, creativity, world-class suppliers and engineering talent, not to mention almost a $1 billion... have to result in this crappy plane? What is the deal with this program? How did this happen?

EclipseOwner387 said...

I cannot believe the FAA certified such an unsafe airplane. I am so glad you guys are smarter than the FAA. Whew. You may have just saved my life and the lives of other stupid pilots that believe the FAA. And please thank that test pilot for coming forward and saving my life as well. I am truly impressed that he had the courage to come forward to help the little guy. Whats his name so I can thank him personally. It is good to know test pilots are willing to put their neck out there for us.

Oh, wait a second - he is anonymous. The courage to put their life at risk as a test pilot but afraid of Vern. Hmmm. Strange.

Stan Blankenship said...

eo387,

You bring up a good point and I would like to know how Eclipse demonstrated to the FAA the airplane safe at FL 410, at gross weight and pulling 3.8 g's at Mmo.

That is the corner of the envelope!

My recollection of some 30 years ago at Learjet, the airplane had sufficient thrust to fly the corners and sure enough, Mach effects when pulling g's at FL 410 would cause an aileron buzz which had to be corrected with vortex generators.

Remember the question in the original post, why has Eclipse advocated upset training since Day One?

BTW, are you look forward to your L-39 upset training, learning to recover from a high altitude stall, inverted, at night, in weather?

bambazonke said...

EO387- this test pilot is not on a mission to do anything other than save his life, and apparently that is why he quit. As I mentioned on my post, I don't have anyway to confirm the information, but it does seem weired to me that the EAC advocates all this upset training for their 'safe' aircraft, the only training of its kind advocated by a civilian manufacturer.

Also, remember, this plane is coming to you with assurances from the KA king, who after the first flight proudly announced that "all systems performed flawlessly" this was after my friend Bill Bubb (test pilot) had radioed that that his engines were burning away...he was told to make sure he stayed up for the one hour flight that released the deposits.. Is this the kind of safety that you are looking for?

Green-or-Red said...

Maybe the test pilot was mis-understood. I have never heard that the plane was not safe. It could be that the pushing to achieve cert... "we need to fly now" ...type of program was dangerous. EAC rushed/pushed to be the first to TC, but really were second in achieving full TC which really was a partial because all of the incomplete systems.

Stan Blankenship said...

Interesting reading:

http://www.charterx.com/resources/article.aspx?id=2547

airtaximan said...

Stan:

familiar, too....

bambazonke said...

Stan,

I think he has been reading your blog!

Stan Blankenship said...

Richard's April '06 blog on the Eclipse program was the inspiration for this blog.

He was covering the air taxi aspect and I felt there was a need to talk about four other subjects, all covered in the first post.

That was all I ever intended to write about and here we are 54 posts later on a myriad of subjects, with hundreds and hundreds of comments.

Readers of this blog do so for various reasons. It is a source of information far broader then the sanitized PR crap coming out of Eclipse or articles written by quid pro qou journalists, hoping to get ad revenue or a test flight in the airplane in return for favorable coverage.

But there is a difference in what Richard writes. He is a paid professional aviation analyst and his words will always carry more weight than what is written in this blog because after all, it is a blog.

Old Troll said...

The claim that a test pilot resigned over safety concerns is in line with comments I've heard from other sources. I have not personally examined an Eclipse since few, if any, skeptics are allowed anywhere near the aircraft. A business colleague did get a close look and said the quality of that airframe reminded him of a home-built. I've also heard similar comments about rushing deliveries from former employees. It's one thing to rush an Oshkosh/NBAA presentation, their first "delivery", or the "TC"... but what happens when they rush a delivery to the average Joe?

I hope Vern's arrogant attitude has not infected the quality and safety department. It would be a tragedy to see a bunch of smoking craters.

BTW, their average deliver rate is up to 1.46 aircraft per day to meet the goal of 500. And that's assuming they work seven days per week.

occam said...

Stan Blankenship said...
You bring up a good point and I would like to know how Eclipse demonstrated to the FAA the airplane safe at FL 410, at gross weight and pulling 3.8 g's at Mmo.


Probably by flying beyond the published envelope. Testing to the corners is hardly a problem that's unique to eclipse

BTW, are you look forward to your L-39 upset training, learning to recover from a high altitude stall, inverted, at night, in weather?

How do you imagine the plane was certified if it winds up inverted from a stall? That certainly doesn't meets the reqs

baron95 said...
Push the nose down without reducing power, get an updraft with autopilot on, etc and you may get flutter or a mach-tuck or whatever behavior forced Eclipse to a very low MMO.


Again, this just isn't certifiable characteristics. The regulations require upset recovery demonstrations. And, freedom from flutter or control reversal is required well beyond Vmo/Mmo

bambazonke said...
I cannot confirm this independently of the source I received it from so take it for what it is worth. This source that is not prone to BS told me that he met a test pilot who had resigned from the EAC program because he thought that the plane was dangerous. He said that the aircraft was difficult to fly at Gross Weight in IMC, and secondly in high speed descents the plane was prone to a phugoid (sp) oscillation.


How did the FAA test pilots not notice these dangerous characteristics? Not only miss it but decide the workload was low enough for single pilot ops?

Old Troll said...

