Sunday, April 01, 2007

Section 5 - Performance

Am traveling and don't have time to put up more, but here is a quick summary from Section 5, the draft performance section. All numbers @ ISA temperature and sea level unless noted otherwise:

Vs clean - 94 kts @ 5,995 lbs
Vs T/O - 83 kts @ 5,995 lbs
Vs Ldg - 71 kts @ 5,600 lbs

Vr @ 5,995 lbs - 91 kts
V50 @ 5,995 lbs - 103 kts

T/O distance @ 5,995 lbs - 2,342 ft (remember this is all engines)
Ldg over 50 ft @ 5,600 lbs - 2,788 ft

Enroute climb Vy = 174 kts, 2,604 fpm @ sea level & 5,995 lbs
Enroute climb Vy = 113 kts, 343 fpm @ 41,000 ft & 5,000 lbs

One eng climb Vse = 133 kts, 603 fpm @ sea level & 5,995 lbs
One eng climb Vse = 118 kts, 33 fpm @ 20,000 ft & 5,995 lbs

Climb to 41,000 ft, 32.7 min/302 lbs/139 nm @ 5,995 lbs
Climb to 35,000 ft, 21.8 min/234 lbs/87 nm @ 5,995 lbs
Climb to 30,000 ft,16.8 min/195 lbs/63 nm @ 5,995 lbs

Long range cruise @ 41,000 ft, 303 ktas/M .527/295 pph @ 5,000 lbs
Long range cruise @ 35,000 ft, 290 ktas/M .503/318 pph @ 5,000 lbs
Long range cruise @ 30,000 ft, 277 ktas/M .470/344 pph @ 5,000 lbs

High speed cruise @ 41,000 ft, 339 ktas/M .592/342 pph @ 5,000 lbs
High speed cruise @ 35,000 ft, 369 ktas/M .640/466 pph @ 5,000 lbs
High speed cruise @ 30,000 ft, 368 ktas/M .624/552 pph @ 5,000 lbs

NBAA range cruising 41,000 ft - 1,125 nm
NBAA range cruising 35,000 ft - 1,030 nm
NBAA range cruising 30,000 ft - 925 nm
NBAA range cruising 25,000 ft - 830 nm

Maximum demonstrated cross wind - 14 kts (not clear if landing only or also T.O.)

Note: The NBAA range calculations are based on a full load of fuel on the ramp. Since this section does not deal with empty weights or CG travel, there is no proof the airplane can carry the advertised payload of four and travel 1,125 nm, which is one of the guarantees in the purchase contract.

As I recall, the stall speed is above the guaranteed number in the contract. Either of these escapes could allow a buyer to declare Eclipse Aviation in default and demand return of the deposit. If I am wrong about this point, I am sure the Eclipse crowd will soon correct me and I will delete these statements.

Regular readers of this blog will be happy to know eclipseblogger provided a copy of the draft, thank you sir, thank you very much!

137 comments:

EclipseBlogger said...

Stan, You are wrong about the stall speed and range guarantees. There is a +/- factor attached the to 69 knot stall speed and the 1125 max range. As currently stated/claimed by Eclipse, both are within the contractual deposit agreement.

Metal Guy said...

Does anyone know how to independently verify the operational limitations on these new deliveries?

Specifically looking to confirm removal of the windshield inspection interval and approval for RVSM operation.

mirage00 said...

Stan... you’re reaching! All guarantees have been met. Keep trying though.

EclipseBlogger said...

mirage00 said... Stan... you’re reaching! All guarantees have been met. Keep trying though.

I don't know that the guarantees have actually been met, but Eclipse does claim that they have been. We'll all know for sure as soon as the new mods have been evaluated by an independent source. I am hopeful.

Metal Guy said...

I would think that guarantees would be considered met once and only once the new configuration receives amended TC. What if this new configuration meets the numbers but is unstable, or has flutter issues, or has mach tuck issues, or has who knows what?

Still lots of variables and unknowns that need to be verified prior to the party.

While release of a draft unapproved AFM with these numbers is certainly a step in the right direction, it would be prudent for Eclipse to wait until its FAA approved before popping the cork.

Ken Meyer said...

One correction, or more properly amplification--

The Vyse numbers are for enroute climb at MCT. The engine-out rate of climb at takeoff is much better--910 fpm (MGTOW, ISA). That is, I think, better than the engine-out climbrate originally promised back in 2000.

When entered into Flitesoft, the draft AFM numbers support the Eclipse-stated NBAA IFR range of 1125 nm and IFR (45 min) range of 1300 nm. The plane is apparently able to get just over 1 nm per pound of fuel burned at FL410.

The other thing that is very interesting in the AFM numbers is the presence of a very nice longrange mode for those times the Eclipse pilot finds himself stuck down low. The plane has a tanks-dry range of about 1175 nm at longrange cruise as low as FL250. So, the possibility that these planes may be forced low in the northeast, if it turns out true, isn't all that big of a problem. It certainly cuts the range some, but the availability of a longrange cruise mode for low-altitude flights would reduce the impact of being stuck down low rather dramatically.

Ken

flight guy said...

Has the TC been updated from the original? Has a new model been certified?

Until then everything is pure conjecture.

We are back to where we were before Osh Kosh '06.

Eclipse's business model is to keep promising and buying more time one band-aid and supplier at a time in the hopes of eventually making it. "See we told you so!!"

Oh ya, I heard that the E500 is going to be the new shuttle replacement. With these numbers who could blame them! APRIL FOOLS!!!ALL OF THEM.

EclipseOwner387 said...

I hope this new posting doesn't let BambaZonke off the hook. EB and Ken nailed him to the wall on his posting and I was hoping for a reply from him. My guess is we may not hear from him again.

Gunner said...

- "Proposed" AFM.
- "We've found fixes" but haven't had them approved yet.
- We "proved" our claims on the Gainesville flight but we can't give you any more information....it's proprietary.
- The aircraft we've delivered are not the aircraft we're selling. The Aircraft we're selling has not yet been FAA Certified.
- We've redesigned the aircraft and will be retrofitting the first 100 units, but the FAA hasn't signed off on Change One.

What aircraft are we talking about?
Take your pick....it's either Eclipse or The Moller SkyCar

Too funny, really.

Gunner

EclipseOwner387 said...

Gunner,

Has the Moller been certified at any performance level?

Gunner said...

Nope. But so what.....they will be in 2008. Just look at their press releases. Why should I suspend skepticism of Vern's pronouncements and laugh at Moller? After all, it IS Disruptive Technology, no? I thought that was the key issue.

Now, tit for tat:
Has any certified Eclipse Jet been produced in a form that's offers practical use, other than for training on more Eclipse jets, the practical use of which is "promised" and the certification of which is no more guaranteed then Moller?

Gunner

EclipseBlogger said...

Reposted for EclipseOwner387

Bamba-Flunk said... This is not the only example of this kind of ABQ maths in section 5, anyone using this kind of data for flight planning purposes is going to come up short.

The only thing coming up short is you. What kind of pilot reads the chart for Rate of Climb and interprets that ROC at 30,000 feet to be a constant rate from sea level. The chart shows the rate AT 30,000. It took roughly 4 minutes to climb from 25,000 to 30,000 feet. Therefore the chart is correct. It's your math and lack of understanding that is missing the mark. Maybe you should brush up on your basic ground school skills.

The same goes for your speed assumptions. The chart shows 368 kts at 35,000 at 5500 lbs, 369 kts at 5000 lbs. Close enough for me. You are really reaching to call that a failure, and slight of hand. Also, the 370 kts spec number has a tolerance of +/-2%, it is not an absolute number. But without looking at a graph we only have the data points to look at.

Bamba-Flunk said... Now that is for TAS of 370 kts, KKA, is touting 372 kts, well this is even worse, we are down to 4000 lbs, which means a 200 lbs pilot and 200 lbs of fuel, where are you going to go at these weights and limitations?

Now you are the one being disingenuous. Eclipse said that they saw a data point at 372 kts, but that they were not changing the spec or AFM to show that.

Bamba-Flunk said... To me this kind of trickery to make the promises is incredibly hollow and disingenuous. Either the plane flys to the specs or it can't, trying to make it fit the promises with this kind of chicanery is alas, more of the same...

To me this kind of trickery to make blog statements is incredibly hollow and disingenuous. Either the blog poster states the correct specs or they shouldn't post, trying to make the post fit the assumptions with this kind of chicanery is alas, more of the same...

EclipseOwner387 said...

Gunner (Welcome back by the way!)

Yes, I would take the "A" model as is and it would work for my typical mission. Am I stupid for thinking Eclipse will work out FIKI and the other odds and ends? No, I think it would be stupid to think otherwise. Those are not "disruptive technologies." Is Eclipse subject to crticism until those things are completly in the bag? Yes. But to continually rail on them as HUGE issues is just a Tit for Tat argument for argument's sake. Getting Eclipse deliveries out there to show the customers that the FAA is approving the airframe is smart marketing. Are they ready for prime time? No, but they are much closer than they were and the goal line is reachable. I do believe Eclipse will deliver a nice airplane. Will they make money? That I do not know.

EB, thanks for the repost. I am really curious about BZ's response.

Planet eX said...

It's a draft AFM and therefore preliminary data. Not validated and certainly not approved by the FAA. Until the FAA signs off on the AFM and the type certificate gets amended, it's all moot.

How much flight testing has been done on the mods? Has the FAA flown the modified aircraft yet?

After writing too many manuals and getting some of them nixed on the first and sometimes second submission by the FAA, I think I'll wait until there's a signature on the AFM.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Planet Ex,

I think we all agree it is a moot issue. Moot means hypothetical. It can also mean irrelevant. (You can't mean that could you?) I am not sure what you are trying to say? I frankly don't see a HUGE difference in this performance versus the original configuartion. How far off do you think they could be from the FAA Certified version? I would think they would have a handle on what the FAA expectations are since this is only a derivation on an airframe certified just several months ago. You seem to have a lot of experience in this area. How far off could they be considering they have a certified sister model? Is it reasonable to think this data could be close considering the recent airframe certification?

