Wednesday, March 21, 2007

From the EOB

The Eclipse Owners Board will not be outdone by humor on the blog.

Quote.

OK, here is a quick quiz. What airplane has the following characteristics?

Cruises at 275 KIAS.

Carries three passengers in addition to the pilot(s).

Features a Chelton Flight Systems FMS.

Has an operational ceiling of FL270 (non RVSM limited).

Is not certified for operation into known icing.

Cannot be used for Part 135 operations.

Could this plane be:

A) My 12 year old Lancair IV-P?

OR

B) The brand new ($1.5M) Eclipse 500 (EA-500) ?

OR

C) Either???

The answer is C. The March 19/26 Aviation Week (p.109) announces that Avidyne (and presumably Crossbow) is out and CFS is in. Of course, if you really want the EA-500 you also get:

No credit towards type rating for jet time in any other aircraft.

Recurrent training required every 12 months as part of the type rating.

A personality test and psych evaluation a prerequisite of the type rating.

Jet upset training required in a L-39.

And last but most interestingly (per Eclipse):

"It is recommended that examiners not pull ECBs during the administration of a practical test since pulling certain ECBs on the EA-500 may induce the unwanted loss of other equipment due to the complexity of systems integration on the EA-500" .

I'll stick with my IV-P.

End Quote.

Comedy on the EOB...comedy on the blog...one might conclude this program is a joke!!!

130 comments:

Stan Blankenship said...

In the years I flew mostly in the right seat of the Learjet, I learned to not push any buttons or twist any knobs unless instructed to do so since bad things can happen.

That indoctrination has stayed with me as I fly thru the blog-o-sphere. Individuals have encouraged me to put up links to other sites. Haven't done so yet, don't want to screw anything up.

Putting an image of the donkey cart up last fall was a bold move.

Archiving what had gotten to be an unwieldy list of posts was only done on Christmas break when there would be plenty of time to rebuild everything, if needed.

So it took the courage of the morning to see what that color panel was on blogspot's tool bar.

A Eureka moment, we have color TV, get out your sunglasses folks, the blog is going full color.

Ken Meyer said...

Well that was a parody. but here's some reality for everybody: Even the A Model Eclipse has very good performance, better than the Mustang.

I received a copy of the Citation Mustang Flightplanning Guide, from which it is possible to generate a pretty good picture of the performance of the plane.

For a typical 1000 nm flight conducted at FL390:

Mustang:
Flight Time: 3:09
Fuel: 1779 lbs
Fuel efficiency: 3.8 nm/gal

Eclipse A Model:
Flight Time: 3:07
fuel: 1256 lbs
Fuel efficiency: 5.4 nm/gal

Both VLJs get pretty good fuel efficiency (for jets, anyway). For comparison, my Flitesoft program says a Citation I SP would be a hair faster than either (3:04 at high power), but it would need 2654 lbs of fuel to do it, yielding just 2.6 nm/gal.

The B Model Eclipse improves on those numbers. It will go about 15 or so knots faster, climb faster, and get better fuel efficiency.

That's what the big deal about the Eclipse is. And all you guys crying in your soup aren't going to change that :)

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

You left out Ken Wolf's response to the very cute Lancair Joke:

"Come on guys. Brent's attack ad is unfair and in part wrong. The Eclipse will do 372K, not 275. It will carry 6, not 4 passengers. RVSM and 135 capability are delivered with all aircraft at this time. The fact that the type rating is center line thrust is a great compliment and speaks of great single engine handling with the Eclipse. Upset training and recurrent training are good things, not issues to be scoffed at. Flight into known icing is on the agenda. Brent says he'll take his Lancair 4P. The 4P at my airport has had 6 partial or complete engine failures so far! He's welcome to it!"

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken-
I understand NASA is considering adapting the Eclipse to replace the aging Space Shuttle Fleet. And Vern has commented that it was specifically designed with that mission in mind.

He won out over Moller. ;-)

Obviously the owner who voiced such disappointment and skepticism must be just another "Eclipse Basher" to be disregard. Wonder how ANOTHER ONE got to that point?
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

Rich Lucibella wrote,
"Obviously the owner who voiced such disappointment and skepticism must be just another "Eclipse Basher" to be disregard. Wonder how ANOTHER ONE got to that point?"


Gee Rich, that is brilliant deductive work (?). Somebody jokingly posts on the Eclipse Owners Forum some clearly incorrect information he received from the Lancair maillist, and you gleefully conclude, "Aha! Another owner is unhappy!!"

I realize you're springloaded to see everything in anti-Eclipse terms, but now I'm wondering: do you actually think about the stuff you write before you write it, or are you just using "The Force?"

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken-
It was posted there for a reason. One more owner pointing out what people are saying about the current performance. One more chance for Ken to post about the "future" performance.

Your numbers aren't impressive, Ken. There's a $500K aircraft out there that will move 4 people at 375mph to 37,000 feet....and it gets 20mpg!....on Ethanol! It'll be certified next year. Yeppers.

http://www.moller.com/purc.htm

Gunner

JetProp Jockey said...

Can someone with specific knowledge give me the the following information?

I understand that 2 units have been handed over to their owners.

1. Did these owners make 100% final payments?
2. Are the owners and/or their pilots able to fly the aircraft VFR - Have they received their initial training and met insurance requirements?
3. If they are flying, are they able to fly IFR, and if so with what restructions?

Thanks

If you want to hear a positive story from owners about a company who has delivered what they promised on time and on budget, talk to ANY JetProp owner. The guys in Spokane are great to deal with.

Gunner said...

jetprop-
I fear you're gonna be waiting a while for answers. That all seems to be "proprietary" information for some strange reason.

Especially strange in light of Eclipse's just released news on Avio NextGrift:

"Avio NG Development Progress
March 20, 2007 -- The test bed shown below utilizes actual software code to validate functionality and systems integration. This test setup shows the fuel system and electronic circuit breaker control synoptic pages displayed in the lower half of the MFD. Much of the software developed under the initial Avio development efforts are integrated into Avio NG."


http://tinyurl.com/yuu2qb

Just as ABQ-GNV demonstrated guaranteed speed and range, this image demonstrates that NG is near full functionality....I guess.

Gunner

mouse said...

Ken Meyer said...

"It will carry 6, not 4 passengers. >> Not exactly Ken. The plane needs at least 1 pilot, and as it is currently equipped (and with what is actually working) requires to pilots. This leaves 3 seats for Pax. If you pay for the option you can get the 6th seat bringing the total Pax count to 4 or maybe 5 if you qualify to fly it single pilot and everything is functioning. Although nobody can receive any training now, and no training date or provider has been announced yet.

RVSM and 135 capability are delivered with all aircraft at this time. >>> There is no such thing as Part 135 capability airplane as such. The RVSM is qualified but not functional yet due to equipment shortcomings, training, and individual pilot certification.

The fact that the type rating is center line thrust is a great compliment and speaks of great single engine handling with the Eclipse. >>> It speaks of the engines being down the center, or nearly down the center. It has nothing to do with safety or great handling... it's all engine placement.

Upset training and recurrent training are good things, not issues to be scoffed at. >>> Agreed, but should not be a requirement.

Flight into known icing is on the agenda. >>> Lots of things are on the agenda, time will tell when it's available, so a lot of the performance is still limited due to weather and potentail for icing conditions.

mouse said...

JetProp Jockey said...

I understand that 2 units have been handed over to their owners. >>> The first airplane is in the care, custody and control of Eclipse on a leaseback arrangement (which is very normal) and is NOT in the hands of the new owners yet. I have not asked about the second airplane, however I'll bet it's still in ABQ and will be for some time. Maybe someone else has intel on this one.