Occam, you're razor is well placed, however, all things are not equal in this case. More than anything, it seems that Vern likes to talk: big boasts, big promises, and his quotes all over the papers. When it comes to answering critics, he's just as vocal. Unfortunately, his usual tactic is to insult vendors, competitors, "naysayers", etc. His propensity for obfuscation and redirection breeds suspicion. Furthermore, the Nimbus deal seriously hurts his credibility. That behaviour would be criminal if Eclipse were a publicly traded company. Eclipse acts like they have something to hide and people get hurt when this happens.

So, all other things being equal, the simplest solution would be to allow an independent journalist to fly the aircraft. Cessna gave McClellan the controls of a Mustang before they had TC. Surely Eclipse could do the same since their aircraft is already "certified". If the E500 is all Vern says it is, they have nothing to lose. This would dispel unfounded rumours and gain positive press (i.e. sales) at the same time.

Only one question remains. Why haven't they done this?

occam said...

Well then, problem solved. One question, three answers:

AOPA.

Forbes.

Flight International.

EclipseBlogger said...

OCCam, welcome to the party... You'll find that much of what goes on on this blog has little to do with the facts, and more to do with stating unfounded rumor, unsupported opinion, confused data, and half truths. But every once in a while, an actual relevant point is made.

Old Troll said...

occam said...
Well then, problem solved.


Not quite.

AOPA.
The majority of this article just repeats Eclipse claims. Also, flight was limited to 17,000 ft. That's not exactly an unrestricted evaluation. They couldn't test the speed/altitude claims.

Forbes.
I couldn't access the article. I'm skeptical of this review considering that this is not an aviation publication. I've seen the popular press butcher my work and it's not pretty.

Flight International.
It's not a bad review. But again, why the limited altitude? More importantly, why didn't the author question this? And what about the airspeed? Eclipse claims 41,000 ft yet they only flew to 32. They also claim 370 kts but only made 300 (if my math is correct). It doesn't seem like the author really put Vern's feet to the coals on that evaluation.

Kaptain Kool-Aid said...

To echo old troll's response:

AOPA – “Because of restrictions in the flight-test airspace, we were limited during our flight to 17,000 feet.”

Forbes – “The test jet I flew had no autopilot to keep the plane smooth in turbulence. Climbing to 17,000 feet was bumpy…”

Flight International – “…during the climb to flight level 320 (32,000ft)… the aircraft was allowed to accelerate and reach a maximum speed of 180kt/Mach 0.52. Outside air temperature was -55*C and total fuel flow 192kg/h (424lb/h).”

To date, no journalist has been above FL320 in an Eclipse 500. Mike Gerzanics of Flight International observed a max speed of Mach 0.52 at FL320. This equates to 303 knots and is a far cry from Eclipse’s claimed top speed of 360 knots ("A" model). They must have really “turned up the wick” on those PW610Fs since this test flight occurred last May… no wonder they needed larger tip tanks!

Old Troll said...

I stopped back by to clarify my comment but the captain did it for me. I do have one thing to add. If the test flights are restricted to FL320 and 300 kts, are they restricting anything else? In reference to my earlier post, why have none of the authors questioned or explained these limits? It seems as though Vern will only let the faithful and the not-too-critical examine his airplane.

preacher said...

Well, it's obvious to me, and I am not as "learned" about such matters as are the posters in this blog.

If Richard Aboulafia can see the writing on the wall, why can't any of you EA fans ? There have been legitimate questions asked, and some answered, not just "unfounded rumor, unsupported opinion, confused data, and half truths." The only data that's confused is which channel to watch coming out of EA.

Get off your high horse and look in it's mouth. The aircraft does not meet specs, probably never will. Bill Gates has more money than Forrest Gump ever will, and wants to find a reasonable tax shelter in the soon-to-be out-of-business EA. Ol' Bill's gonna write it off before the ink dries on the deal when it goes south.

"Retiring" executives, other companies recruiting people away from ALQ, more and more bad news about how the plane just won't cut it, it's no wonder the FAA won't justify a PC. They're not going to waste their efforts on a company that's going to be belly-up before '07 is out.

I would bail on my positions before the end of February. You might be lucky enough to make something to go on Spring Break with.

bambazonke said...

Dear Vern,

I know you are on your way to becoming Times Man of the Year in 2007, sorry you missed it in 2006 because of those darned people at Avidyne, or was it those clowns at Williams, I lose track, but I know for sure it wasn't your fault.

Just when you don't need any more bad news about your business, I see that those radicals at Business Week have gone and printed an article about the target market for your plane. Now I know you have Billy G and other high rollers on your team, but you will see in this article the side that went down in this article also had some hitters like Veep Al Gore and Mr. Rocket Arm Aikman amongst others, so don't feel too secure in the company you have on board. Anyways, thought you might want to prep yourself for a one liner when asked about this so thought I would send it to you.

Your Bud,

Bomba Zonke.