Planet eX said...

It all depends...how much data are they basing those numbers on? As for me, I'll just wait to see what the final numbers are and make no judgements until they are final. Is that data real-world or interpolated from a few flights?

Who knows, further flights might come up with better numbers or might come up with worse.

As for certification of the modded aircraft, how far are they along?

Off subject...someone mentioned that they were having problems with the simulators. I saw mention from an Eclipse press release that they would be receiving FTDs and not full motion simulator...well they said "simulators (FTDs)"...which leads me to believe they are not full motion simulators.

Bambazonke said...

Eclipseboob said "To me this kind of trickery to make blog statements is incredibly hollow and disingenuous. Either the blog poster states the correct specs or they shouldn't post, trying to make the post fit the assumptions with this kind of chicanery is alas, more of the same...

The most important correct spec that you boobs appear to be ignoring is the certified weights of the boobmobile, the Provisional Certification of this wonder jet is 5800 MRW, 5760 MTOW, fact. End of story. Who now has the correct spec? What with all these speculative numbers on a Performance Spec that will be like the TC, gone over by the FAA and made to look real...

If you want only facts, that would be great, let's deal with facts like DME, RVSM,training, FIKI, number of wonder jets in retail owners hands, $970k price points, all items that are still to be seen, all items like performance you are being promised that have yet to materialize, like your full TC in weeks from Osh Kosh 2006, need I go on and on and on? Facts like $1bn having been pissed away and nothing to show for it..

For the record, you were correct I was in error on the climb numbers, I don't know what I was thinking, maybe too good a Sunday lunch, the rest of the data stands until I have had time to review and compare it to real data.

Eric said...

These are my posts that were at the end of the last "thread".

.84 nm/lb of fuel is damn good for a jet if you consider all jets equal. That works out to 1.19 lbs of fuel per nautical mile. Spreading that over 6 passengers (we'll consider the crew to be passengers) we get 0.2 lbs/nm/passenger... pretty good.

Yesterday I was enjoying a cruise at FL350 and decided to get some numbers. We were getting about .15 nm/lb... yeah, it sucks for the airplane. However, that worked out to 0.133 lbs/nm/passenger (not counting the crew as passengers) and we were doing around 450 KTAS. Now if we had slowed to 370 KTAS we would have made better numbers, but ATC would have bitched.

These new numbers look good. LRC for FL410 gives 1.02 nm/lb and .162 lbs/nm/passenger at 303 KTAS (still assuming crew as passengers as they are in the cases of EB, Ken, and EO387). So we get better mileage and do at least 140 KTAS faster. Next trip I'll pull out the performance manual in the plane and see what the LRC numbers are.

My point is that while the EA500 my get great mileage for the aircraft, it can't hold a candle to a larger aircraft. Phenomenal for the airplane, but not-so-great for the passengers.

Just think what the EA500 could have achieved with a larger wingspan instead of tip-tanks... maybe even some sporty winglets too!

On the scorecard of aircraft deliveries Eclipse is beating Cessna. However, I don't really consider delivering an aircraft that has to be modified at a later date to be a very good business practice. In fact it's pretty crummy. I appreciate that Cessna has just waited until whatever the problems are with the Garmin system get worked out to start delivering more than just their leaseback unit.

At least we know that Cessna's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. deliveries will be a fully-functional aircraft.

By the way... if you live in the Northeast (or anywhere other than ABQ) and take delivery of your EA500, who pays for the fuel to fly it back to ABQ for the aero mods and AVIO NG installation? Is the fuel and per hour cost for coming back to the nest included when they say they'll retrofit the aircraft at their cost?

Ken Meyer said...

Eric wrote,
"Yesterday I was enjoying a cruise at FL350 and decided to get some numbers. We were getting about .15 nm/lb... yeah, it sucks for the airplane. However, that worked out to 0.133 lbs/nm/passenger"


Well, let's all just buy a 50-passenger jet for per passenger fuel economy. You're mixing apples and oranges, though it's a nice socialistic concept--perhaps the government should forbid all personal transportation in favor of mass transit; after all, "if it would save just one child..." :)

Interesting you mention Mustang. I noticed nobody has complained that it is now 3 months since their promised next delivery and no sign of it.

Somehow, Eclipse gets scrutinized for every stumble it makes, though it has never certified a plane before. But Cessna gets a free pass around here (even gets compliments from you!) despite the fact that they've certified dozens of models and supposedly have all the "old-guard" expertise at their fingertips. Isn't that odd?

Ken

JetProp Jockey said...

In case someone has not see the information, AVWeb has the following links:

The Draft Copy of section 5

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/Eclipse_AFM5_draft.pdf

The letter to the customers

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/Eclipse_033107_letter.doc

The AVWeb article is found at:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/836-full.html#194823

JetProp Jockey said...

Does anyone know if a 14 knot crosswind limit of landing is unusual for jets? We have a 17 knot limit on the JrtProp and that is pretty restrictive considering that we are able to get in and out of lots of small airports that only have one runway.

Actually, there are lots of larger airports that only have one runway - Examples are Grand Strand in North Myrtle Beach and Mrytle Beach International. Probably 70% of the airports I use are single runway facilities, which allow us to get close to customers and usually enjoy discounted fuel

Ken Meyer said...

jetprop jock wrote,
"Does anyone know if a 14 knot crosswind limit of landing is unusual for jets?"


It's not a limit. In accordance with AC25.1581-1, the maximum demonstrated crosswind usually is just what the name implies--it's the most crosswind they happened to encounter during the testing.

There are some circumstances in which the maximum demonstrated crosswind is a limitation. In that event, it must appear in the limitations section. It is not in the A model limitations section (we don't have the B model limitations section), and its presence in the performance section would be typical for it not being a limit.

Manufacturers are required to demonstrate a crosswind of at least 0.2 times Vso, which for the Eclipse happens to come out 14 kts :)

Ken

Black Tulip said...

Ken,

Section Five on Performance is quite interesting. I have an observation on range.

The long range cruise mission profile shows 1,030nm range at 35,000ft, 900nm being spent at cruise and the rest in climb, descent and so on. Assume the aircraft departs at 5,995lbs and lands at 4,500lbs. The 900nm cruise portion is spent at 292kts, burning 326pph assuming a mid-flight weight of 5,250lbs. 1,005lbs of fuel is consumed in the cruise segment lasting 3.1hrs.

What if this cruise segment is spent at high speed cruise power setting? Fuel flow increases to 468pph accompanied by a speed of 368kts. In this case the 1,005lbs of fuel is consumed in 2.1hrs and 790nm has been covered. Thus overall range drops from 1,030 to 920nm.

Does this meet your expectations? It would seem that you have the choice of achieving 'full' range at turboprop speeds or 10% less at jet speeds. Also note that the flight profile above leaves 680lbs of fuel for taxi, takeoff, climb and all the remaining manuvers described on the graph.

Black Tulip

UpsetWithTheTradePubs said...

Does anyone have any knowledge as to what the problems are that keep the Eclipse from getting FIKI certification? Certainly after years of flying this thing around they must have flown it into icing on multiple occasions, what were the results. EAC seems to be have been very hush on the topic, unless I have missed something in the past.

Ken, you seem to have an inside track; any idea?

Eric said...

No socialist programs for me, Ken, I'm a gun owner. ;)

Again, my point was that the fuel economy is great for the aircraft, but not spread about on passengers. You said it was phenomenal for a jet and you were right but I just wanted to add context.

To add further context... your fuel economy for the jet would be even better in the PiperJet or D-Jet. Plus, your per hour operating costs would be significantly lower. With the larger engines you'd also have a more favorable thrust specific fuel consumption.

PiperJet
--------
360 KTAS
1300 nm
800 lb Full Fuel Payload
6 seats
$2.2M :(

I wonder how long it would take in operating hours to get the PiperJet to come equal with the EA500.

Also, Ken, I don't criticize Eclipse about their delays. I'm fine with them taking extra time to make sure they do it right. Others might do that, but I do not. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Ken Meyer said...

upset wrote,
"Ken, you seem to have an inside track; any idea?"


Sure, but I don't guarantee it;s right :)

You cannot get FIKI certification until you have the final design in place. The B-model modifications substantially change several aerodynamic features, so whatever flying they did in icing before those mods is interesting, but doesn't help them win icing certification.

They'll have to perform all the icing tests with the final (i.e. B model) configuration. The company is mum on whether that's been going on already. It could be they're doing it in conjunction with the certification tests. Or it could be they're pushing the certification tests at the expense of the icing tests, who knows?

In any event, there is a refund event if FIKI certification does not occur by 9/30/07. I imagine they'd send a couple of planes to South America this summer rather than face that, but I don't really know.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

eric wrote,
"your fuel economy for the jet would be even better in the PiperJet or D-Jet. Plus, your per hour operating costs would be significantly lower. With the larger engines you'd also have a more favorable thrust specific fuel consumption."


Oh, I agree. The PiperJet looks real nice on paper.

But as you look back at the Eclipse saga, back to when it was just on paper, and compare it to the final product, it's fairly evident that there are still a great many things that could intervene before Piper delivers (if they ever do) a personal jet.

If Piper had started this process 5 years ago and was now just about ready to deliver a finished product, I would be very interested in it. It has lots of space as well as the speed and altitude capability that the Cirrus and Diamondjet lack.

BTW, I'm wondering how they plan to get around FAR 23.841 (about airplanes flying above FL250 having to maintain pressurization despite any probable failure, like an engine quitting)--as I understand it, this reg is one of the main reasons DJet and Cirrus "The Jet" will be limited to FL250 (they cite some other reasons, too). Piper says their plane will go to FL350 despite, of course, having only one engine.