1. Did these owners make 100% final payments? >>> No Idea, but I doubt it. The planes are not fully functional yet, so why would anyone pay for them?

2. Are the owners and/or their pilots able to fly the aircraft VFR - Have they received their initial training and met insurance requirements? >>> I hope someone can answer this that knows. I doubt they can fly the planes without Eclipse pilots with them.

3. If they are flying, are they able to fly IFR, and if so with what restructions? >>> I would like to know as well..

Niner Zulu said...

Gunner, I checked out http://www.moller.com/purc.htm. I don't know if I'd hold my breath waiting for that one to fly. 4 engines? Ethanol? Sounds like one of those far-fetched flying car stories from 1960's Popular Mechanics..

The more I hear about the stringent insurance, training, maintenance & other requirements for flying a twin-engine jet the more I get turned off. Yeah I guess I can afford it, but the question is do I want to? The ONLY thing that is attractive about the Eclipse is the price, and as we are all seeing you get what you pay for. Sorry but I just don't want to fly with some goofy mentor pilot (no offense to you mentor's out there...). I've owned & flown 10 airplanes including twins & turboprops & flown all of them SP IFR - if the Eclipse whac-a-mole technology is that hard to fly I don't need it. And if the insurance companies really want $40,000 a year from me to own this tiny jet wannabe then I don't want it.

Gunner said...

Niner Zulu said:
"Sounds like one of those far-fetched flying car stories from 1960's Popular Mechanics.."

That's because it IS. Been around since the 80's, if I recall. However, it IS a Publicly Traded company with more patents to its name than I can recall. So, as long as others can throw in performance PROMISES every time we talk about the Eclipse, I thought it only fair to compare apples to apples. On that basis the Moller wins, hands down.

Gunner

Jake Pliskin said...

ken, can you define a partial engine failure for me? my 2cents says anyone who has 6 engine failures on single needs to do something different.

ken, regarding the number comparisons you put up. On paper that looks great, unfortunately the track record of the company is terrible so while i believe the cessna #'s, i will not believe the eclipse numbers. too bad too because if it performed as claimed with deliveries as promised i would be interested still.

Stan, in the last post you aluded to a unannounced project that dwarfs eclipse. im curious dwarfs eclipse in terms of dollars or planned deliveries?

Stan Blankenship said...

jake,

$$,$$$,$$$ per unit.

a37pilot said...

Does anyone have any details on the windshield fix or the aft wing attach bushings. What about additional aircraft C of A's and production? Is anything happening on the production side?

lumar said...

''Does anyone have any details on the windshield fix or the aft wing attach bushings. What about additional aircraft C of A's and production?''

There is no whindshield problem and either wing attach! The only problem is the coming bankrupty!

Cheers

EclipseOwner387 said...

Jetprop,

I love my JetProp N921GG. It is awesome. BUT it is weight limited - far worse than the Eclipse. Granted it is capable of more (at least that is what I am told :-0) but the Certified Useful Load has severly limited the JetProp as a commercial machine. BUT DON'T GET ME WRONG AND LET ME REPEAT: I Love My JetProp! And I love Rocket Engineering in Spokane. Hell, I even love Spokane now. Group Hug!

Vmc said...

EO387--Nice looking bird (pics from Jetprop's website); if you need someone to put some hours on her after you take delivery of your 500, remember your blogbuddies ;-)

What TAS have you seen so far? Did you opt for the full panel upgrade?

Vmc (Piper fan as well)

Vmc said...

Just an FYI on the #2 delivery; registration papers of the new unnamed owner must be lagging behind...or not??

N-number : N816KD
Aircraft Serial Number : 000003
Aircraft Manufacturer : ECLIPSE AVIATION CORP
Model : EA500
Engine Manufacturer : P&W CANADA
Model : PW610F-A
Aircraft Year : 2006
Owner Name : ECLIPSE AVIATION CORP
Owner Address : 2503 CLARK CARR LOOP SE
ALBUQUERQUE, NM, 87106-5611
Type of Owner : Corporation
Registration Date : Not Specified
Airworthiness Certificate Type : Standard
Approved Operations : Normal

Vmc

EclipseOwner387 said...

VMC,

Low 260's KTAS is typical at FL260. My panel was already pretty well built out with Garmin 530/430. Skywatch and Stormscope (on Garmins.) I took out my GMA340 and replaced with PMA8000B (love it!) Western Avionics did me a good deal there. I have the shadin trend monitoring flight computer. That thing has a lot of good info (fuel flows, TAS, OAT, etc) and displays wind speed and direction on my Garmin 530. I really could not be happier.

JetProp Jockey said...

VMC - When we are at FL250 - 270, we all true out at 250 - 255 knots. At that altitude and speed we are burning between 30 and 31 gal per hour (about 215 pounds/hour).

There is no question that a JetProp or Meridian is effective for commercial purposes, but about 95% are owner operated and depending on the length of the trip, by leaving fuel on the ground, the payload is livable. My wife and I usually fly with 131 gal (20 short of max) and can make it on almost any leg we want to fly.

For what it is worth, the JP guys are always up foront about what the payload is after the conversion, which is nearly the same as it was before adding a PT6.

Piper has sold nearly 1000 copies of Malibu's, Mirages and Meridians, all with limited payload.

Ironically, Piper always sold this family of aircraft the the owner operator and never attempted to create an airtaxi empire with these airframes that were not practical for commercial operations.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Jetprop Jockey,

You must have a -21 or -34. I have the -35 and burn about 34 GPH at FL270.

gadfly said...

‘Come sundown, somebody lock the gate on the corral . . . we don’t need a repeat of last night when the critter got into some loco weed or hemp.

Gunner said...

I'm flying the Garmin 530 also. Outstanding unit. I can only imagine what the 1000 is capable of.

Eclipse had an interesting idea with a customized control and avionics panel, specific to the aircraft platform. But I also believe it was for the wrong reasons and put them into a whole separate line of business. There's a reason why New Piper doesn't manufacture avionics packages.

Gunner

JetProp Jockey said...

I converted SN58, at which time there was only the -34 option. At altitude, it has a little less HP and a little lower fuel burn.

Western did my panel as well with a 530, skywatch and stromscope. I have added a WX1000 MFD with XM weather downloads and a GPS roll steering that flys the KFC150 unbelievably well. I've got a little over 1000 hours since the conversion with unmatched reliability and low maintenance costs.

airtaximan said...

DayJet getting closer to takeoff
By Steve Liner
DEMOCRAT BUSINESS EDITOR

New jet airline service is expected to be available in Tallahassee within 90 days.
DayJet expects to begin service in Tallahassee within the next quarter, Chief Financial Officer John Staten said yesterday.

anyone wish to comment?
PS. this is not a spoof.

gadfly said...

Frank Castle

‘Just so you know your comments were noticed:

AutoCAD has done a lot of good things for many people, and it certainly has its place . . . low cost, etc. The saying is that it’s 30% of the product for 70% of the users . . . because it’s cheap. The problems with AutoCAD and ProE, the designer must spend so much time working with “code” and/or commands, the creative process becomes a major struggle at every turn. Then, when the programs must be generated, the programs must again be “cleaned up” for the actual fabrication process. A good CAD system must be intuitive in 3D solids . . . neither of these two allows that. We’ve had experience with both . . . and both are “grief”, from start to finish.

The system we use costs initially about the same as “ProE”, or maybe slightly more, but is light-years beyond in ease of use, and translation into actual parts and assemblies. Only a computer programmer can love “ProE”, and that is probably why Eclipse chose to use it.