Business Week JANUARY 29, 2007

NEWS & INSIGHTS

One Jet, 16 Owners, Big Problems

NetJets, Flexjet, and other fractional operators have severe growing pains



When FractionAir Inc. opened for business in 2002, its possibilities seemed endless. The Nashville company, which sold fractional interests in private jets, was backed by a who's who of Tennessee business and politics, including former Democratic U.S. Representative Bob Clement. Over time the venture's impressive customer list boasted former Vice-President Al Gore, ex-Dallas Cowboys star Troy Aikman, and Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher. But by last fall, FractionAir was grounded, with its creditors and jet owners busy filing lawsuits to recoup whatever they could of their investments after the business proved more difficult than anticipated.

FractionAir's experience illustrates the growing pains facing the $6 billion industry. Despite brisk demand--more than 5,000 individuals and businesses now own fractional interests in private jets, up from 730 in 1997--the companies operating these services, including NetJets, Bombadier Flexjet, and Flight Options, have collectively lost hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years. "Given the demand, it makes no sense that the operators are losing money," laments Steven F. O'Neill, CEO of Greenwich (Conn.)-based CitationShares, which operates a fleet of 81 Cessna jets.

Why the losses? Industry experts say the business model has vexing problems. For one thing, providing a ready, waiting jet for a multitude of customers--many jets are now sold in increments as small as 1/16th--is more complicated than it may appear. Experts estimate that more than 25% of an average plane's air time is spent flying empty to pick up the customer. And because many people travel at the same peak times--the day before major holidays, or Monday mornings--operators have too often been forced to turn to the costly charter market just to meet their contractual demands. NetJets Inc., for instance, estimates it spent $200 million chartering extra jets in 2005, though it says it cut its charter outlays to less than $100 million last year.

Analysts add that a good portion of the existing stock of business jets, such as the Hawker 1000 and Cessna Citation Ultra, were built for corporate users who flew them less than 300 hours a year, not for the roughly 1,100 hours that most fractional operators wring out of an average plane. The unfortunate result: chronic maintenance and excessive downtime. "A lot of these light business jets were not designed to be flown like a commercial airplane," says Mike Riegel, a former Flexjet executive who now advises fliers purchasing fractional stakes. And experts say that private jet operators, in their quest to gain market share, were way too aggressive with their own jet acquisitions, which in turn forced them to discount their rates to lure customers. "The fractional players have been just like the commercial airlines--they've been pricing just to fill seats," says Richard L. Aboulafia, vice-president at Teal Group Corp., an aerospace consulting firm based in Fairfax, Va.

OFF-PEAK REWARDS
Executives at the fractional operators say they're optimistic. Many claim they've begun phasing out older gas-guzzling planes in favor of newer, more efficient jets like the Falcon 2000 and the Cessna XL. And a number of companies have started to reward the plane owners for traveling off peak, which has reduced reliance on costly charters to meet demand. NetJets CEO Richard T. Santulli says his company cut its use of charters from 8% in 2005 to just 1.75% last year, a move that analysts believe enabled the Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary to turn a profit in 2006 after losses in three of the four previous years. "Contrary to what everyone says, the model works," says Santulli. "We will continue to be profitable."

Longer-term, many analysts still believe a shakeout is possible. Says UBS (UBS )aerospace analyst David Strauss: "The best thing that could happen to this industry is consolidation--taking out a couple of the lesser players who just hold down prices."


By Dean Foust

ate the whole thing said...

Is eclipse really buying back these aircrafat at the deposit stage and ar funal payment.
What was full cruise fuelflow at 12,000'with 5 on board B config?

Any word on PC?

Stan Blankenship said...

ate,

Eclipse has said they will lease back several of the first deliveries to use for demonstration purposes.

I assume this means customers take delivery, then Eclipse starts paying a monthly fee.

Thus far, I am not aware of any actual performance information on the B model. Comments to the blog suggests the first converted B prototype is being prep'd for first flight.

There does not seem to be any public information on the PC. It could be awarded today which would allow Eclipse to start issuing Certificates of Airworthiness for production deliveries.

Then again, if the paper work is not in order, the FAA may continue to inspect and sign off on the next 5 or 6 units. Thus far, a time consuming process. We are 23 days and counting between deliveries 1 and 2.

airtaximan said...

The fractional ownership model, thus far, has been a way to make money by SELLING the planes.

There is a markup on the aircraft sale which is where the money is made. This is especially true when discounts are paid for fleet orders, or "inside" prices paid to affiliated manufacturers.

In other words, it's a good way for Vern to sell more planes.

The broken part of the model is the service side, which has been too costly to generate any sort of profits. The demands of owners is high. Fleet management is an issue. Aircraft reliability is crucial in the high utlization environment. I suspect the E-clips will enjoy similar problems. One would think that the limited range would make the repositioning/deadleg flight less of an issue for E-clips. Simply put, the planes cannot be too far away from the next flight. As a percetage of flying the repositions might be just as high. But I am not sure any of these companies plans a core fleet...so it will be very difficult to maintain any sort of service level. To me, this is not a serious way to offer reliable service to owners - just a good way to make money selling planes off in little pieces.

In any case, the service side of the business is very tough, and it will not be any easier for the neophyte guys supporting Vern/supported by Vern to make a go of it.

Especially not with the-little-plane-that-couldn't.

airtaximan said...

From AIN...
"A niche market is doing business in sales of Eclipse 500 position numbers. According to one aircraft broker, around 100 of the new very light jets have changed hands at a profit of $200,000 to $600,000. Michael Press, president and CEO of Single Pilot Jet Management, says half the sellers are speculators, while the remainder are owners who had a change of heart or situation."