Ken

JetProp Jockey said...

Ken, I don't know how FAR 23.841 is interperted relative to a single engine being the source of bleed air to maintain cabin presurization, but my JetProp is certified to FL270, Meridians were able to go to FL290 and TBS and Pilatus's are also flying higher than FL250. There is nothing in that FAR that distinguishes between piston, turboprop and turbofan aircraft.

I am interested in any explination that is available out there.

Black Tulip said...

Ken,

Regarding Figure 5-68 of the draft performance section - Time, Fuel and Distance to Descend...

These parameters all appear to be 'upside down' in the chart. For instance, at all weights it takes zero time, fuel and distance to descend from 41,000ft to sea level but takes 14min, 45lbs and 65min to descend from sea level to sea level.

Black Tulip

Ken Meyer said...

black tulip wrote,
"Thus overall range drops from 1,030 to 920nm.

Does this meet your expectations? It would seem that you have the choice of achieving 'full' range at turboprop speeds or 10% less at jet speeds."


Couple of thoughts on that--

First, and most important, anybody that buys this plane needs to study very carefully its capabilities. For a turbine twin, it is a very light plane. Everybody knows the laws of physics--light planes almost always suffer from range and/or payload constraints. JetProp Jockey would probably agree that his plane, wonderful as it is, is not a heavy hauler, and does not have as much range as many would ideally like it to have. It's physics.

The Cessna Mustang, despite having a 50% higher MGTOW is no better on range profiles than the Eclipse. Effective range at highspeed at FL350 for the Mustang is 900 miles with NBAA reserve. Oddly enough, that's about the same as the Eclipse.

For the Mustang at highspeed and FL250, effective range with NBAA reserve is 700 nm; Eclipse is about the same (it rises to 830 nm at longrange cruise).

But keep in mind that the NBAA method of calculating range is very hard on small airplanes. My 340 has an NBAA IFR range of just 700 miles, but it is not unusual to fly further than that.

If the destination weather is good, you only need 45 minutes cruising time to be legal. So, an Eclipse at FL410 gets a 45-min reserve range of over 1300 nm (longrange cruise) or about 1200 nm (highspeed cruise). At FL350, it drops to about 1175 nm (longrange cruise) and about 960 nm (highspeed cruise).

The plane offers plenty of operational alternatives, but there is no question that those people who need to fly consistently over 1000 nm at highspeed and do not want to do it at high altitude are going to want to look at something else.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

jetprop jockey wrote,
"I don't know how FAR 23.841 is interperted relative to a single engine being the source of bleed air to maintain cabin presurization, but my JetProp is certified to FL270, Meridians were able to go to FL290 and TBS and Pilatus's are also flying higher than FL250."


FAR 23.841 used to say "31,000" feet but was changed in the mid-90's to 25,000 feet. Thus TBM, Pilatus and other single engine planes were (and are) able to be certified above FL250, but I believe a new design would be bound by the new rule.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

black tulip wrote,
"Regarding Figure 5-68 of the draft performance section - Time, Fuel and Distance to Descend...

These parameters all appear to be 'upside down' in the chart."


Yeah; that's just how they like to do it. They did it that way in the earlier A model AFM, too. You just have to get used to it, I think. You look up the numbers for the final altitude and then subtract off the numbers for the initial altitude to get the time/fuel/distance for any particular descent.

Ken

Black Tulip said...

Ken,

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis on range versus speed. Where I expect the Eclipse pilot to feel the pressure is in crowded metro airspace. I gather the subject has come up on the blog before. You can expect step climbs to a final altitude in the twenties while longing for an unrestricted climb to your ceiling.

Black Tulip

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

In answer to the irrational exuberance of the other day following the 'delivery' of 3 'aircraft' to DayJet, I offer the following:

Yeah, after 8 years and a Billion dollars, delivering 5 aircraft, sort-of, will surely silence the critics (NOT).

Let us again review the ACTUAL score.

Vern promised an airplane with FIKI - ummm, not yet.

Vern promised an airplane with FMS - ummm, not yet.

Vern promised an airplane with RVSM and GPS Nav - ummm, not sure, some say yes, some say no.

Vern promised an airplane that could be used for Part 135 revenue operations - ummm, not yet.

Vern promised United for training - ummmm, nope.

Vern promised, only 30 days ago in a message quoted on this very blog, that there would be 12 deliveries in Q1, and he made 4, sort-of. Sounds like that 402 for '07 could end up being maybe 120.

Only 1 of the 5 sort-of delivered aircraft to-date apparently lives outside ABQ.

There are not yet ANY type-rated customer pilots.

There are not yet ANY certified FTD's or simulators.

In the rush to convert deposits, Eclipse is delivering sub-standard, partially functional, significantly restricted aircraft, at the equivalent rate of 1 every 2 months since delivery, far from the claimed rate of 3 or 5 per day.

Yup, pretty soon all we critics will be eating crow in the shade of Vern's imaginary overcast.

I will reserve comment on performance data until such time as the ACTUAL data is FAA Approved - the only kind of data we are allowed to use as pilots.

airtaximan said...

For all of you who miss me:

I made a few comments from a remote location last week... but I was very busy, so I couldn't write much...sorry. I also think some of the comments got missed - chalk it up to a crappy connection.

I am happily reading the current events, here, actually laughing my ass off at those of you who think the recent "good news" regarding Dayjet taking 3 planes somehow proves the skeptics should be eating crow.

Based on a years worth of posts from the die-hards, I must say I'm not surprised. One thing I have learnt from this blog is that the character of the "E-clips die-hard" (as Vern has mockingly labelled you) is a special one. There are a few hundred around. A rare breed, indeed. One that feasts on hype, jumps to defend the hypster and in fact is prone to dismiss real problems while positively exaggerating the significance of none-events, or even BAD news.

Dayjet = the invention of Vern and Ed to justify a large market for E-500s... without Dayjet there is no E-clips. The delivery(?) of 3 (probably) otherwise-undeliverable-to-anyone-planes to Dayjet which are of limited (only for some training) use, after many years and so much blown money is a joke.

Smarter folks than me expect that they will fly some passengers and E-clips will rush to an IPO...after much hype regarding how successful Dayjet is in their first few months, while they can still cover up all the real deficiencies with this plane, while they can hype very limited passenger service with this plane.

Congrats for the delivery of the last 3 planes...it is SAD that this deserves congratulations at this point, but it is a tremendous accomplishment for E-clips - all things considered. Its been 8 years and $1 billion, and 5 deliveries - 3 of which are to a Nimbus-like-customer-of-convenience...a BIG accomlishment for E-clips given the reality of their situation and the reality of their plane.

Pop another cork...you need to be drunk to continue to have the fait - the true die hard lives on, I guess, judging from the bloggers celebrating this sham full tilt.

airtaximan said...

Business & GA › News Article
DATE: 03/04/07
SOURCE:Flight International
Eclipse trio for DayJet
By John Croft

Florida-based DayJet has become the first air-taxi operator to take delivery of Eclipse 500 very light jets, with the arrival of its initial aircraft from the Albuquerque-based manufacturer.

Sources say that Eclipse 500 serial numbers 2, 6 and 7 were due to be delivered to DayJet last week, marking the first of 239 jets the company has on order. Although Eclipse Aviation confirms that serial number 2 has received its certificate of airworthiness, it declines to say whether the other two aircraft have completed certification, or when deliveries will take place. The company handed over its first two aircraft to private customers, the first in early January and the second in mid-March.

DayJet president and chief executive Ed Iacobucci says he will need eight to 10 Eclipse 500s to begin for-hire operations, a number he had hoped to acquire this quarter. Eclipse confirms the first DayJet aircraft are not certificated for Part 135 work as a required third attitude and heading reference system has not yet been approved. The company says this will be added as a supplemental type certificate before DayJet begins customer services.

DayJet's early aircraft will also have to be modified later, at Eclipse's expense, to incorporate performance enhancements now being finalised. In a 26 March letter to owners, Vern Raburn, president and chief executive of Eclipse, said the performance modification programme had "moved into the final stage this week" and would be completed by mid-April. Raburn said the modifications, extended tip tanks and drag reduction tweaks, as well as the recently announced switch to the Avio NG avionics suite, would increase the aircraft's overall weight but would not affect "full fuel payload and useful load".

LIKE I SAID, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT 2, 6, AND 7 WERE DELIVERED (AND MAYBE NOT CofA, as Ken pointed out that Vern promised CofA not deliveries "within a few days" correcting me - who woulda thought Vern could deliver planes that might NOT have C of A - I guess you CAN traing in experimental aircraft nowadays, if you CAN find someone to take them!what a JOKE!) where were the customers for the other planes in the line? Were they too ashamed to show their faces, too? Or did they refuse to accept the crappy planes? Perhaps only Dayjet would agree to take experimental planes...who knows? BUT, its a grand mystery, isnt it for the plane that has die-hard customers numbering 2500 inline, busting t the seams for this plane.

I think the new marketing campaign is very telling. I think there are problems not disclosed at this pint - -just my opinion, but things smell REALLY rancid at this point. And you guys are celebrating - Titanic-style.

- no part 135 - confimred
- mods required at e-clips expense later -confirmed
- third attitude and heading reference system has not yet been approved.
- STC required

Lucky Daydream and e-clips are sleeping together...cause for celebration

So far - planes "delivered" = none, really. 3 planes from man-to-concubine, 2 planes leased back...

I would like to see at least a few honest-to-goodness-arm-length-deliveries... but I doubt it.

Any reference to Cessna is irrelevant - they have promised no revolution, no massive deliveries, and have come clean with their avionics issues. Smarmy-Vern has a lot to prove, and before anyone claimes there's crow to be eaten, there had better be a lot of cleanup work on this otherwise-undeliverable-plane.