Our system began many years ago as “HP Draft” (Rocky Mountain Basic . . . then “Pascal”, both running on HP-UX, a form of Unix), then “ME10" (2D) and “ME30" (3D), then a series of better and easier packages. The group in South Africa, then Germany, bought out the “rights” from Hewlett-Packard (when HP had serious management problems), and renamed the company “CoCreate”. Through various name changes, it is now called “One Space Designer” (3D), and “Designer Drafting” (2D). Rarely do I even use the 2D package, the 3D package is complete, with a 2D annotation interface, should we need 2D layouts. The system runs on either Unix or Windows XP Pro, 32 or 64 bit . . . very fast, very easy . . . and interfaces with our CAM program (DP Esprit) without problems . . . reads almost any file in existence. We have two seats of the system . . . you would find it a dream to use.

The “bean counters” at Sandia National Labs purchased 300 seats of “ProE”, and I’ve yet to hear a good word about it from the engineers who are forced to use it. Even my daughter (two engineering degrees from USC) went to school at “ProE” and much prefers “Solid Works” as a far superior product. The common comment is that the “history based program” becomes so big and un-wieldy, its easier to give up in frustration and start from scratch. The system we use is based on “ACIS”, what you see is what you get, and all models are true solids, not wire-frames with “skin” stretched over them. Designing anything is as simple and as intuitive as machining from a block of aluminum or steel.

Enough for now.

gadfly

Ken Meyer said...

mouse wrote,
"It will carry 6, not 4 passengers. >> Not exactly Ken. The plane needs at least 1 pilot, and as it is currently equipped (and with what is actually working) requires to pilots. This leaves 3 seats for Pax."


You're talking commercial applications. When comparing with a Lancair IVP or any other small owner-flown plane, it's appropriate to speak in terms of all seats available. I suspect you know that but wanted to say something negative anyway.

"RVSM and 135 capability are delivered with all aircraft at this time. >>> There is no such thing as Part 135 capability airplane as such."

Huh? Of course there are regs that are applicable to Part 135 operations that are not applicable under Part 91. Third attitude source is one. There are others. Or did I miss your point?

"The RVSM is qualified but not functional yet due to equipment shortcomings, training, and individual pilot certification."

We keep hitting this one over and over. The company says the plane is fully RVSM group-certified. That's as much as any manufacturer can do. The rest is up to the operator.

"It speaks of the engines being down the center, or nearly down the center. It has nothing to do with safety or great handling... it's all engine placement."

You're not a pilot, are you? I think you'll find that most experienced twin pilots believe asymmetric thrust increases workload and decreases safety. That the plane has no Vmc is a big safety benefit, trust me.

"Upset training and recurrent training are good things, not issues to be scoffed at. >>> Agreed, but should not be a requirement."

Good training shouldn't be required? OK. If they didn't require the training and three Eclipse 500's augered in next year due to pilot error, you'd probably be you'll be the first to say they should have required better training. I guess it's hard to please everybody.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

lumar wrote,
"''Does anyone have any details on the windshield fix or the aft wing attach bushings. What about additional aircraft C of A's and production?''"


The company reports that both problems have been resolved. The windshield problem is being corrected through a service bulletin that will remove the special inspections. The wing spar issue never involved production aircraft, however a slight modification to the mounting bolt system was initiated on all aircraft as an additional precaution.

Several aircraft are undergoing inspection for Certificate of Airworthiness as I write this and there should be several additional deliveries soon. Full production rampup will require issuance of the Production Certificate, expected by many in a matter of weeks.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,
"'Avio NG Development Progress
March 20, 2007 -- The test bed shown below utilizes actual software code to validate functionality and systems integration. This test setup shows the fuel system and electronic circuit breaker control synoptic pages displayed in the lower half of the MFD. Much of the software developed under the initial Avio development efforts are integrated into Avio NG.
'

http://tinyurl.com/yuu2qb"


Say, that's a neat picture, Rich, thanks for pointing us to it. I guess that validates the company's contention that they have been working on this new setup for a while. It looks nice, doesn't it? :)

Ken

Koolaid-drinker1 said...

gadfly wrote,

"Only a computer programmer can love “ProE”, and that is probably why Eclipse chose to use it."

Check your facts, Eclipse used NX3

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/news_articles/viewpr_151

"-The Eclipse 500 was designed using Unigraphics 3-D computer aided design (CAD) tools. This provided the baseline on which engineers could analytically validate the aircraft design, and also enabled part and tool specifications to be exported directly to CNC milling machines and factory floor workstations for precision manufacturing. This sophisticated technology is similar to that used by Boeing on the 777, but is provided to Eclipse at less than 1/5 the cost per engineer. “This is a great example of the "backside of Moore's law,'” Raburn said. “A new company like Eclipse is able to use methods that just a few years ago were reserved for only the largest companies.”

By the way gadfly, I think Solidworks is great.

KAD1

Gunner said...

Ken said:
"The company reports that both problems have been resolved.

[snip]

....there should be several additional deliveries soon. Full production rampup will require issuance of the Production Certificate, expected by many in a matter of weeks."


Am I the only one that notices how much quieter and more civil the Blog becomes when Ken is occupied for an afternoon?

Back to Whak-a-Mole, I guess.
Sigh

Gunner

Koolaid-drinker1 said...

gadfly wrote,

"Only a computer programmer can love “ProE”, and that is probably why Eclipse chose to use it."

More help for gadfly in his Fact Checking can be found at....

http://www.ugs.com/CaseStudyWeb/dispatch/viewCaseStudy.html?id=188

KAD1

Stan Blankenship said...

koolaid-drinker1,

Part 3 of the very first post on this blog addressed Vern's claim:

Raburn said. “A new company like Eclipse is able to use methods that just a few years ago were reserved for only the largest companies.”

Absolute pure BS!

I have personally owned a full blown Unigraphics CAD and CAM system since 1983, still do.

Have three seats of UG, one seat of CATIA (what Boeing used on the 777), four NC mills fed by the UG network and a Faro Laser Tracker.

This is industry standard.

Learjet was one of the first companies to switch to UG in 1976. Backside of Moore's law my backside!

ps. As I recall, Solidworks uses the UG kernel.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I don't know how to log onto any of the CAD systems, don't touch the mills. The trick is to hire young guys who grew up up playing Pac-Man. Me, I grew up playing Chinese Checkers.

Koolaid-drinker1 said...

gadfly,

Your Welcome.

I also feel the the parasolid files we get from UG are the best, they convert without any issues into Soliworks (both have the same kernal). Had to pay $8000 for a Catia converter (both SW and Catia owned by Dessault systems) go figure. I realy am a SW fan but UG is known as the "Gold Standard" around these parts.

Best Regards-

KAD1

Koolaid-drinker1 said...

Stan

I have 3 seats of SW, 2 CNC Lasers, 2 CNC Mills, 1 CNC Lathe, 1 CNC 5 Axis Router and will raise your Faro with 2 Faro's and a DCC Brown and Sharpe.

I do know how to run them all but have to let the younger guys have all the fun while I mearn the money. ;>)

KAD1

Gunner said...

Yeah well.....
I have a partridge in a pear tree. Does that count? No, huh?

How 'bout if I gun the partridge and serve it, breast only, in a crostini grilled sammich, layered with a bit of prosciutto and sharp brie; chutney of pear and cranberry on the side? THEN can I play?

CAD that! ;-)
Gunner

Koolaid-drinker1 said...

Gunner,

Now your cookin!

How about one of those wild Florida Pigs? I understand that they are fun to hunt and good eats.

I'll supply the Kool-Aid to wsh it down ;>)

KAD1

Gunner said...