Seems like a large number of transactions...

I suspect Mr. Press (for his own commercial reasons) is puffing the "profit" aspect a bit... makes it sound like the positions are going for a premium over the current price. I believe the "speculators" and "change-of-hearters" could be getting out with a few hundred thousand dollars over their locked-in discounted prices, and the planes would be still selling at a discount from today's advertised rate.

Today there's E-clips for sale at the "please-take-this-E-clips-position-off-my-hands-now-premium" of $25,000...

There are so many "used-to-be-buyers" now out of E-clips positions, it makes you wonder about Verns quality orderbook of 2500, no?

For perspective, the current re-sale from speculators/heart-burners is almost enouph for all of Cessna's Mustang orderbook, including the used-to-be-buyers and the new buyers who took the E-clips off their hands. Pretty AMAZING.

EB, Keep laughing! Keep poking at the bloggers! Keep disagreeing with reason! And above all...Keep the faith!

EclipseOwner387 said...

airtaximan,

The market Mike Press is talking about is pretty much right on target. Try to buy a reasonable early position number and you will get the real story. Prices are transacting in the $1.55M range plus or minus 100 grand. No one is selling for 25k premium on the lower base price positions. Anyway, unless you are really in the market it would be hard to understand the differences in position value. The early postion holders are sitting on a very nice profit. As much as 600k is possible. I sold one for 500k+ premium. (I bought for 250k premium and flipped it in 3 weeks.)

Mike Press was my broker.

Ken Meyer said...

Stan said...
Remember the question in the original post, why has Eclipse advocated upset training since Day One?...learning to recover from a high altitude stall, inverted, at night, in weather?


The L-39 training is a blast, and I think very worthwhile. Why they offer it is crystal clear clear when you take it. And it's not because they expect you to wind up in "a high altitude stall, inverted, at night, in weather." That, like a fair number of the comments here, is just plain wrong.

Ken

bambazonke said...

So Ken, do tell, what is the reason for the blast in the L-39? What is so special about the EAC-500 that this kind of training is recommended? Remember these private pilot flown jets have been out for ever, I am not aware of a high altitude incident or loss, other than Mach Tuck, but this is not a candidate for Mach Tuck..Enlighten us please..

Stan Blankenship said...

eo387,

In follow up to the question asked in my 01-22 comment, I spoke with an FAA Test Pilot who has been involved in the certification of more business jets than probably anyone else in the world.

I asked if an applicant had to demonstrate max 'g' loading at max altitude at Mmo. He said no, that few airplanes could meet that criteria.

I then asked what are the conditions an applicant would have to meet at altitude. He said there are a few basic parameters that are covered in Advisory Circular AC 23-8B, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, available on the FAA's website.

As it turns out, the test pilots have some latitude as to what is acceptable as defined in AC 23-8B, quoting:

Section 3. Flight Characteristics
39. Section 23.141 General.
a. Explanation.
(1) Minimum Flight Characteristics. The purpose of these requirements is to specify minimum flight characteristics that are considered essential to safety for any airplane. This section deals primarily with controllability and maneuverability. A flight characteristic is an attribute, a quality, or a feature of the fundemental nature of the airplane that is assumed to exist because the airplane behaves in flight in a certain consistent manner when the controls are placed in certain positions or are manipulated in a certain manner. In some cases, measurements of forces, control surface positions, or accelerations in pitch, roll, and yaw may be made to support a decision but, normally, it will be a pass/fail judgement by the Authority test pilot.

(2) Exceptional Skills. The phrase "exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength," is used repeatedly throughout the regulations and requires highly qualitative judgements on the part of the test pilot. The judgements should be based on the pilot's estimate of the skill and experience of the pilots who normally fly the type of airplane under consideration (that is, private pilot, commercial pilot, or airline transport pilot skill levels). Exceptional alertness or strength requires additional judgement factors when the control forces are deemed marginal or when a condition exists that requires rapid recognition and reeaction to be coped with successfully. End Quote.

I then asked if at the maximum certified altitude, there was any minimum airspeed differential between stall speed and the speed at max continuous thrust? He replied, no.

Again I brought this up because the Eclipse was designed as a 4,700 lb airplane, it is now at 5,760 lbs and growing so the stall speed has increased.

Meanwhile, the airplane at heavy weights at FL 41,000 ft is reported to be struggling, the chart on the original post indicates Mach .55 at a mid-cruise weight.

It is a narrowing margin, but apparently does not concern the Ft. Worth Aircraft Certification office.

Do have to wonder if they considered the outcome of the autopilot trying to maintain altitude in a mountain wave condition or even loss of an engine at FL 410?

EclipseOwner387 said...