Congratulations to E-clips...they found a way to hype a couple more deliveries. Nothing surprising here, except if you are a so called die-hard.

Glad to be back.

Any more details available on the orderbook scam, Stan? Someone recently claimed they mover around 75 positions up the ladder recently - how can the deckchairs get shuffled and reshuffled with a legit order book. Someone must have some details, no?

bill e. goat said...

Eric,
Thanks for the info on your efficiency observations.

Ken,
I think Eric was complimenting the E-500, not criticizing it's efficiency.
Cessna has been pretty lame in deliveries, but hasn't been quite as obnoxious about it as Vernsters. And as Eric points out, they are delivering “the real deal”, no assembly (at a later date) required.
Also-thanks for the cross wind cert criteria, and the FL250 limitation on single engines.

CWMOR,
Have ANY of the aircraft left ABQ? (I'm not sure- how could this be, has anyone “graduated” from the training program?)

Anybody,
How is the weather radar coming along?

Thanks.

Ken Meyer said...

airtaxing me man wrote,
"LIKE I SAID, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT 2, 6, AND 7 WERE DELIVERED (AND MAYBE NOT CofA,"


Well that's just caca!

Of course the planes they delivered have a certificate of airworthiness. That is the dopiest thing that has been posted here in weeks.

Ken

airtaximan said...

Ken:

Direct from FI -

"Although Eclipse Aviation confirms that serial number 2 has received its certificate of airworthiness, it declines to say whether the other two aircraft have completed certification, or when deliveries will take place."

I guess you have a caca issue with FI. Blame them, all I said was "maybe"...

Why would e-clips not just say "yes" all three planes have been C of A? Why decline to comment?

Ken, perhaps you know more about planes number 4 and 5? Were these passed by the FAA too, and are just sitting there? Were these somehow problematic and failed inspection, again? Owners not show up? What gives?

Why decline comment?
Why not deliver all the planes?

MAybe you have a caca issue with E-clips - I'm SURE not!

You are a true "die-hard" buddy... keep buying the promise and the shenanigans...

airtaximan said...

Ken:

maybe you SHOULD have a caca issue with E-clips for scamming you on JetComplete. It was not a guarantee, just part of their sales scams. They publish a "jet-complete" program, and you use the published numbers to justify advantageous operating economics, only to have your Die-hard-defense-of-e-clips pulled out from under you by the great-one him self.

Revamping Jet-complete - WOW! Talk about caca! Even the admission the program cost is going UP! Promises of fuel cost going down - a "jet-complete-farse" a "jet-complete-joke" on all you owners.

Do you think this is linked to, perhaps a whole new basket of Avio-NG suppliers? Do you think somehow they knew this was coming when the called in the new suppliers and they were given the bad news? Why not announce the 59lbs and increases mainteannce cost when NG was unveiled. It was all good news, right?

Keep the faith, Mr. Die-Hard. You are looking pretty damn dopey to alot of people...even Vern himself calls guys like you "die-hards" - -NOW THAT's FUNNY!

Anyone to stick around and take this abuse and defend the faith is a real die-hard, I must say.

Every scamster needs die-hards like you.

Frank Castle said...

"Is Eclipse subject to crticism until those things are completly in the bag? Yes."

Glad you agree. So, leave us be.

"Are they ready for prime time? No, but they are much closer than they were and the goal line is reachable. "

Then quit comparing to the "Big Boys" and do your own thing.

One double-dog-dare for you "Owners".......

Fly the damn thing like they say it will, when you take delivery. When you take delivery, it should perform as promised. If it does, and you are properly documented, you will be Heroes of Eclipse, touting the Wonderjet's capabilities.

If not, you'll be looking for a patch after 850 NM. If you make it that far.

You should be able to find one, with a hand-held GPS.

I'm sure your proctologist could recommend a soothing ointment to pack in your duffel bag.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Castle,

I have not said this blog should not exist. I do let you be. I just share what is shared with me and an opposing view to yours. You have an interest in Cessna and I have an interest in Eclipse. I think Cessna is a great company and I am glad they exist. Just for the record. Does your childish and mean spirited approach piss me off? Yes.

Frank Castle said...

"Does your childish and mean spirited approach piss me off? Yes."

Glad to see I make a touching difference in people's lives.

That's what I live for.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Castle,

Your passion makes me think you are in you 20's maybe low 30's. Am I correct?

bill e. goat said...

...I was talking about the "time out" button.

NOT the "launch nukes" button,

NOT the "panic" button (no ballistic recovery device on Our Favorite Very Light Jet (yet).

No absence of ballistic bombasters though :) !!

airtaximan said...

EO and Castle,

"why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends..."

Guys, the difference of opinion is terrific, look at all the fun and excitement. At least none of you are calling eachother "dopey!"

what do you think about:

1- jet complete scam
2- perhaps 2 of 3 planes taken by dayjet were not c of a?
3-where are the other planes in the production/delivery series?

ideas? comments?

EclipseOwner387 said...

Goat,

It is all good. I would hire Castle on the spot. His loyalty and passion is hard to find these days. I am serious.

bill e. goat said...

EO387,
I don't think Cessna should let him go!
Now that the race is heating up a bit.
?Or is that just the blog? :)

EclipseOwner387 said...

AirJordanMan,

I saw JetComplete as marketing for the executive who wants a jet. I wasn't stupid enough to think it was a free lunch. I think most position holders think as I. Will it be nice once defined? Most likely.

Frank Castle said...

Nope. Not even close. Lots older than you think.

Just showing the "youngsters" how it's done.

Old enough to have had War's why can't we be friends on 8-track. Along with Ohio Players, Parliment/Funkadelic, blasting through the streets in Eastern New Mexico.

Go Enema U !

bill e. goat said...

Mr Castle!

I didn't know you were THAT old!!!

For a moment I thought "Go Enema U !" was something like "Go Depends!".

Took me a minute to figure it out :))))))))))

(Eastern New Mexico University)

EclipseOwner387 said...

Then act your age Castle! Geez!


LOL! :-)

bill e. goat said...

Frank,
BTW, I heard Cannon AFB was rescued from the BRAC list- do you still have contacts back there? I think they were the last home of the F-111's?

flyforfun said...

On the subject of Cessna and the Mustang, I know for a fact that they are showing the Mustang to their prospective entry level jet owners and then upgrading many of them into the CJ line. They are selling a lot of customers on the CJ line and skipping them over the Mustang.

airtaximan said...

EO,
I like the name "airJordanMan" better than "cabbie", that's for sure - thanks.

You are a smart guy regarding JetComplete - I'm glad you did not get tricked. There is some plausibility regarding the lower-cost possibilities of supporting a vast fleet, but sadly it turned sour.

Ken leveraged it for all it was worth, which is the saddest part. I guess he'll be miffed that's its getting more expensive.

For me, its a credibility issue...promises, promises...

Frank Castle said...

It's really all very simple.

Ed needed to show his backers that the plane really exists. Now, he has papers showing "delivery" so the financiers will get off his arse.

Vern needed another media event to show that Eclipse wasn't "dead in the water", so he and Ed cooked up this thing to benefit them both.

But, only on paper.

Planes are still in ALQ, will be for some time. My money's on the plan the Daydream pilots go ride around in one of the "B" models with "all the right stuff (does one even exist?) so's they can get their time in.

Or, maybe I am so full of caca my eyes are brown.

bill e. goat said...

Speaking of credibility issues, it's time for me to expose myself (okay, it's a figurative term)- and...RANT!!!

Goat rant follows:

Btw- Please correct any inaccuracies. (I could research the facts myself, given enough time; but why- it's so much more fun to rant! :)

Q: How many aircraft can Eclipse "absorb" internally? Marketing and sales, and training, both one-site, and off-site (such as DayJet's "proving" runs)? I'd put this at maybe 10 to 20 aircraft, tops.

Q: Will the air taxi guys use them with the acknowledged inferior avionic suite, without FIKI, and how about the weather radar? (I haven't heard it mentioned lately- anyone know the status?).

So much for 2007Q1 stunts. Does it seem to reek worse than a goat that:

1) Second first flight was on Dec 31? (Friday, New Year's Eve Holiday, most places).
2) "Cert" was on Sept 30, the last day of 2006Q4 (a Saturday).
3) First "Delivery" was on December 31, the last day of 2006Q4 (a Sunday).
4) 2007Q1 "Deliveries" were on the last day of the quarter, on a weekend?

This stinks like the Learfan stunt of first flight on Dec 32. LearAvia arm-twisted the post office (one-time ruse permitted, in the interest of the local economy- repeated abuse, Vernsters; oh please), I guess Eclipse has managed to once again co-opt the FAA for their latest slight of hand.

Eclipse has endless pockets (or friends with endless pockets), so do they really need to routinely insult the public with this marketing stunt B.S.?

This "stunt" routine smells bad, pure and simple. The airplanes aren't ready to go, really, except for internal use, and as “pleasure cruisers” (nothing particularly wrong with that, it's just that it is SUCH an abrogation of contractual obligations).. Others will argue this last point. I don't wanna hear it. I admire the company (plucky folks, they are), and the product (nice idea, ummm 9 years ago- still a pretty good idea), and even tolerate the hype and “Verntastic” production forecasts. But not the sleazy "pre-release" schemes they are pushing lately.

Eclipse is capable of delivering a good airplane, by the end of the year, probably. In the mean time, these STUNTS just erode what limited credibility the company has.

Anyone care to guess what the 2007Q2 stunt will be? Perhaps PC on the last day of the quarter?