KA-
DO NOT make me turn this into a cookin' show! I don't hunt FL hog; they're simply too close to domestic variety and they're hunted with dogs and handguns (or knives) down here.

I DO hunt TX hog once a month until it gets too hot. Now them is WILD hogs. We do it by truck, foot, nose, instinct and luck. If you gut it and get the meat on ice immediately (and not drive thru town with it on the hood of your truck for the afternoon), I will put a properly prepped backstrap of hog up against ANY steak to be found in the great State of New Mexico.

Hands down.

And THAT from a man who is not a pork fan. 'Course, I'm real partial to Cape Buff (roasted), Hartebeest (any way you want to cook it), Wildebeest and Warthog (breakfast only), Impala (a la American Whitetail), Bushbuck (sauteed), Waterbuck (any way you choose), Kudu (if the right cut) and, most especially, Eland tongue cooked slowly over a ground fire. Good Lord, Man should not deserve such blessings!

Gunner

Frank Castle said...

"Well that was a parody. but here's some reality for everybody: Even the A Model Eclipse has very good performance, better than the Mustang."

How do you know that when the POS eklops can't make it past FL240 ?

Apples and oranges again. Can't run with the big dogs, so why try ?

"That's what the big deal about the Eclipse is. And all you guys crying in your soup aren't going to change that :)"

The big deal is, aircraft that are "delivered" incomplete, cannot be flown to specs, training shot to hell, United bailing on simulator, unrealistic waiting and waiting, for WHAT ?!?!?

THAT'S not a parody, it's freakin' cry for help ! The guy is probably at his wits end trying to figure out how to justify that 60% payment that's due, when his number comes up, will he be able to do more than just fly it home and around the patch a few times ?

I'll be nice, and not say exactly what I think of Ken. I'll say it in my own blog.

Frank Castle said...

Sorry, gadfly, wasn't trying to burst your bubble. I know AC is old news, I haven't touched it for years.

I'm on to bigger and better things here at one of the world's largest makers of aircraft.

mouse said...

Ken Meyer said...

Huh? Of course there are regs that are applicable to Part 135 operations that are not applicable under Part 91. Third attitude source is one. There are others. Or did I miss your point?

Yes, you missed my point. An airplane is certifcated as Part 91, and then the rules for Part 135 may have additional requirements. The operating specs for the operator as well as the requirements of Part 135 will mandate more. There is currently no such thing as a "Part 135 ready" airplane. No big deal, but an important point to know.

mouse said...

Ken Meyr said:

You're not a pilot, are you? I think you'll find that most experienced twin pilots believe asymmetric thrust increases workload and decreases safety. That the plane has no Vmc is a big safety benefit, trust me.

Yes Ken, I am a pilot for the past 35 years. I am aware of the safety and handling qualities, however your statement was "The fact that the type rating is center line thrust is a great compliment and speaks of great single engine handling with the Eclipse." to which I replied that the type rating is based on the engine layout and not the safety factors... The Type rating is not a qualifier of safety, but rather engine layout.

Ken Meyer said...

Frank wrote,
"How do you know that when the POS eklops can't make it past FL240 ?


Frank, that's just wrong. It's been above FL240 many times. Surely you know that, right?

Ken

Frank Castle said...

Yo, Gunner, how's about takin that bird, and slow roasting it over some nice red mesquite ?

*$#@ all that fancy stuff, take it back to meat and fire, man. And some "pop wit'da foam on top" to quote the late Justin Wilson.

Thas all you needs, men.....

Ken Meyer said...

mouse wrote,
"The fact that the type rating is center line thrust is a great compliment and speaks of great single engine handling with the Eclipse." to which I replied that the type rating is based on the engine layout and not the safety factors... The Type rating is not a qualifier of safety, but rather engine layout."


Mouse, it wasn't my statement in the first place. It was Ken Wolf's and I clearly indicated that.

I don't like defending other people's statements, but in this case it's easy to do. The designation of the Eclipse as "centerline thrust" is a direct result of the fact that there is no Vmc. The plane is readily controllable on one engine at any speed unlike many twins. Ken Wolf was explaining that that fact means it is safer than a plane with asymmetric thrust issues upon loss of an engine. I agree with that. Do you not?

Ken

Frank Castle said...

name when, smart guy.

mouse said...

Ken Meyer said...

Good training shouldn't be required? OK. If they didn't require the training and three Eclipse 500's augered in next year due to pilot error, you'd probably be you'll be the first to say they should have required better training. I guess it's hard to please everybody.

I would not make that argument, nor do I think extra training is a fantastic idea. My complaint is that it is a requirement which has great consequences on many fronts. It may very well sway the insurance companies to require more robust intervals that may be excessive for many pilots and companies. It's a matter of more regulation with no guaranteed advantage in many cases.

It could also be used to deny you any claims... And the most restrictive and foolish point of this is the fact that other flying is not creditable to wards your EA-500. So if Ken were to have say an EA-500 and a CJ1, any flying, training and currency you have accomplished in the CJ1 would not count towards your Eclipse. So you would have to keep your instrument currency, flight training, Etc. on both airplanes. If you owned a business (Part 135 as an example) you would go broke trying to keep your pilots trained and insured, even if they were 25,000 Hr gray haired captains...

Frank Castle said...

oh my, i read it wrong. the "Owner" said FL270.



my bad. dam.

Gunner said...

Oh, Ken must be back.
Gunner

Nerdy Engineer said...

There's been entirely too much rancor on this board lately, mostly between Ken and well... everyone else. I'd like to make a post that acknowledges some of the things Ken and I agree on.

-Vern used the Nimbus deal to deceive investors into giving him more money.

-They are currently wasting money on ads when it should be spent on development.

-Vern blames everyone else for his failures.

-Revoking serial numbers is a way to get more cash quickly. Who cares if it screws those that were first in line.

Ken Meyer said...

mouse wrote,
"There is currently no such thing as a "Part 135 ready" airplane. No big deal, but an important point to know."


Mouse, I think it actually is a very big deal. The Eclipse is intended to operated in great numbers by Part 135 operators. It is important for people to understand that the plane meets the requirements necessary to do that. Delivered with the optional Part 135 package, the plane has all the equipment necessary for a Part 135 operation. Do you not agree with that?

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

mouse said,
"So if Ken were to have say an EA-500 and a CJ1, any flying, training and currency you have accomplished in the CJ1 would not count towards your Eclipse."


That wasn't my reading of the FSB report and FARs. They're not changing the FARs for this plane. Instrument currency has been and still is category only. There's been no change to that.

Night currency has always been category, class and type. Nothing changes there either.

I think you're inferring a change in the FARs that didn't occur.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,
"Oh, Ken must be back.
Gunner"


Yeah, I'm back. Went flying earlier, but I'm back now. You guys will once again have to keep from saying stuff that isn't so :)


Ken

airtaximan said...

Frabj,'you get a taste of what it takes to acualy buy one of those things.

Welcome to the ignore list - it works two ways.

Ken threatens to ignore you
Ken ignores your question because his dream world doesn't let him face facts.

welcome to what it takes to buy an e-clips.



Wl

airtaximan said...

mouse,

any intel on

1- how many panes were inspected 2 weeks ago when the FAA was supposed to issue 3-5 Cof As?

2- what happened?

Thanks

mouse said...

Stan & Kool-Aid Sipper... Yes Eclipse has a lot of software, however it was not very workable in the early years ('00-'02). it took literally 20-80 minutes to load some of the bigger assemblies, and many of the utilities were not turned on. The interference warnings were not turned on and so many times in meetings I would find hardware that could not be installed, components that could not be removed after panels were closed, Etc...