BZ,

My take on the the extensive training (including L-39) based upon the presentaion I attended in ABQ was to reduce any early mishaps that may occur that could greatly damage the Eclipse program. Critics of VLJs and Eclipse have argued that a high production jet will put a high number of inexperienced private pilots at the controls and increasing the chances of accidents. Eclipse made it perfectly clear that the training would be extensive and challenging. This is smart on Eclipse's behalf. I bet Piper wished it had given more extensive training in its Malibu program. A great airplane program was almost ruined by pilot error and insufficient training. In addition, an early accident WOULD in all probability ruin Eclipse as a start up company. Plus, this extensive training will give insurance compaines more comfort to insure the plane which is also vital to the health of the program. Trying to make it more than that is just a reach. The plane was certified. And to answer Stan's question about me looking forward to L-39 training - I have stated before that I plan on continuing to pay a pro to fly for me. I will be a safety net if the pro becomes incapacitated for any reason. There are many other good reasons why I should always have someone else be PIC. Liability being a great one.

Ken Meyer said...

Bambazonke said...
So Ken, do tell, what is the reason for the blast in the L-39? What is so special about the EAC-500 that this kind of training is recommended?


Well, since you ask, the curriculum says it all:
"The Eclipse Aviation Upset Recovery Training (URT) program is the most visible example of the Eclipse Aviation Flight Training philosophy. Eclipse Aviation is committed to achieving unprecedented levels of flight safety in the operation of the Eclipse 500. A review of aircraft accident statistics reveals that one of the leading causes of fatal accidents is the loss of aircraft control. The NTSB has repeatedly called for additional training in pilot recognition and recovery from unusual attitudes. Though not mandated by regulation, Eclipse Aviation has made the unique decision among aircraft manufacturers to provide pilots with information and training that can help to minimize aircraft upsets as a causal factor in aircraft accidents.

"The URT curriculum relied heavily on the recommendations of the Upset Recovery Industry Consortium. Comprised of over two dozen airlines, aircraft manufacturers, training organizations, and government agencies, this group produced a program of instruction known as the Upset Recovery Training Aid (URTA). The URTA curriculum was designed to be used as a template for the creation of Upset Recovery Training programs. Eclipse Aviation adhered closely to the recommendations of the URTA in establishing an aircraft specific URT program for operators of the Eclipse 500."

All airplanes are susceptible to various kinds of upset. However the Eclipse, by virtue of its weight, may be more susceptible than larger planes to the broad range of potential upsets including mountain wave, CAT, thunderstorms, windshear, microbursts, icing, wake turbulence, and the like. Like all planes, it will also be susceptible to certain system anomalies and pilot-induced causes of upsets. The URT course is intended to provide us with the ability to anticipate and react to upsets from all these causes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with high altitude stall tendencies.

The course is combined with academic and practical training in hypoxia awareness utilizing a Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device (ROBD). That training also goes well beyond what is required by the FARs. I suppose some may suggest that the hypoxia training must be because Eclipse has discovered their aircraft is prone to pressurization failure, but it's not :).

Ken

airtaximan said...

EO, Ken,

The discussion here on training reminds me of the automotive industry at first shying away from seatbelts, thinking that the customer would view cars as unsafe, if they needed the belts. Eventually, sanity prevailed and cars got seatbelts.

There's no real reason to think the upset training is a reflection of any safety issue with e-clips. Its just good thinking.

I commend Eclipse for their safety-first training program.

It makes perfect sense that they would try to reduce risk, preserve their reputation and save their customers. Insurance and financing probably made them realize this was the right training for their pilots, too. Its common sense...like the seatbelts.

Its funny how the E-clips cutlure makes one second guess almost everything about them, though.

I have to admit, while the training seems like a win-win for everyone as far as safety goes...I still have to wonder if there's another reason...

Stan Blankenship said...

Ken,

"All airplanes are susceptible to various kinds of upset. However the Eclipse, by virtue of its weight, may be more susceptible than larger planes to the broad range of potential upsets including mountain wave, CAT, thunderstorms, windshear, microbursts, icing, wake turbulence, and the like."

Ken your paragraph makes sense and makes my point, I would only add "...by virtue of its weight and low speed..."

EclipseBlogger said...

Ken Meyer said... I suppose some may suggest that the hypoxia training must be because Eclipse has discovered their aircraft is prone to pressurization failure

Too bad, but it's just the nature of this blog.

Cabbie said... I have to admit, while the training seems like a win-win for everyone as far as safety goes...I still have to wonder if there's another reason...

Typical response.

Stan Blankenship said...

eb,

I missed your comments on Aboulafia's article and also on the report Vern was forecasting delivery of 80 units by the end of March.

Niner Zulu said...

Does anyone really believe anything that Vern says anymore? I think he'll be lucky if he gets 20 jets out by the end of the year. Eighty jets by end of March is just more of the same old BS. I'd be scared to death to be a position holder with one of the high serial numbers. There is a good probability Eclipse may go BK before they see triple digit production.

gadfly said...

Focus your attention on the long term airworthiness of this aircraft. What does it take to "make a case"?

You folks all remind me of the story of the "can of pork 'n beans" that was sold from one soldier to another, always at a profit, until one soldier actually opened the can to find the contents "rotten". A friend of the complaining "owner" of the can of beans said: "That can wasn't for eating, it was for selling"

Gadfly3

airtaximan said...

GF

funny I recounted the same "beans" story in this blog about 20 posts before...

Very true.

Also true is what a jerk EB is...read my positive post on E-clips training, and my admission that E-clips remain suspect due to the crapola we've seen for 9 years, now... He copies a little tidbit, and says "typical"...

sad

Planet eX said...