(Headline still on their web site):
"Eclipse 500 Achieves FAA Type Certification
Eclipse Aviation realizes groundbreaking achievement as revolutionary
Eclipse 500 jet becomes the world's first FAA-certified VLJ
OSHKOSH, WI — July 27, 2006"

...End of rant.

p.s., interesting info on Learfan 2100: in case the web address gets terminated by the word wrap routine, go to www.flyingmad.com, and type in "flashback to 1981")

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=653&page_number=1

Frank Castle said...

You'r only as old as you feel, 357.

As for these days, give me some Shinedown.

But, hey, even Uncle Ted Nugent's still doin' the Wango Tango.

So am I.

bill e. goat said...

No- not flyingmad!!! (this blog is getting to me :)

Make that www.flyingmag.com!!!

:)

EclipseOwner387 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank Castle said...

OK, Mr. Goat, easy enough.

Now, how about Enema High ?

Frank Castle said...

When it's too loud for my grandkids, then I am just a ~bit~ more mature than you think.

My zest and zeal for life are unmatched by any of my peers, most of whom already belong to the Zipper Club.

The Wango Tango keeps you young.

bill e. goat said...

Frank- Enema High?
(I feel like a bunny with a pancake on it's head... :)

BTW, I'm sure we're all "friends of Eclipse", um, to one degree...or another. But the "deep pocketed" friends I was referring to are the seemingly endlessly patient big investors- not the owners (um, whom also seem to be very patient, but perhaps not endlessly so).

(Hmmm, doctor's waiting rooms...maybe that's why "Patients" and "Patience" sound so much alike.... :)

EclipseOwner387 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bill e. goat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BD5 Believer said...

Why is it that the Mustang has been on the covers of all the major trade magazines,and has had flight test articles written by mutliple pilot/editors over thte past few months, while Eclipse has had virtualy none?

The only recent ,non Elcipse ,pilot report I have seen was from an AOPA editor some time back.

As many a blogger has said before, not until there are real airplanes in the sky, being flown by non Ecipse employeees, will we really know what's going on with this airplane.

Reminds me of the heady days of the BD% when only one Flying Magazine editor was allowed to fly the airplane!

But then what do I know, I am still waiting for my last BD5 kit, which should arrive ( according to Vern,...oops I mean Jim) about the time Vern actually delivers an aircaft that comes close to the "promise".

PS- I hope all the Kool Aid drinkers are not being serious about the handheld GPS system being great news??

Eric said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric said...

BD5, I think you're right about the lack of AOPA or any other magazines doing any first flight reports. The EA500 was in AOPA back in 2005. I have the article sitting next to me. I read it to put things in a different light.

I'm assuming the lack of these articles is due to the Eclipse not being done yet. If Cessna took Flying Magazine an unfinished Mustang the write-up would not be favorable so we have to assume that the airplane is all done. This, I think, more than any else, tells everyone that the airplane is still in the final stages of development.

Gunner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gunner said...

"the airplane is still in the final stages of development"

And that's the whole issue. It's actually in the middle stages of RE-development, but we're expected to swallow that it's "light years ahead" based on the features and performance it doesn't yet have working or certified. Enjoy the "proposed" AFM, while they're turning out stunt models.

Goat is right: If they'd just keep their mouths shut and their heads down, delivering a Fully Functional, Fully Certified, Fully FINISHED aircraft whenever it's ready, this blog would dissolve of its own accord.

I swear, Vern could piss down the backs of some of his DieHards and they'd proclaim that the optional shower feature is now functional!

Gunner

EclipseOwner387 said...

bd5,

For those of you who didn't catch on, the handheld GPS IFR news was an April Fool's joke.

Eric said...

I caught on EO387, I thought it was hilarious and I applaud the person who put that together. It must have taken a lot of time.

Gunner, that would be an optional golden shower. ;)

Mr. Castle, what exactly is the hold-up on the Mustang deliveries? What's wrong with the G1000?

EclipseBlogger said...

Eric said... Mr. Castle, what exactly is the hold-up on the Mustang deliveries? What's wrong with the G1000?

I don't think you'll get a satisfactory reply on that question. Castle will probably say that this is the Eclipse Critics blog, and not the Mustang Critics blog. Therefore, the shortcomings of the Mustang have no place being posted here, and are not relevant to the discussion.

BD5 Believer said...

this is what I get when I miss the blog for a week - missed the whole April Fools day joke on the handheld GPS - that is priceless!!

But I am happy to see others agreeing that we still are not seeing a fully developed a/c yet!

airtaximan said...

check out the news on CharterX, refrencing the lack of comments or confirmation as to whether the Dayjet planes are certified or actually "delivered"...

Vvvveeerrryy interesting...and suspicious, too.

Gunner said...

AT-
Looks like you may not be pulling your suspicions out of thin air, as has been charged. You're right, in that CharterX is reporting as follows:

"There is speculation in media reports that not all three Eclipse 500s delivered to DayJet have received a certificate of airworthiness. DayJet is expected to make an official announcement--soon, to verify serial numbers delivered and whether all the aircraft have a C of A."

Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

The CharterX article also says that DayJet hasn't announced anything about the delivery of the planes, but that's not right. They've got a big picture of Big Ed and Vern in front of the new planes...

http://www.dayjet.com/News/Default.aspx

Interesting rumor though. If true, even I would label it "over the top."

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken-
I've got a big picture of Vern and some of his Depositors, but that doesn't mean he's "delivered" a plane into their ownership, or that they've accepted delivery of what he offered.

The article clearly states:
"As of going to press, there's no word from Delray Beach, Fla.-based DayJet that it has officially accepted all three of its Eclipse 500 very light jets.

Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

For those interested in dealing with the FACTUAL score, Vern's latest pronouncement via ANN is that the DRAFT AFM data is 'very' preliminary and has not been 'optimized'.

Hmmmm, optimized. Is that computer-speak for pencil-whipped?

DayJet has also verified, as suspected here, that the 3 'aircraft' that were 'delivered' are not legal for revenue use due to the LACK OF A 3RD ATTITUDE system,

His Vernenator also stated very clearly that the DRAFT AFM data will only be certified for the performance mods AND the Avio NfG mods, meaning none of it will be available for legal use before the Fall according to HIS schedule - which equates to sometime in '08 according to my fishy prognosticator.

I wonder why Eclipse would decline to comment on the CofA status for 2 of the 3 'delivered' DayJet aircraft???

Is the Score really Cessna 1, Eclipse – Depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is?

So it appears they projected 12 for Q1, and actually delivered 2 and then tried to scam the rest of us by 'delivering' 2 more with IOU's in a duplicitous marketing stunt.

Barnum would be proud and his belief is being borne out - apparently you CAN fool some of the people all of the time.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken, I sincerely appreciate your comment that if 2 of the 3 DayJet 'deliveries' were in fact a marketing stunt without CofA, that you would consider it 'over the top', props to you.

To add to my comments above re: the DRAFT AFM data, this means that when DayJet 'begins service' in Q2 '06, it will be with the inferior A- model, the inferior Avio NfG, apparently without FIKI unless that gets certified AND DayJet can accomodate the capability in their maintenance, flight and dispatch training.

And what about weather radar? Inquiring minds want to know.

One thing I have not noticed yet coming out of the ABQ - normally, the company presents a 'completed' aircrtaft to the customer, and the customer then reviews the fit and finish, paperwork, operational capabilities, and any known discrepancies (called squawks) are provided to the OEM who then fixes them. The customer is usually able to refuse delivery until the aircraft meets their expectation, or at least does what the contract says it WILL do.

Does anyone else find it odd that this does not seem to be occurring with Eclipse, at least, not with the same approach used by the 'dinosaur' companies?

airtaximan said...

Ken:

In today's day and age, an announcement is not merely posting a picture on a website...Its an official PR statement, widely released...

I think CharterX is accurately depicting the situation.

Vern and ed know this...they are the kings of PR... I cannot even imagine how much has been spent on PR for those 2 companies in the last few years.

Why the sheepish posture on such a monumental accomplishment? Dayjet has $50 million ... think they could spare $700 for a general Press Release? this is the launch of their commercial fleet operations after all... a big deal... if you wnat to believ that doo doo... the planes are for training, nothing else. Anyhow, mu gut says...

...somethings up, buddy...I can't say for sure - but, something is probably not right in ABQ-FLA...

lumar said...

QUESTION: Why is it that the Mustang has been on the covers of all the major trade magazines,and has had flight test articles written by mutliple pilot/editors over thte past few months, while Eclipse has had virtualy none?

ANSWER: Because the Mustang is a solid, professional build little Jet and Eclipse is a prototype of somewhat not really serios...

EclipseBlogger said...

Cabbie said... I think CharterX is accurately depicting the situation.

DayJet just came out with a press release of their own announcing their acceptance and receipt of 3 aircraft in ABQ. If you didn't see it, then you didn't subscribe to the DayJet updates. I think the rumors of the non-CoA shadowgame may be overstated. CharterX may have gotten the idea about the non-CoA aircraft from statements made here.

airtaximan said...

EB,
maybe you are right...I really do not know. I just have my doubts.

It is suspicious that no general press release was made, and there seems to be a question about "delivery" and "CofA of the planes. The stuff posted here came from Flight International - not just this blog. Mybe CharterX got it from FI...angain I don't know.

Given E-clips penchant for hype, I would imagine if planes were certified (what about the ones in the line that Dayjet did not take?) it would be very clear, no?

FI is suspicious, asked and received the "no comment" answer to the specific question.

Someone KNOWS something...
I am just curious about what is going on, and why no open disclosure and wide release?

It would be a BIG deal if these planes were not CofA... but I remind you that you can TRAIN pilots in EXPERIMENTAL aircraft... which is what Dayjet is going to do...right?

Nothing Like the Sun said...