We were spending $1M+ per month on IT thanks to Vern having all of "other peoples" money to spend. Nothing but the best was good enough for Elcipse...

We also had lots of issues with vendors because whatever we were using had to be converted, and then converted back, Etc... Seemed to me that we were gearded for automotive yet dealing with aerospace companies and vice versa...

mouse said...

airtaximan said...
mouse,

any intel on

1- how many panes were inspected 2 weeks ago when the FAA was supposed to issue 3-5 Cof As?

2- what happened

They were given a cursery look-see and found to not be in order with paperwork/production records, and still had missing components, so they were dismissed from a formal inspection...

Nerdy Engineer said...

RE: Eclipse vs. Mustang

There really is no argument here. Vern says that Eclipse is "kicking Cessna's ass". That's it, end of story. I wonder, is Eclipse kicking Adam's ass too? I guess we won't know until Vern tells us.

Gunner said...

Ken said:
"You guys will once again have to keep from saying stuff that isn't so"
Sigh.

Ken-
It really isn't like that.

EO387 stopped by:
Nice, pleasant, articulate exchange on all sides.

KAD1 stopped in:
Nice, pleasant, articulate exchange on all sides.

Then you come along and I can't help but be reminded of "That guy" in high school. We all knew "That guy": "That guy" didn't excel academically; he wasn't ever chosen for team sports; the girls didn't know he existed. But "That guy" was not to be ignored and would go out of his way for attention, reveling in the only attention he could think to generate: laughter and derision.

"That guy" has nearly bought the farm several times in High Schools all across America for generations, but he doesn't mind. In retrospect, "That guy" was really sad and I'd always wondered what became of him.

Now I know. He never changed.

Peace, Man. It's gonna be OK.
Gunner

Stan Blankenship said...

Gunner said:

"Then you come along and I can't help but be reminded of "That guy" in high school. We all knew "That guy": "That guy" didn't excel academically; he wasn't ever chosen for team sports; the girls didn't know he existed. But "That guy" was not to be ignored and would go out of his way for attention, reveling in the only attention he could think to generate: laughter and derision."

Ken you're safe, he's giving you my profile except the only way I got attention was to write a blog.

Kaptain Kool-Aid said...

Eclipse Owner #2

According to the FAA database, it appears that N816KD is in the process of being registered to:

816 Charter, LLC
11800 Old Katy Rd
Houston, TX 77079


Documents were received by the FAA on March 9, 2007 from Eclipse Aviation Corp and 816 Charter, LLC. The manager of 816 Charter, LLC is:

Donald R McGill

Mr. McGill owns a couple of large Toyota dealerships in Texas. He appears to own a brand new Hawker 400XP, N410KD, also registered to 816 Charter LLC.

I congratulate Mr. McGill on his purchase of a great performing aircraft built by an innovative company.

I hope he likes his Eclipse, too!

airtaximan said...

mouse,

so, basically, Vern's a liar.

He promised delivery of 3-5 planes in the next fes days...

Sould you say he knew this was a pipe dream?
He knew he was lying?
He really has no clue so we cannot trust anythign he says?

Other?

Thanks.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW THE TRUTH HERE...this is a big deal.

Ken, you sober? awake? paying attention?

airtaximan said...

forward observer..

WOW! this is quite a different picture than mouse. I'm confused.

In your opinion, why would Vern prmoise that within a few days (2 weeks ago, now) between 3-5 planes would be CofA?

Sounds like this statement was easily misconstrued 2 weeks ago given your rendition.

How could he have made this mistakke?

Also, Mounse seems to claim, they came, saw, left without CofA based on the fact the planes were really not ready for prime time.

Any opinions?

Dayjet seems to be screaming from the hills in Florida that they will be flying passengers within 90 days. Any clue as to how this could even be remotely possible given:
1- no part 135 planes
2- 2 planes total, so far
3- no training

any ideas.

Sincere thanks for the data. I'm sure folks will be watching and keeping score for you on all that you report!

Stan Blankenship said...

fo,

Thanks for the update, Eclipse would do themselves a great favor if they would just issue such an update every few days.

Like you imply, start-up problems are not unusual. As Frank has told us, Cessna has only delivered one Mustang since Garim is having equipment problems.

Again thanks and please keep us informed on the progress.

Gunner said...

Well, Boys and Girls:
Here's something of real interest.

Not nearly as clean as Avio NG (when it comes out). Too complicated by all those unsightly independent system backup gauges. Featuring "yesterday's" technology from has-been avionics manufacturers like Avidyne and Garmin.....

I give you a sneak preview of the
Adam A-700 Cockpit

Just what WERE these moron upstarts thinking? You can't deliver a "new" jet with proven instrument technology and hope to be successful! You have to "think outside the wallet".

Gunner

bill e. goat said...

Gadfly,
I'm bah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-k.

But, I can't say the reading is particularly fun tonight.

More tired, lame personal attacks on Ken.

It's getting pretty sickening.

airtaximan said...

Gunner,

yup.

The thing I like most about the cockpit is the complete lack of backup systems. The fact that there is no keyboard is a testiament to the lack of safety. All those buttons and guages.

I am surprise this panel would ever be insurable of certifiable.

Thanks.
Whew! I can;t ait for a plane with a keyboard and no buttons or back up instruments. i'll feel much better.

airtaximan said...

bill-goat

what about the crapfrom AO and mouse regarding not delivering promised panes...

c'mon

get Ken out of your bunghole....

bill e. goat said...

Mouse, I think Ken knows the seating provisions in his airplane.

Ken, I think you would agree that Mouse knows the significance of engine arrangement, and it's contribution to engine-out handling, although he backpedaled himself into a corner pretty convincingly on that issue...

bill e. goat said...

ATM and Gunner,

No, what don't you take Ken off your "gotta bash today list".

It's lame, tiring, and tasteless.

bill e. goat said...

ATM,
I cannot find the AO you refer to.
If you will be kind enough to post the quote, I will share my opinion.

airtaximan said...

ANSWER FROM MOUSE posted to previous question on same goddam thing:

airtaximan said...
I've asked and not received more than a "close" answer..

ATM,

The inspection of the plane for C of A is mostly a paperwork chase, more than actually looking at the plane itself. The inspection records, parts matching their documentation, S/N's matching, Build and in-process inspection records, Etc.

The FAA did not issue C of A's because the paperwork was out of order, and the planes were not 100% built and poulated per the TCDS.

Bad or no records, missing parts, broken promises = No C of A, No PC, and not a lot of happy Feds...

10:10 PM, March 20, 2007

SEEMs like a different charcterization from FO..

what gives?

airtaximan said...

bill-e

FO not AO, sorry

a few posts up, on "why no deliveries" (Ken says Vern never said this, only talked of C of A, not deliveries...) despite Vern promising his customers between 3-5 deliveries in a few days - its been almost 2 weeks.

This is very telling on many levels.

BTW, I love Ken,,,tough love as I;ve stated before. He's so talented, resourceful and completely on another wave length, I cannot even believe it. He's the greatest die-hard (Verns term of endearment, not mine) there ever was.

How am I doing? You still offended somehow?

Ever watched Intervention on TV?

Gunner said...

Mr Goat:
Any time you wish to have this conversation, feel free: eclipse@thefiringline.com

Until then, jump back on the personal admonitions directed this way....especially when they're one-sided and taken out of context.

You didn't see me in a tizzy about your tirade regarding quotes, which you now use liberally, did you?

You didn't hear me whinin' about the late night tantrum last night, that I had to wade thru, did you? More than one of us can play Blog Cop. There's no percentage in it for you or I...that's Stan's job.