Ken Meyer said... I suppose some may suggest that the hypoxia training must be because Eclipse has discovered their aircraft is prone to pressurization failure

Too bad, but it's just the nature of this blog.

As for hypoxia training, it's offered at both SimuFlite and FlightSafety. Nothing unusual about it being offered.

EclipseBlogger said...

Stan said... I missed your comments on Aboulafia's article and also on the report Vern was forecasting delivery of 80 units by the end of March.

Aboulafia... nothing new there. He's been saying the same thing for several years. Time will tell.

Deliveries... as long as the PC schedule keeps sliding to the right, deliveries will continue to be delayed. The first 100 aircraft were to be delivered by the end of April. If the PC were approved today, my guess would be that deliveries have been delayed by at least 2-3 months. Once PC is complete, there are, and will be, aircraft waiting for sign-offs. Catchup could take place fairly quickly. No real insight here, but you asked.

Frank Castle said...

the FAA is going to perform an ACSEP audit at Indy. (Aircraft Certification Systems Evaluation Program) How will E-clips handle this ? After all, they're still waiting for PC. If they can't cut the mustard at PC, then they are doomed anyhow, but the ACSEP audit will surely knock the wind outta their windsock !

Bet your positions on that one, sportsfans !

EclipseOwner387 said...

FC,

Yes, I have bet my position that they will get a PC. No PC and I doubt Eclipse will ever build position number 387. The Mooney route of individual FAA certification per plane would not fit in the Eclipse biz model. But why would they not get a PC? Do you have some wise insight or are you just making a wild speculation?

Also, wishing someone a deflated windsock should be a good thing right? Just want to make sure I have been using the windsock correctly.

Stan Blankenship said...

eb,

Aboulafia has always been skeptical of the air taxi market in the volume suggested by Eclipse. In this article, he made three new observations directed at the company and product.

"Successful companies are transparent and open; troubled companies are closed and insular."

"My assumption until now was that Eclipse has a superb plane, but a somewhat absurd business case. Until the aircraft is in the hands of more than a few operators, and true performance is known, we can no longer make the first assumption."

"In short, there’s no guarantee to Eclipse's backers that the company will get to the point where they can profit from an IPO, or some other way of harvesting Eclipse's promised success,” he said."
End quote.

You gotta admit, Eclipse has made some bold commitments on deliveries. Failure to perform will really destroy whatever credibility the company has left.

frank castle,

What is the purpose of an ACSEP and is it conducted by a MIDO or ACO office?

Can I assume Indy refers to Independence and the Mustang program?

EclipseBlogger said...

Stan said... "Successful companies are transparent and open; troubled companies are closed and insular."

"My assumption until now was that Eclipse has a superb plane, but a somewhat absurd business case. Until the aircraft is in the hands of more than a few operators, and true performance is known, we can no longer make the first assumption."

"In short, there’s no guarantee to Eclipse's backers that the company will get to the point where they can profit from an IPO, or some other way of harvesting Eclipse's promised success,” he said."
End quote.


Eclipse's big problem is that they came out with bold statements, projections, and goals for what was to be a revolutionary aircraft. With that comes bold statements in defense of the skepticism and criticism. They thought that everything would be smooth sailing once the Williams engine was replaced, but as with any development program of this complexity, problems always come up. Nobody wants to air all of the issues publicly that are being taken care of internally, and Eclipse is no different. Certainly we weren't aware of all of Cessna's Mustang problems during development (and don't think that there weren't any) we only got to see the finish product. Unfortunately, because of the claims, statements, and promised openness it was expected that Eclipse would be more forthcoming in every detail of their development. In reality, forces related to marketing, competition, product and company image, should and do take precedent. In Eclipse's case, when they release numbers they tend to get over analyzed and twisted as they have been here, and Aboulafia is also no exception in this. With that said, I am at a loss why there is not more information released at this very moment. I do understand that numbers are forthcoming "very soon".

As far as IPO, there is never a guarantee that any company will make it to IPO. If Eclipse can start making deliveries, get the PC, keep the production line moving, and complete the development of AVIO, they should be set up for IPO. Financially they seem to be in reasonable shape. The $700 million spent so far has not been all for development as Cabbie would have you believe. There is a lot of company and factory infrastructure in place to support the production goals, service centers at several locations around the country, and the 1000 employees now hired.

Bottom line - it's a real company, with a real product, with some very smart people, and dedicated employees. But, also one that has made a few mistakes. I think egos need to be set aside and get the company back on track making airplanes. And, they are making progress in that direction.

Gunner said...

eclipseblogger said:
"Certainly we weren't aware of all of Cessna's Mustang problems during development (and don't think that there weren't any) we only got to see the finish product."


- The Mustang didn't suffer these PR and Credibility problems because Cessna Execs did not stoop to claims of founding a whole new industry around one jet;

- Cessna Execs did not find a need to insult everyone else in the industry by claiming they had revolutionized aircraft manufacture;

- Cessna Execs did not trash their supply partners every time there was a delay;

- Cessna Execs did not regularly make flights-of-fantasy pronouncements about their sales, market or production capabilities.