The DayJet Press Release (on thier website) seems to only be issued by Eclipse, not jointly by Eclipse and Dayjet. It appears not be a "joint press release", because the "About" company information section at the end of the PR announcement only has Eclipse- no mention of Dayjet. Therefore, it can be inferred that the info in release only came from (content authored by) Eclipse, not joint input from both companies (except for Ed's quotes).

Who cares? Compare this to a Cessna press-release: "Cessna Flies New Williams Engine Pegged for CJ4" at

http://www.cessna.com/news/article.chtml?
ID=7BK38ElBQNVQZxZ0DVOXuxBaEl13rZcTl9iIvrxJxNy6x0IQ6q

Williams and Cessna are both summarized at the end, which is standard for two companies issuing a joint PR announcement- suggesting both companies are underwriting (committing to) the statements made in the announcement.

Either both Dayjet and Eclipse PR folks forgot this, OR perhaps Ed is NOT buying off on the fact that 3 airplanes have been "delivered". Just speculation, but hey, that isn't that what a blog is for??

EclipseBlogger said...

Cabbie said... It would be a BIG deal if these planes were not CofA... but I remind you that you can TRAIN pilots in EXPERIMENTAL aircraft... which is what Dayjet is going to do...right?

It would be a big deal, yes, if the CoA's were not issued. I have to disagree that these are issued under an "experimental" airworthiness. They should have a standard airworthiness, but could not be used for 135 ops until upgraded. Someone previously asked about radar. These aircraft will not have radar functional until Avio NG is installed. The Avidyne interface was never finished to display the radar.

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,
"In today's day and age, an announcement is not merely posting a picture on a website...Its an official PR statement, widely released..."

and Rich wrote,
"The article clearly states:
"As of going to press, there's no word from Delray Beach, Fla.-based DayJet "


Check out the DayJet website for the official announcement.

Also, I trust at least some of you got the email from DayJet, did you not? My copy says...

Dear Ken,

We want you to be among the first to know about a rare astronomical phenomenon that occurred today only at DayJet: A triple Eclipse!

DayJet took delivery of three Eclipse 500 very light jets (VLJs) during a ceremony at Eclipse Aviation headquarters in Albuquerque, NM., marking a new era in affordable, on-demand regional transportation that makes you more productive. DayJet, the world’s first commercial VLJ fleet operator, is on the runway to launch service by the end of the second quarter this year.

The following press release documents today’s milestone and the excitement surrounding DayJet’s imminent service launch.

In separate news, both DayJet and Eclipse were highlighted as “The 11 Coolest New Products on the Planet” in the April issue of Business 2.0. Read the full story here.

Of all the words you’ve used to describe regional travel, we’re guessing “cool” has never been among them. Stay tuned as we get ready to take flight."


CharterX got it wrong.

Ken

EclipseBlogger said...

Nothing like the sun said... Either both Dayjet and Eclipse PR folks forgot this, OR perhaps Ed is NOT buying off on the fact that 3 airplanes have been "delivered". Just speculation, but hey, that isn't that what a blog is for??

The release I received was emailed directly from DayJet to subscribers of their news updates. It is an announcement from them, along with the Eclipse announcement, and showing several pictures of all three aircraft.

airtaximan said...

Ken:

Do you think this statement from Dayjet/Eclipse is true?

"the world’s first commercial VLJ fleet operator"

E-clips is using the VLJs they delivered in a "commercial fleet operation", no?

- Marketing fleet...right...under leaseback...true?

HAHAH! - Joshing ya buddy -

We'll see about the CofAs and the reports you call "wrong" from Flight International and CharterX..

My sense is, there would have been a real Press Release, not some email to insiders, and they would have just said "yes" to the reporters from FI and CharterX asking if the planes received CofA- if all was well in ABQ. BUT I could be wrong - just my intuition getting the better of me. Long history and reputation of shenanigans...I remember.

BTW, I've spent hours at NBAA listening to comments from many folks exiting the E-clips plane...NONE of them said anything like "cool" after sitting in the plane.

Most of them were just scratchng their heads asking themselves or their friends questions and making comments like:
"why did they make it so small?"
"who in their right mind will fly in that thing?"
"Sh&! - I smashed my knee on the door way"
"where's the potty?"
"I thought it was a 6-place?"
"I'm glad I bought a Hondajet"
"Whew!!!"
"Vern must be a pretty small guy!"

..no "cool". Not even close.

I fear E-clips and Dayjet are going to battle the "Segway phenominon": you really can't sell anything to the public in large numbers, if you look like a complete dork using it!

Private pilots - maybe
General passenger service - forget it!

No dayjet, no business case.

flight guy said...

This just in from AIN Alerts,

"Amid speculation circulating recently to the contrary, Hispano-Suiza Canada CEO Pierre Gérard confirmed to AIN that his company is delivering Fadecs to Eclipse Aviation as planned. “I was in Albuquerque last week and our good relationship with Eclipse is going on,” he stated. The Peterborough, Ontario-based equipment manufacturer is in charge of the Eclipse 500 very light jet’s PW610F engine control."

This is a new rumor that I had not heard. Any other suppliers being looked at to receive the axe? I know of the De-icing boot supplier.

airtaximan said...

Sidebar from AIN:
"Amid speculation circulating recently to the contrary, Hispano-Suiza Canada CEO Pierre Gérard confirmed to AIN that his company is delivering Fadecs to Eclipse Aviation as planned. “I was in Albuquerque last week and our good relationship with Eclipse is going on,” he stated. The Peterborough, Ontario-based equipment manufacturer is in charge of the Eclipse 500 very light jet’s PW610F engine control."

WHEW! More good news to report!
E-clips has not lost another supplier...
CONGRATULATIONS!

gadfly said...

Stan

‘Seems that since this group has become a fraternity, of sorts, you need to begin planning a “five-year-reunion” . . . maybe late summer of 2012, right after “Oshkosh” . . . something to relate the final days as we all remembered them. Alright, make it 2013 . . . it will take a year for everyone to cool down. Is someone taking notes?

gadfly

BD5 Believer said...

As I sit here in Augusta Georgia looking at a ramp full of biz jets of all sizes supporting the "Masters" golf event, I recall a conversation I had with some guys at last years tourney.
We were speculating on how many Eclipses would be at this years event - some spoke of 10 to 20, some spoke of over 50...etc. Others said, we would see a steady stream of Dayjets in and out of Bush Field and the smaller Daniel Field all day long.

Well - I quess there is always next year to look forward to!!

gadfly said...

A tale of history, which may be printed in the future:

Back in the late nineties, a man of great credentials and with almost unlimited finances proceeded to prove his ideas of aircraft design. The century turned, and he proceeded forward . . . money was no option. His only problem was to “prove” his theories, spending money like there was no tomorrow . . . and he failed. Others, using their own money and resources, proceeded with their own ideas, and achieved success.

Did I mention that it was the late 1890's and the early 1900's? The “Aerodrome” drowned in the Hudson River (but the pilot survived). The “Flyer” achieved success at Kitty Hawk, and went on to fame.

We owe much to Wilbur and Orville, and remember Samuel Pierpont Langley as an “also ran”. A century later . . . same song, second verse, could be better, but it seems to be getting worse!

gadfly

(For those who think the gadfly too verbose, I wouldn’t want you to be proved wrong.)

Niner Zulu said...

Gadfly, if you are comparing Langley to Vern, what an insult to Langley!

Langley's heart was in the right place - he just ran out of grant money and youth before his dream of flight could be realized. I'm sure he was thrilled to see his contemporaries Wilbur & Orville succeed where he had failed.

We would be very fortunate to have someone like Langley behind Eclipse. I'm just glad I don't have any money at risk with Vern at the helm. If I were a deposit holder right now, I'd be really pissed off.

gadfly said...

Niner

Although I cannot look into the heart of Dr. Langley, neither can I look into the heart and motives of the “Vernmeister” . . . nor is it my place. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that although he had/has the best of intentions, he is in way over his head in a technology that he neither understands nor fully appreciates . . . the problems and battles that have been “hard won” by the very lives of literally thousands of others who have gone before.

At present, I am reading an old book . . . something about “Sourdough Skies” . . . the bush pilots (1920's to through the 1940's) that opened the great territory that would become our 49th state, “Alaska”. The great and mighty king of Eclipse may yet come to understand the hard-won battle that has brought us thus far . . . time will tell. At every turn, each and every participant in the history of aviation “MUST” come to realize the inadequacies of man to understand the medium in which God has allowed man to come to grips with himself.

Am I preaching? . . . Yes, I am. Whether or not we acknowledge it or not, most of us have come to an appreciation of the fragile envelope of life in which we live, breath, . . . and fly. When we treat it as just another challenge to technology, we enter the fraternity of fools.

But back to Langley . . . he was a brilliant man, but underestimated the problems. At least he made the effort to go forward . . . and he lost his “pride” . . . something worth losing. Others, such as Otto Lilienthal, lost their very lives. I’m hard put to know which is worse.

Enough for today’s sermon.

gadfly

airtaximan said...

BD5er:

Yup, I overheard Tiger Woods boasting about how "cool" it was going to be to trade in his Gulfstream for the E-500. He was contemplating buying 2 more, one for his clubs, and one for his wife.

He seemed to understand payload- range limitations.

HOW COOL IS THAT!!
;)

Frank Castle said...

Mr. William Emeritus Goat....

No guess ?

Enema High = NMMI = New Mexico Military Institute.

gadfly said...

Castle and Goat . . . get serious!

UNM = "University of Nothing Much" . . . that from the head of Neurosurgery, with whom I worked on our inventions for the Vascular Clip System (VCS). And the Snack Bar was called the "Burn and Trauma Unit".

gadfly

BD5 Believer said...

Airtaximan,

you make me laugh...I have not laughed this hard in a week!!

Of Course now that Tiger has a "cub" on the way, maybe he can by another "Eclipse" for the new baby this summer.