Gunner

bill e. goat said...

gunner, I think I'm hearing about it right now, but again, you are spinning your way out of it.

Thanks for the invite to chat though- maybe I'll take you up on it, when I'm planning a trip to Fl.

Gunner said...

Good deal then, Bill E-
We can have an email chat next time you pass thru Florida.

Cheerfully back to the subject at hand now. What Eclipse claims and what the Eclipse 500 does.
Gunner

bill e. goat said...

Gunner,

I agree, progress on the program seems disappointing.

I guess it is how you look at it- is the cup half full, or half empty.

What we get stuck on, is Vern said it would be overrunning, 18 months ago (or more). Vern invites humor at his expense, for the brashness, (sometimes bordering upon hucksterism) that he has engaged in. And, the wrath of customers, for mismanaging the program. (But the customer's don't deserve our wrath, I might say).

In reality, I think "the cup" will be "about full" in 10 more months, or so.

bill e. goat said...

Well,
Truce to gunner, atm, frank?
Peace to ken, and gadfly.
Good night, and good wishes to all
:)

Gunner said...

I know you feel it'll all work out in time, Bill.

What you have never explained is HOW it works out. See, you have to get more money to last 10 more months. When you already owe more than you can earn to EXISTING INVESTMENT to give them a return rivaling a CD, it's pretty tough to get more money now.

Your explanations in this regard have been (and I really mean no insult here) kinda shallow. Bankruptcy doesn't suddenly make the investors go away. Buyout doesn't make sense when you own equipment (FSW) that no one else will use in building the aircraft, engineering designs that are very much suspect and a marketing plan that is wholly fictitious.

The only thing to "buy" is the dream of producing a $2+ million dollar plane and selling it at a loss. Because, once it gets up much past $2 million in price, it's really just another small jet entry from a risky startup (like Adam), without much to recommend it over its competitors.

In short, you can't spend $10 million to buy the local Mom and Pop convenience store and then make a case that you'll survive bankruptcy or profit on the sale.

The Economics for this endeavor stopped working a couple hundred million dollars ago, UNLESS you really believe Eclipse has demand for (and can supply) something on the order of 3 jets a day, every day of the week.

Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

Rich Lucibella wrote,
"The Economics for this endeavor stopped working a couple hundred million dollars ago, UNLESS you really believe Eclipse has demand for (and can supply) something on the order of 3 jets a day, every day of the week."


Well, the company has made it clear that they can produce in excess of 3 jets a day. And, in the event the economics don't pencil out at $1.52 million, there is absolutely nothing to stop the company from selling the product at $1.8 million, where it would still be a knockout value compared to the single engine turboprop Meridian at $2 million.

But all that aside, your premise--"The Economics for this endeavor stopped working a couple hundred million dollars ago"--is silly given the present status of recent investment in the company and the huge documented demand for the product.

I think you're using "The Force" again.

Ken

cherokee driver said...

What are you using, "Voodoo Economics"? If the economics don't work out at $1.52m and they have sold 2500 jets, where does that leave Eclipse? Are you going to let them raise the price of your airplane to $1.8m? What is an acceptable loss per airplane that will keep the investors pumping money into this thing?

mouse said...

Ken Meyer said...

"Well, the company has made it clear that they can produce in excess of 3 jets a day."

Knock, knock... Hello.. Ken, how has Eclipse made this clear in any way, shape or form? I know you comprehend things in a manner not known to any of us, but what besides Vern's lips has given you the idea they can produce any more than 2 planes in 8 years?

I assume you have been to the facility. Do you see any infrastructure to support 1 plane every 8 hours? Do you see clasrooms and simulators to train 1 pilot every 4 hours? Do you space on the taxiway and runway in between the Southwest 737's for all the test flying?

Maybe it's the bank loan officers desks lining the lobby?

If you had to use your own eyes, and not listen to Uncle Vern reading you a bedtime story, what would you report? Does your wife hear what you say?

If you were an 8 year old girl dreaming of Prince Charming I could understand and would support you. How do you think you'll ever get your training certificate if you can't pass the psychological examination? A pilot is expected to be able to deal with reality and recognise warning signs, Etc.

Is your oil pressure low, and temps high, or are you waiting for AVIO NfG to illuminate and tell you to Kiss your butt goodbye?

I'm sorry, but I cannot continue to read anything you post. Better go wash your bell bottoms, and laminate your woodstock ticket stubs one more time before you wash'em too... hate to see those memories fade too much more...

cherokee driver said...

So far Eclipse has made it clear they can produce 1 aircraft around every 2 months. They will make it clear they can produce 3 aircraft a day when the happen to produce 3 aircraft a day for say 60 days straight. I suppose if Eclipse saved up their next 5 airplanes with C of A and delivered them all on the same day, their proven production rate would change to 5 airplanes a day?

mouse said...

Stan,

sorry, but I just can't continue to look at some of these postings...

Guess Ken built the better mouse trap.... snap!

cherokee driver said...

Mouse

I find Ken's posts highly entertaining. He is obviously on a mission to save Eclipse all by himself. The truth is, Eclipse is going to succeed or fail all on its own regardless of what is said on this blog. The sole power for that rests with Eclipse. The only power this blog might have is to help expedite the process and even that might be a stretch. The purpose of this blog is to educate the readers. I know I've learned a lot. The readers of this blog have the power to make up their own minds and personally I find your input valuable. I wouldn't let anyone who posts here run you off. Just my 2c.

bill e. goat said...

And I do add, I hope for the sake of the customers, the employees, and the investors, Eclipse will succeed.

This is a sincere wish, for the well being of ALL the individuals involved, and NOT a financial analysis.

bill e. goat said...

:)
Good night.
(Got up to let the cat out. Now the cat wants in, and I want out).
Happy dreams to all.

Stan Blankenship said...

Posted off the radar screen, am getting e-mails with similar views:

Nothing Like the Sun said...

Stan: A hundred to two hundred posts a day, and most of it a bunch of... by about 5 posters?!?

Sorry to see what has happened to what used to be an informative blog about an interesting time in aviation...

I think you need to split your blog up:
Eclipseavationcritic

and

Eclipseigotbeatuptoomuchasakidcritic

Thank you in advance...from the rest of us...

11:53 PM, March 21, 2007

EclipseBlogger said...

Yeah, I've got to agree. This blog used to have some substance, whether the details were right or wrong. Now it's just the "shoot himself in the foot" Gunner and "happy hour" Ken show - pretty boring stuff.

Ken Meyer said...

mouse wrote,
"Knock, knock... Hello.. Ken, how has Eclipse made this clear in any way, shape or form? I know you comprehend things in a manner not known to any of us, but what besides Vern's lips has given you the idea they can produce any more than 2 planes in 8 years?"


Sorry, Mouse, somehow I thought you said you used to work there. Obviously I was wrong. I don't think anybody who had actually seen the factory could doubt the company's ability to produce in very large numbers.

I think everybody with any doubts ought to go to Albuquerque and see the facilities for themselves. See the 350 thousand square feet of factory space under roof. See the huge FSW gantries in action. See all the planes moving along in final assembly. See the new automated paint facility that cranks out four finished planes a day.

As for training, yes, the company has in place a large facility at Seven Bar for the training of the pilots of early deliveries. They're building a much bigger facility at Double Eagle where training will move later this year (so they don't have to deal with the Southwest jets).

So, yeah, the infrastructure is definitely there for the volume the company is talking about. They're talking roughly 2 planes a day this year gradually ramping up to 3-4 planes a day. From my onsite visits, I don't see any major infrastructure problems that would keep them from achieving those goals.