But, then Cessna Execs are Dinosaurs. And so we watched and waited patiently as they quietly moved thru design, certifications and production phases. How archaic was that?

BTW, why doesn't that other startup, Adam, face the types of criticism Eclipse does?

I'm sorry; in this regard, Vern reaps what he sows. The Eclipse jet will forever be inseparable from the BS and ill-will that issues forth from Vern's office; so long as he is associated with the company. It's just that simple.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

EB said

"They thought that everything would be smooth sailing once the Williams engine was replaced"

I doubt this, but if somehow you are correct, they are in more trouble than I imagined...

They had an optimized point design airframe with unheard of integration based on a tiny little weightless 770lb thrust engine, and they actually thought everything would be smooth sailing once it was replaced?

By the looks of the end kluge product they stapled together, you may be more right than wrong, here. But it just reflects the sorry state of the company since that time. Tip tanks? Bigger tip tanks? Little CG margin? Payload-range? Etc…Why? They had years, and tons of money available to get it right...

BTW, although E-clips has spent ungodly amounts of money, I never said they spent $700 million in designing the plane, as you wrote. I expect they spent much less than they should have on design, and a lot more on their suppliers - money blown on Williams and Avedyne, for example. Also, by my count they have spent a lot more than $700 million in total...at least if you add up all the reported investment dollars and deposit money they claim to have gathered up. I suspect a lot more money than we know has been spent just trying to generate orders... I once saw all the busses at NBAA (5 years ago, maybe) with E-clips billboards - made me laugh hard!

You can’t blame Vern for trying very hard to sell what he’s got, though…

EclipseOwner387 said...

Rumor mill is saying that the "B" Model aerodynamic mods will exceed expectations. Hopefully this rumor will be become fact soon and end speculation on what the "final" numbers will be.

flight guy said...

eo387,

What's the rumor mill about SFC? The performance mods include FADEC software changes to boost performance at altitude.

Green-or-Red said...

From my inside sources.... "B" model aero mods except for tip tank were flown on the "A" model to estimate aero improvement. "B" model flutter testing with new tip tanks is near completion. Once completed, this will allow flight testing to the corners of the envelope. This is required prior to final speed and range testing. Still to be proven is all of the avionics upgrades (no new news here). Original completion date for the "B" model was end of Jan 07, but will be closer to end of 1st Q07. Remember, this is similar to a new certification. All new engineering data must be submitted to and approved by FAA including aero and stress reports.

bambazonke said...

In the meantime please continue to send your deposits as they come due, there is some really good news coming.

I am suffering from acute Deja Vu.

This past weekend EAC-001 was supposed to be at and open house on the West Coast for the operator out there Jet Alliance. All the dignitaries arrived, but no plane, they were told the plane blew a tire on landing in ABQ on Thursday and this is why there was a no show from the little plane that couldn't.

Just like a Boeing....really Vern?

airtaximan said...

wow!

I'm sure someof you will now speculate that this is not a reliable plane - shame on you.

I'm just glad Vern'n'Burn didn't excuse the missed event by saying there was such demand at some of the marketing stops, that the plane was flying 24-7 just to quench the demand/interest from new buyers lined up!

Gunner said...

AT-
I call "foul" on your comments. Certainly Eclipse can't be held responsible for the shortcomings of a tire vendor.

Shame on you. ;-)


Seriously, are there any verifiable sources regarding the no-show and the Jet Alliance Open House? I see it scheduled for Feb 3:
http://www.jetalliance.com/press12.htm

Heading out in a bit to take a look at the A-700's progress. Grandiosity and hype WILL be challenged.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

makes me think of an old joke...

"how many mechanics does it take to change a tire?"

Stan Blankenship said...

Gunner,

Have you checked?

www.adam700critic.blogspot.com

Just kidding
Just Kidding
Just Kidding
Just kidding
Just Kidding

Green-or-Red said...

I had heard that a tire blew on P-1 on Jan 12. Is VB using this as an excuse or is this a repetitive problem.

airtaximan said...

"how many mechanics does it take to change a tire?"

bambazonke said...

Feb 3rd is take II. Hopefully the tire can be replaced by then and we will have no more excuses.

This is a bit like AOPA, the EAC version "Certification flights taking precedence over marketing to get the PC out of the way".........Meanwhile back at the Ranch the official version was the FAA had grounded the bird er I mean Dodo.

Who knows with this outfit??

Gunner said...

Just got back from Jet Aviation at PBI. Eclipse was on the roster and due to show, but they didn't. In fairness, the weather is real bad and, unless they got in earlier, they wouldn't have made it VFR.

Of note was the time I spent with Jan D'Angelo, VP of Adam who flew the A-700 in. The transparency was refreshing. He answered every one of my questions honestly, pilot to pilot, and refused to bad mouth Eclipse or Vern. High marks for that.

After all the bru-ha-ha about these VLJ's, my interest in the A-500 (twin prop) is renewed, so much of my conversation was about that. Still, it provides some insight into the way Adam does business:

When will the A500 be certified for FIKI? As soon as possible.

It was supposed to be certified this past fall. What happened? They realized that the original concept (weeping wing, I believe) could not possibly make it by their time frame. They are now looking at boots and heated edges and will go with "whatever gets us certified quicker; probably boots."