I think it is important that this blog continue to have a sense of humor along with the serious debate.

I know I benefit from both.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

In fairness to Eclipse and DayJet, I can think of at least one possibility for the confusion around the CofA issues for the DayJet aircraft - it could be that one or more of the DayJet aircraft will be used to earn certification of the 3rd attitude installation - that would require an R&D pink slip instead of the Normal or Utility slip.

If the plan was to use one or more for that purpose, they could have chosen to wait for the R&D pink slips and use the planes for development of the Part 135 STC. Not sure why they would not just come out and say that, other than it looks kind of silly to be using customer aircraft to develop an STC when you are an OEM.

It happens during the development of STC and Amended TC programs that Normal and\or Utility certificated aircraft are temporarily placed on Experimental R&D certifications, to perform basic company flight test, then to apply for Type Inspection Authorization to prove to the FAA that the plane is conforming to design and can be flown by the FAA to certify the change(s).

Not sure if this is what is going on, if anything is going on, but it would be one possible explanation.

Again, a simple answer to the question about CofA would have prevented any confusion, but that apparently is not the style in the 505.

airtaximan said...

BD5er,

I can't agree more.

At least Tiger can now afford many, many, many planes! Hey, he can almost justify a small commercial fleet for the price of one Gulfstream!

Tigair - now competing with Dayjet - I LOVE it!

airtaximan said...

coldfish:

Now THAT's what I love about this blog. No one should ever accuse you of being too one-sided. You are even trying to go soft on Dayjet/Eclipse for the lack of transparency and inevitable speculation regarding the CofA on the 2 planes in question.

For my money, I bet the FAA rejected all the planes (including the one's in line that Dayjet did not take and were not delivered to anyone) and Dayjet just took theirs as a stunt.

You CAN train with EXPERIMENTAL planes - and since they cannot fly passengers in them anyways, WHO CARES if these are not passed by the FAA, really? They are for training.

Of course, the "commercial pilots" training in these e-experimental planes will be more like "test pilots" - -but I'm sure no one's counting.

Hey, all you die-hards and E-clipse fans - I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON OVER THERE - I am speculating on why there was "no comment" regarding the specific question "are all three planes dayjet took certified by the FAA" THE ANSWER WAS REPORTED BY Flight International and CharterX as "no comment" from both E-clips and Dayjet.

Also, where are the other planes in the line?
Delivered: NO.
Certified: NOT DISCLOSED AS SUCH - I think NOT.

I think this is very telling. alot of hype yet no specific PR on the exact condition of the planes, and E-clips has not certified and delivered but 2 or 3 planes. They should come clean..."no comment" means something, but does not mean a clear message that the planes were certified - especially since some in the line have not been delivered.

But I'm sure Tiger aWoods is happy taking his fleet order soon - no inspection required!

EclipseBlogger said...

Cabbie said... For my money, I bet the FAA rejected all the planes (including the one's in line that Dayjet did not take and were not delivered to anyone) and Dayjet just took theirs as a stunt.

Did I miss something? What does "including the one's in line that DayJet did not take" mean?

Also, I see Frank Castle checked in but didn't answer the Mustang delay and problem question - as predicted.

For anyone interested, here is the current list of S/N's and N numbers:

Reg . . S/N
508JA...1
126DJ...2 - DayJet
816KD...3
229BW...4
504RS...5
109DJ...6 - DayJet
110DJ...7 - DayJet
941NC...8
513EA...9
500VK...10
777VE...11
651FC...12
317BH...13
705PT...14
515MP...15
15ND ...16
17AE ...17
875NA...18
519EJ...19
115DJ...20 - DayJet
116DJ...21 - DayJet
119DJ...22 - DayJet
130DJ...23 - DayJet
561EA...24
546BW...25
612KB...26
502LT...27
963JG...28
55BX ...29
768JF...30
531EA...31
80TF ...32
131DJ...33 - DayJet
132DJ...34 - DayJet
134DJ...35 - DayJet
135DJ...36 - DayJet
136DJ...37 - DayJet
858GS...39
444RL...40
541LB...41
168TT...42
62RC ...43
489JC...44
6100...46
570RG...48
549AF...49
456MF...50
502ET...52
139DJ...54 - DayJet
141DJ...55 - DayJet
370P ...66
457TB...88
44EJ ...89
2486B...90

cherokee driver said...

EB

This is from CharterX

Cessna to Deliver More Mustangs by Mid-April
20-Mar-2007
By Karen Di Piazza

On March 5, CharterX reported that Wichita, Kan.-based Cessna Aircraft Company had identified a software glitch in the Garmin G1000 software on its Citation Mustang. Garmin believes the "glitch" is fixed.
Doug Oliver, director of corporate communications at Cessna, told CharterX on March 20, that the Garmin G1000 software load is being installed now. "Flight tests should commence shortly," he said. "If the Citation Mustang's flight testing goes OK, we plan to resume aircraft deliveries by mid-April. This is not a serious issue, just a software anomaly."

Oliver was not at liberty to comment on exactly what the Garmin G1000 abnormality was or what caused it. At this point, there's no reason for alarm that Cessna won't deliver 40 Mustangs by the end of this year.

Nothing Like the Sun said...

I'm not sure why the 3rd attitude indicator/AHRS is such a bog-down on the Dayjet issue- could'nt they just install some $2K indicators easily available from Sportys:

http://www.sportys.com/acb/
showdetl.cfm?&Product_ID=7439&DID=19

They probably function exactly the same as the 3rd/backup electrical AI that is installed in my 2006 turbo-prop, which is on a 135 cert. That AI cost about $20K!

Is E-clips / Dayjet taking a hard-road at an easy fix? Sure, it might not be as sexy as their all glass solution, but I would think getting the planes flying, with passengers, would be a priority right now...

airtaximan said...

EB,
from your "current" list:
Reg . . S/N
508JA...1
126DJ...2 - DayJet
816KD...3
229BW...4
504RS...5
109DJ...6 - DayJet
110DJ...7 - DayJet

S/N 1 went to Crowe and Sandana
S/N 2 went to Dayjet
S/N 3 went to the "unknown buyer"
S/N 4
S/N 5
S/N 6 went to Dayjet
S/N 7 went to Dayjet

The question arises, what happend to S/n 4 and S/N 5? Why no deliveries?

The Flight INternational and CharterX reports seem to signify that other than the first 3 S/Ns, no one knows IF any other planes were passed by the FAA. So the question arises:
If Dayjets S/N 6 and 7 were cofa, what happend to the ones no one took - S/N 4 and 5?

Were they cofa or not? Delivered or not?

Then, were Dayjet's last 2 planes Cofa or not.

Capiche?

airtaximan said...

EB,

Call me AirJordanMan from now on, instead of Cabbie, OK?

I haven't called you eclipseBlower in a long time!

;)

EclipseOwner387 said...

AirJordan,

My understanding is that Eclipse will only present a plane to the FAA after it passes ECLIPSE internal inspections. If any sqwaks are found then Eclipse is addressing it which takes time to fix/test and reinspect. This would and has caused some SN numbers to be delivered out of order.

Vmc said...

Does anyone know if the B model is utilizing the original speed brake design from the N500EA design era? I had an opportunity to take a closer look at N500EA many moons ago and was surprised to find a clamshell style speedbrake encompassing the tail cone region. I was led to believe that this design was being laid to rest for two reasons; 1) not very effective from a aero standpoint, not to mention the additional gaps it created due to "test" style manufacture/install; 2) the idea of deploying the gear half-way would serve as a more effective aero speed brake. Anyone know the outcome here?

Vmc

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Careful there AirJordanMan, calling me fair and balanced - I have a reputation to uphold. ;^)

Just figured I would put up one possible explanation.

As I said a month ago, if I were Ed I would have my own engineering team drawing up the quick and dirty STC so that I was not reliant on the overburdened team at Eclipse.

Although adding an independent 3rd attitude display, especially an off-the-shelf electro-mechanical one such as has been suggested, is not a HUGE deal, it IS also not easy. Someone has come up with a basic concept, develop a project plan, a certification plan, get FAA approval for the cert plan, develop a test plan, design the mechanical installation, electrical power including circuit breakers, mounting scheme, etc., as well actually having a location for the indicator that meets first the Part 23 requirement for visibility, then the company test pilots requirement for visibility, then the FAA test pilot requirement for visibility.

The STC developer has to get authorization for the testing of the modification, then fly the mod with the FAA.

Then there have to be instructions for continued airworthiness, an AFM supplement. The certification report has to be developed and submitted and approved by the FAA. Conformity paperwork is submitted, safety and reliability information is presented.

Once all that is done, the FAA reviews the application for a supplemental or amended type certificate, and if satisfied, then they issue the certification.

Point being that even simple things get very complicated when the Feds are involved.

Yes Virginia, designing, certifying and building airplanes is hard.

Bambazonke said...

OK as promised I would scrutinize the Chapter 5 numbers and the claims of the eclipse faithful continue to try and support a dead cause.

Here are some of the anomalies;

On the LRC chart for ISA + 10c at FL-400 the TAS mysteriously jumps 8.5% and the fuel burn also increases for some reason after a steady decline. There is no other plane that I have been associated that has demonstrated this wonderful anomaly of a sudden increase in speed at the max altitude. It may be that the beginning and end numbers for the speed and fuel are correct, and the person that was tasked with filling in the blanks didn’t do a good job of trying to make this trend look correct.

Then there are numbers that look suspect like the LRC at ISA +10c @ FL-400 of 329 TAS and 410 lbs of fuel flow, and this somehow equates to the MCT at ISA +10c FL-350… too much of a coincidence. It is strange that one can see the same speeds at higher altitudes using LRC as opposed to MCT at lower altitudes, truly a marvel and shift in engineering paradigms... Just doesn’t measure up to real world numbers. Has anyone out there that reads this blog seen a plane in the upper flight levels, have the same performance 5000 feet higher at LRC, than what you can achieve 5000 feet lower at MCT? It is not credible that the fuel flow at FL-350 MCT is the same as the fuel flow 5000 feet higher at LRC.