From what I've seen, I would put the cap at 4 aircraft a day in the present facilities. If they sell more than 1000 planes a year, they'll need to increase their factory space.

Ken

Plastic_Planes said...

mouse said:
I assume you have been to the facility. Do you see any infrastructure to support 1 plane every 8 hours?

I have been there. I set up the current line flow.

Yes, they do have the infrastructure to support building 3 per day in the current facilities. Working 7 days a week (the schedule that was planned during my tenure) that is 21 aircraft per week or 1000 aircraft per year.

In order to achieve that, there needs to be a consistent parts flow into the factory to be able to move at the rate intended (each position on the line indexing at 4 hour intervals).

It is also predicated on minimal interuptions (though there is a "swat" team to address those inevitable "hangar queens". The tooling is built and in place, the workforce is mostly in place, the buildings are powered, heated, cooled, and lighted.

Just stop changing the design and start bringing in the parts.

I truly believe they can do it. The question is whether or not they can deal with the design changes and parts shortages before the money and (customer/investor) patience runs out.

I've see the tiger and lived in it's den. Wake up, little kitty.

/s/

Gunner said...

Economics:
What Eclipse attempted to do WAS doable. Like the computer revolution, they attempted to CREATE a market out of whole cloth, by revolutionizing the price structure for jets and leveraging financial market and media contacts to "hype" that market into reality.

It was a bold vision and has actually been done before: an industry that literally lifts itself by the boot straps. Yes, it was possible to draw all manner of new owners into the market with a revolutionary $1MM twin jet; yes it was possible to create a whole new industry centered around Air Taxi at $1 per seat mile on comfortable, reliable twin jets.

But Eclipse HAD to produce the PRODUCT AT THE PRICE. It hasn't done that. From what most of us can see, it's produced an acceptable design for a small twin jet, with really nothing that's new or revolutionary to recommend it. They've "quality managed" the product down past the limits of "commercial high cycle" use and, some of us would say, even past the limits of common sense safety. Theis jet, if properly built, would probably market around $2.1-2.4 million and enter as another viable option for the owner pilot.

Eclipse's problem is that it never stepped back from the grandiosity of its hype when it became apparent that they couldn't build this craft properly for $1mm (or for $1.6mm). They still insisted on being a startup in THREE completely different industries:

- Jet manufacture
- Avionics Design and Manufacture
- Worldwide Jet Maintenance

For those who claim Eclipse has enough money to get the line running, you still have the hurdles of the Avio NG design, test, developments and certification. That's daunting enough. Add on the fact that you're gonna set up a dozen or so complete FBO and maintenance shops AND FUND THEM UNTIL THEY CAN SUPPORT THEMSELVES and the costs of this program are only just beginning. And we haven't even STARTED on the hurdles of Pilot Training, Insurance and meeting all the promises of JetComplete.

Yes, it all could have worked (and still might) if Eclipse can find a market for a couple or three thousand units in the next 2 to 3 years (and manufacture them). But there is simply nothing other than Eclipse hype which suggests this product is selling that well or their capabilities that high.

I give Vern great credit for the vision. I fault him for the grandiosity of not realizing two years ago that the investors and owners would best be served by simple manufacture of a small, efficient, personal twin jet.

Gunner

airtaximan said...

Stan,

while I admit I've poked at some like Ken... and some have poked back...this blog is very informative.

we get stuck trying to rehabilitate - -not smart, but the comments from die-hards are sometimes hard to understand, given what we all see.

Anyhow, perhaps you can ask questions of those in the know.

I am very interested in the promised 3-5 planes that were to be delivered 2 weeks ago-within a few days. This was promised by Vern...and according to at least 2 inside scoops posted here:
1- the FAA came , saw, left because the planes were unfinished and really not ready
2- the paperwork was not really in order

Soo...given Mike Press' statements that the FAA is holding up e-clips, and Vern's promise to his depositors that 3-5 planes would be delivered in a few days...and Dayjets continued reports of beginning service in Florida in 90 days.

I'm curious about the situation.

either:
- Vern's asleep at the wheel and the planes are unfinished
- Vern's lying to make depositors caugh up more progress payments
- the FAA is somehow at fault
- e-clips really does not understand how to obtain CofA on their completed planes
- many other possibilities I cannot even imagine

ANYONE HAVE ANY INTEL ON THIS?
I persoanlly believ that this is a critical moment in e-clip's history. They promised a few planes, delivered one, and there's silence again.

What went wrong?

airtaximan said...

EB,

thanks for this laugh..

"Now it's just the "shoot himself in the foot" Gunner and "happy hour" Ken show"

right on the money...


Luckily its not "the Gunner shooting Ken in the foot hour"

airtaximan said...

Ken:

they have to feed the beast to make those planes, and I do not think they are able to do this...parts must come in, and things must work right. There's a learning curve, for everyone.

Quality will suffer if they crank up too fast. The current plane is treating the planes like donuts...

I would not agree they can make a few planes a day, until they actually make a few planes a day, and have them pass certification and delivered and accepted by paying cutomers.

What happend to the last 3-5 planes that were supposed to be cofa in the next few days 2 weeks ago.

Ken, I know this is a tough question, and you probably do not have all the answers...but Vern said there would be 3-5 planes come out the other end of the CofA process... one was delivered.

Let's keep our feet on the ground, and deal with this issue before we claim they can buld 2 planes a day.

Why did the planes not get delivered?

In my opinion.

Ken Meyer said...

Lot of hogwash in that message, gunner. Too much for the truth squad this morning.

But I will take a quick look at just one of the inaccuracies--your comment about the Eclipse 500 having "nothing that's new or revolutionary to recommend it." To say that, you simply don't know anything about the product. If the Eclipse did not have so many new and revolutionary ideas in it, it would have been delivered a year ago and looked and felt like a sized-down Mustang. It is precisely because of the new and groundbreaking ideas in the plane that it has been delayed.

As Eclipseblogger pointed out, you're just shooting yourself in the foot again.

Ken

Stan Blankenship said...

Last evening, forward observer provided the blog with a very good assessment on where the company stood on deliveries and progress towards the PC.

His comment is gone today, it's a pity because his information looked pretty reasonable.

Hope we did not lose a good source for some pretty solid information.

Gunner said...

"so many new and revolutionary ideas in it"

OK
Gunner

airtaximan said...

Stan,

I posted a question regarding FO's rendition compared with Mouse's regarding my favorite topic...

the 3-5 planes that never received CofA a few days into two weeks ago.

If he is right, E-clips is doing better than I would have thought. the planes are "completed" and if it was not for some paperwork lacking (I am not mitigating this QA issue), the planes would be delivered.

If Mouse is right, e-clips is having a lot more serious problems. Basically, they cannot "complete" aircraft for delivery. Parts missing, etc.

I just cannot believe that Vern made the statement that he's very confident 3-5 planes will be CofA in the next few days...and then it failed to materialize.

They have explaining to do, that's for sure. I would be extremely concerned by this, if I had money on the line. I would demand to know what is going on and why they cannot deliver planes?

This is a big deal, even if its just another week or two delay on top of what is now going on many, many months of no deliveries - really.

Why?

Stan Blankenship said...

atm,

I saved fo's comments on my home computer. Will re-read his comments tonite. He appeared to have first-hand current information.

Gunner said...

Getting a bit more skin in the game:

I once took a poster here up on a bet challenge. He never responded. Just found me a proxy, though. ISSC stock is up over $26, mainly on the Eclipse deal. I've shorted it...significantly.

In the end, I doubt they'll fare much better than Avidyne or BAE. But that's just me.
Gunner

JetProp Jockey said...