I'm no fan of boots except for turn around FROM known icing, but I am a fan of any man who can honestly tell me, "Look, it's a trade off. We're gonna go with whatever system can be certified quickest."

D'Angelo was brutally honest about the number of orders on the books, which compare to Cessna and aren't even in the same universe with Eclipse. Go figger. He was brutally honest about their projections and their manufacturing plans, which comes out to a fraction of the Eclipse numbers...again, go figger.

When asked about the narrow range between Cruise IAS and Stall at 41K (A-700) he admitted it is an issue but made a refreshingly honest comment. He pointed to a Ferrari at the show: "That car CAN do 170mph....if it has to. 41K is not where these jets are gonna commonly fly, even though they CAN. 31K is more like it."

Gotta appreciate the honesty in that.

Another tidbit I found out from a third party, that I've not confirmed. It's claimed that an Avidyne Exec (CEO?) was on the Eclipse Board until he resigned a year ago. This is of real interest to me since I'm concerend the AVIO deal will likely fall apart and, if that happens, the Eclipse jet becomes little more than another failed aviation promise.

Now I'm not claiming Adam has the answer to the VLJ market; but they sure as hell know how to answer a question directly and honestly; without hedging, without false promises and deadlines and without hype. Kinda reminds you of a friendly, credible "Dinosaur"

Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Industry gouge is that the PC audit does not even begin until sometime in February.

I thought the whole PC thing was going to be wrapped up in a meeting on December 4th according to Vern in AIN, ANN and elsewhere. Am I remembering that wrong?

As for the tire thing, I have heard that is NOT just a one-time issue for Crowe's airplane, that tires are failing regularly, and that the brakes are not fairing much better.

Yep, just like a mini 737, except for the whole operating reliability thing, and functional avionics thing, and windshield replacement schedule, and ..., and ..., and ..., and ..., and ...

Aboulafia is usually correct, add to that the wisdom on this blog and througout the industry, throw in the awakening going on in a few recesses of the aviation media and surely most folks who are intellectually honest have to sense the wheels are about to come off of this thing.

Speculative aircraft positions as an investment? Eerily reminiscent of the 'New Economy' that drove the NASDAQ bubble, which makes sense I guess given Raburn's high-tech background.

I love airplanes as much as the next guy but when this Ponzi scheme collapses the damages will be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars, 1000 lost jobs (directly, likely several thousand worldwide), millions in State money and tax breaks squandered and lost, all in the smallest yet most expensive smoking hole in this industry to date.

I have also heard through industry contacts that there are 3 or 4 more VP's slated for the Peter Reed, Gene Garnes, Rod Holter, Chris Herzog, Chris Finnof, Larry Jones roadshow - soon there will be more ex-Eclipse VP's than current VP's, and anyone familiar with the project will tell you that is a mean feat in and of itself (there is one VP for every 60-70 employees now apparently).

If the Board does not take significant and swift action, I believe this company stands every chance of being a bigger train wreck than Anna Nicole Smith after a 2 week diet pill bender - only she is actually fun to watch.

Planet eX said...

The ACSEP was designed to determine if FAA production approval holders and delegated facilities are complying with the requirements of applicable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the procedures established to meet those requirements. It also surveys the application of standardized industry practices, not required by the CFR or FAAapproved data,
to identify national trends that may require development of new or revised regulations, policy, or guidance. The elements of the evaluation are referred to as criteria. Data was collected on noncompliance and applicability with respect to those criteria. The background of ACSEP, a program overview, the process for scheduling evaluations, and training evaluators are discussed in Addendum A: History and Background of ACSEP. The Addendum is located on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/continued_operation/acsep. Click History and Background of ACSEP.

Jake said...

As a part of a medium sized air taxi operation, I have followed this blog for some time now with great interest. When the original performance numbers and economic numbers for version 1 with Williams engines were being pushed we got very interested in the airplane. However once the aircraft actually flew its disasterous test flight(s?) we backed away quickly. As time went by and Eclipse seemed to be making lemonade from lemons and we got interested again but then as timetables started to slip and the predictions became more and more unreasonable we decided it was not worth the risk. As originally presented this aircraft would have revolutionized our business, as it has evolved to this point it simply is not a useful aircraft to us anymore (even leaving out all the non aircraft related issues). anyway, has anyone else read this glowing article on the eclipse website:

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewarticle&id=230&Itemid=51

Basically it criticizes certain city of ABQ officials for not helping Vern enough, I especially love the last line; "You know why? Because he's right, and everyone else is wrong." referring to Vern of course.

Stan Blankenship said...

A new post is about to go up but first I wanted to thank everyone who posted comments this week.

The Upset post went up last Saturday, six days later we are 73 c's and counting.

A lot of different topics were covered this week. Some issues were debated vigorously, some comments provided information to add to the mosiac, some had us laughing.

During this same week, there was no news out of Eclipse, no news out of the media, but here on the blog, there was no shortage of news.

Frank Castle said...

It will be a combination of MIDO & ACO FAA personnel, but it will be plant-wide, not just for the Mustang. It means that IF E-clips EVER gets off the ground, they will have to go through this audit as well, just like every other manufacturer, and they probably won't be able to cut the mustard there, either.