Full Page Ad in April 2007 AOPA Publication:

MAKES OFTHER AIRCRAFT WET THEIR PROPS.

INSERTED PICTURE OF 504AE

TEXT:

It's traumatic being a turboprop these days - what with the likes of the FAA-certified Eclipse 500 jet showing up everywhere. But how can they compete with our twin jets, quiet cabin, integrated avionics, and the advantages of flying at 41,000 feet - all for about $1.5 million? They can't. Which gives you absolutely every reason to own your own Eclipse 500 jet today. Check out our Total Eclipse Tour schedule for a tour stop near you, or visit us in Albuquerque.

Price based on June 2006 dollars.

END OF AD

I'll have to be careful where I fly my JetProp - wouldn't want it to wet it's prop! - Guess it's not a big risk at this moment.

Metal Guy said...

Ken,
You seem to speak in terms of things that Eclipse still needs to execute on as already have happened.

Your comment that the company has made it clear that they can produce in excess of 3 jets a day is a typical example of this mind set.

This is obviously a sore point running through this blog where everyone else seems to give credit where credit is due, but are also highly reluctant to give credit for accomplishments not yet achieved.

You seem to equate the intent to perform with actual performance.

Perhaps you can share with the rest of us your mind set regarding this very optimistic viewpoint that Eclipse can deliver on their promises when so many have been broken to date. It just simply does not make sense to most of us.

Metal Guy said...

Price based on June 2006 dollars??? Why in the world do they continue to do this? Nissan doesn’t publish the price of their new cars in 1904 dollars. What the hell?

EclipseOwner387 said...

Metal guy,

The Benchmark Price adjusted for inflation is pretty common for pre-production airplanes. I don't see this as Eclipse specific. How would you propse they handle the sale of aircraft that has an uncertain delivery and sensitive to inflationary pressures?

Planet eX said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank Castle said...

Got to go under the radar.

Things getting hot at work.

Bye.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Frank Castle said...
Got to go under the radar.

Things getting hot at work.

Bye.


Ok, this can mean several things. Who will be the first to speculate?? (I guess I will.)

Did Cessna big wigs figure out an employee is blogging and they aren't happy?

Metal Guy said...

EO387
Is there something special about June 06? Some lock in of some type? Otherwise, why not just use the current dollars at the current time plus some inflation factor based on the actual delivery date. I have to assume there is a currently know delta between June ’06 dollars and real dollars as of today – or is that somehow hard to determine for these types of transactions?

Gunner said...

MG-
Actually, it isn't an unusual number. The CPI is not known without a time lag. So in the fall (for instance) they may have set the price in June '06 dollars. Might keep it there for a couple of years before updating. But it'll alway lag from the tagged date.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

metalguy,

there's no delivery date...this is the problem

Stan Blankenship said...

atm,

I went back over fo's msg of last night (which by choice, he later removed).

He was quite specific, there is a good sized FAA delegation in ABQ working on both individual C of A's and the PC. Most problems relate to getting the paperwork right and he was not aware of any major technical issues holding up the process.

He also said the problems were typical for a new company and that airplanes will start delivering at a faster rate.

Separately I have been told the target date for the PC is in May and that perhaps a dozen aircraft will be delivered in the interim.

We shall see!

Vmc said...

From Avweb...

Computers on six F-22s failed as they crossed the Intl. Dateline...

Be careful how deep of a hole you dig Ken...the only light you'll see will be through that of a cracked windscreen when your 500 goes black.

airtaximan said...

Stan:
I hate to be an ass, but I thought the "target date" for the PC was last September or so?

Target date? Is this for real?

When you say "only perhaps a dozen aircraft will be delivered in the interim"...

this is in the next 5-7 weeks or so, right?

Why would the FAA grant a PC if E-clipse has no demonstrated history of delivering conforming planes off the line, in more than a few planes a month? (if they get there)

I woudl think that a PC for high rate would have to show capability to conform while producing at high rate, no?

This sounds fishy - again.

What do you think?

Why is Mouse way off base compared with FO? He says the FAA inspected and said "the pplanes are not ready, missing parts, and paper" and they left...

Any more on the orderbook?

Stan Blankenship said...

atm,

I can't speak for mouse's comment, but what fo wrote backs up what I have heard separately.

Due to some technical issues, can't write on the order book until next week.

airtaximan said...

Stan,

I get the impression that somehow you have a lot f data and information that you do not/cannot disclose. Do folks send you stuff which you are not comfortable putting up?

EclipseOwner387 said...

All,

FWIW, the Eclipse Owners Forum is getting more optimistic. Postings saying they heard of additional funding and that a couple DayJet deliveries are imminent. The additional funding I also heard second hand from some others in the rumor mill so perhaps there is some legs to it. Lets see if DayJet gets a couple planes delivered and backs up some of the recent press they are getting.

airtaximan said...

EO,

This would be a surprise.

Why rumors, though...why not let it out officially?

Stan Blankenship said...

atm,

Hate to be coy, but some are just too radioactive to touch and as you would expect, not many send e-mails with news that would put a smile on Ken's face.

Gunner said...

EO-
Hope you're right, in many ways.

Just wish some of the negative rumors we've heard (and which have later proven accurate) were given the same interest vs shrill dismissal and demands for evidence.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

Stan,

you have latitude and credibiltiy with the readers.

We deserve to know!

Also, we deserve to see Ken's head fly off!

Later

EclipseOwner387 said...

ATM,

I agree. I like facts but many of the good and bad things we hear (in life really) start as rumors. I just post the sentiment to keep the blog going! ;-)

Stan Blankenship said...

atm,

Make you a deal, will put a new post up in the morning that will get your propeller spinning.

Ken Meyer said...

Stan wrote,
"not many send e-mails with news that would put a smile on Ken's face."


Maybe not to you, but I've received confidential information in the last two days that has me wearing a very big grin tonight. If I could share it with you, I would, however I cannot until it becomes public knowledge. Sorry.

Ken

EclipseOwner387 said...

Ken,

I am hearing similar comments from others. It does appear something is about to happen positively. I do not have that confidential info unfortunately. When do you think it will be public? Whatever it is, it has caused a more positive air on the Eclipse Site. EB? Anything you can expand on? The positive feedback is helping me feel better. Stan, is your info negative for Eclipse or positive?

bill e. goat said...

Does anyone know the status of parts from Avidyne? That would seem to be the most crucial near-term issue.
Apparently, either

1)Vern has a closet full of previously-delivered equipment

2)Avidyne is continuing to deliver

3)The "New- and improved- really!" stuff is almost ready to go.

I don't see any of these being very likely. But, given the increasingly obvious delays, it would seem Vern would try to "head bad news off at the pass", if there wasn't some scheme afoot to meet near-term deliveries.

(I had hoped this near-term stuff would evaporate, pending eventual release of the mature avionics suite. It might still play out that way, but I'm not sure, since they are apparently still "bending metal").

Anyone got some buzz about this?
Thanks.

JetProp Jockey said...

Testimony in Washington this week:

This time it was FAA Administrator Marion Blakey and her boss, Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, making the arguments at the FAA Forecast Conference on March 15 and 16. "Manufacturers like Cessna and Eclipse are preparing delivery of thousands of new very light jets, with the potential to usher in the largest increase in air traffic since the 1960s," said Peters.

The Eclipse message is ringing in the halls of congress.

Stan Blankenship said...

eo387,

The blog's e-mail has become a "confessional box", parishioners don't go to the father confessor to report how many alms to the poor they have given.

Stan Blankenship said...

goat,

Connecting the dots I am seeing, the company has adequate inventory of everything they need to support all the airplanes that they will deliver (12?) up until the May time frame when the PC might be issued.