Then look at the same charts ISA +10c LRC and MCT numbers for 5500 lbs, the numbers are identical for both power settings at FL-400 and FL-410. Same applies on the same charts to the numbers at 5000 lbs at FL-410 LRC and MCT numbers are the same.

These do not make any sense, it is like the photo of the working NfG Avionics that turned out to be a photo(shop) version of the working avionics, remember they had the fuel panel in the wrong place, oops. This is the same, these numbers are fudged and the books have been cooked, there are far too many anomalies for these numbers to have come from the sample flight data. It is for this reason that the FAA will scrutinize the AFM the same way they have scrutinized the plane, there are too many quick fixes and BS numbers for any self respecting FAA inspector to just buy into this data.

Ken, I re entered the numbers in Jeppesen FliteStar Corporate version, and plugged in the flight you ran from KSAN to KDAL, 1024 miles GPS Direct. The fuel required for the flight was 1216 lbs, this left 394 lbs for the 100 mile alternate, loiter and approach. This means that the gtee of 1135 miles has not been met as this is 8% short of the target.

In fact if you fly from KSAN to KGGG GPS direct this is 1135 miles at MCT the fuel required is 1333 lbs, fuel remaining is 277 lbs, which is barely adequate for the hold time, let alone the 100 mile diversion and the 2 approaches.

So in summary, the data supplied is suspect like so much else out of the KAF, it does not stand scrutiny, not that I am the authority on this , but as CWMOR said, until the FAA blesses the data we don’t have anything to work with, and I know for a fact, this kind of nebulous, inconsistent data will not pass muster.

SO deliveries of non C of A aircraft to Daydream Jet, bad data, no aircraft in retail hands, hype all over the tame press like AvWeb, but all in all SOSDD.

Ken Meyer said...

Bambi,

There are a lot of mistakes in your message; I haven't got the time to go through them all, but this one caught my eye:

"I re entered the numbers in Jeppesen FliteStar Corporate version, and plugged in the flight you ran from KSAN to KDAL, 1024 miles GPS Direct. The fuel required for the flight was 1216 lbs, this left 394 lbs for the 100 mile alternate, loiter and approach. This means that the gtee of 1135 miles has not been met as this is 8% short of the target."

That's the new math, right? 1216 + 394 = 1686?? :)

The plane holds 1686 lbs of fuel, so your calculation needs to take that into account. The 1125 nm range checks out, trust me; I've checked it a dozen times (add in the missing fuel and even your calculation shows an NBAA range over 1100 nm, despite the fact that you're a little off on it).

Matt Brown explained the anomalies you discovered on the +10C chart. You can read it about it at the owner's website. The short version is that there are some datapoints for "fictional conditions" (you cannot have an Eclipse at gross weight at FL400 or 410 ever for instance). They are there to provide proper interpolation for other datapoints and in some cases reflect inverse trending.

Ken

Bambazonke said...

Ken,

I have searched the website but don't see anywhere where KKA is now claiming that the plane does not need any taxi fuel. Do you not take into account the taxi fuel? If you don't your calculations of fuel required for the FLIGHT will not match. I am not going to argue this backwards and forwards with you but the data speaks for itself. This data, as poor a value as it is, does not demonstrate this range.

So the numbers are virtual numbers? The explanation is not satisfactory, for instance quote " (you cannot have an Eclipse at gross weight at FL400 or 410 ever for instance) If you read my post, there are also numbers being questioned at 5500 lbs and 5000 lbs, how do you explain these? They are not at gross weight, and I would expect the plane to be at FL-400 at 5000 lbs. The response of fictional conditions is about right..

bill e. goat said...

Frank,
thanks for the info on NMMI. I was idly wondering if all that hubris about Roswell aliens was going on back when you were around there. I decided to look up “hubris” (I don't think it was quite the word I was looking for, but such are many delicious serendipitous discoveries):

Widipedia:
"Hubris, according to its modern usage, is exaggerated self pride or self-confidence (overbearing pride), often resulting in fatal retribution. In Ancient Greek hubris referred to actions taken in order to shame the victim, thereby making oneself seem superior.

"In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of knowledge, interest in, and exploration of history, combined with a lack of humility.

Goat: Now, that doesn't describe any particular CEO we've read about, does it? :)

Also, a little Roswell research dug up a couple of interesting books:

"Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe"
(This was only rated 3 stars (out of five) on Amazon.com. The reviews were pretty polarized for and against (1's or 5's). Hmmmm, this sounds a little, familiar? :)))

By comparison,
“An Introduction to Planetary Defense: A Study of Modern Warfare Applied to Extra-terrestrial Invasion”
scored 4 stars. (the author is from Alabama....not that that says anything about our friends from Alabama :). It also significantly outsold the other book. Guess it's a little more interesting to sell fiction. Hey! What's that got to do with what we are talking about here? :)

bill e. goat said...

Gadfly,
Thanks for the joke about the UNM snack bar- I was pretty shocked, until I caught on! :)

Gunner,
Per magazine reports, Vern may be sporting around in a new Mustang/Shelby/GT500 (I think it seats 4 about like the Eclipse seats 6 :), but I think he would cut a rather dashing figure, were he to arrive to breathless fans and hop our of a Moller!

(Vern driving something called...a Mustang? Hmmmm, I wonder if the Cessna CEO drives a Mitsubishi Eclipse??? :)

bill e. goat said...

Ken,
You're being modest! (Vern would be ashamed!!! :).

Business 2.0 says: “The Eclipse 500: The worlds coolest new product”.

I must say, the same article mentions (this is just too good to be true- truth is stranger than fiction!!!, although, in Eclipse's case...don't know where that leads really- will need a few beers -or KoolAids- before I think I know -for a while-where it leads...).
Anyway, no fool'n (I could swear this was really issued April 1 instead of today):

“Getting Electricity Out Of The Air...”

“Rub-and-Sniff Newspaper...”

“BMW's Hydrogen 7: Future or Flop?...”

And the ever popular: “Flying/Blended/Wing-Ding” MD-xx / Boeing-yyy / Nasa-X-48B (at 21ft wingspan, 120 kts, 10K ft- watch out, E-500!!!)

And also some articles more directly related to our favorite airplane company & CEO :)

“A startup's best friend? Failure”

“Design that captures the buzz” (that funky E-500!)

“How to sell with smell” (those PR guys can sure spin!)

“Cashing in on March Madness” (what was that, 5 airplanes “delivered” in 2007Q1 ???)

“A room with a point of view” (our blog?)

“Time to play, money to spend” (are they talking about Vern?)

“Setting Sail: A tech IPO Armada” (well, maybe the U.S.S. Minnow, in this case, so far anyway)

“101 Dumbest Moments in Business” (I thought they had only delivered a few airplanes :)

“The trouble with gee-whiz gadgets” (?Avio???)

“Field Test: Ultramobile PC's” (Guess it really is talking about Avio...)

“We All Scream for Touch Screens” (?We All Scream at Blank Screens?)

“The Next Disruptors” (egad, what will Eclipse come up with next !?!?!)

“In defense of bosses from hell” (well, at least they do have free sodas...)

“Turning employees into corporate spies” (watch out you unsuspecting Cessna-ites that have been welcoming Eclipsers back from N.M.!!!- it's all part of Vern's devilish cleverness!!!).

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403369/index.htm?postversion=2007032807

Gunner said...

A Model
B Model
Interim Model
Preliminary AFM
We'll be retrofitting the first 30 or 100 planes

This is simply nuts. We have a company, NOT a computer company but an AIRCRAFT company, "delivering" planes that will have the following systems changes, if and when they are developed, tested and FAA Certified:

- Tip tanks and structural changes
- An entire avionics hardware and software suite
- Changes to wing spar attachments
- Fixes to window cracks
- Part 135 Mods
- FIKI
- Possible fixes to brakes and tires

Guys, this is NOT a Windoze Service Pack Release, even though the marketing strategy treats it as such. This is a MAJOR redesign and recert by FAA standards. This is an AIRCRAFT, by golly! One that intends to immediately go into high use service in commercial air travel.

Just how many curves can Vern throw the Depositors before you tell him to Sit Down, Shut the %$#@ Up, Design the Aircraft, Get It Certified and Get Back To You When It's DONE?!!!!!!

Gunner

EclipseBlogger said...

TaxiGuy said... The question arises, what happend to S/n 4 and S/N 5? Why no deliveries?

Could be any number of reasons: Priority may have been given to DayJet, paperwork issues, non-conformity/manufacturing issues, operational squawks, etc. Any, all, or none of the above. I don't think it was because the customer asked for the delay, if that's what you are thinking.

TaxiGuy said... Then, were Dayjet's last 2 planes Cofa or not.

I have no reason to believe that they did not receive proper papers, but nothing would surprise me.

airtaximan said...

EB,
I still like AirJordanMan better!

I'm not suggesting an answer, I'm just curious about why the other delivery positions were not delivered. especially in light of the two reports that Eclipse and Dayjet said "no comment" in response to the direct question about whether the last 2 planes Dayjet took received CofA.

Anyhow...there could be many reasons, as you point out.

I do not think the customers just refused the planes for no reason. Would you agree?

Gunner said...

Another possibility:
Many of us would not be interested in an aircraft that we could not use; one that was being produced only for leaseback to the manufacturer.

It's quite possible those Depositors requested to be pushed back in line, pending getting an aircraft that functioned practically and wouldn't require being torn all to hell at a later date to install the "upgrades". Could be they asked to be pushed back because the aircraft being moved off the line just now don't meet the performance guarantees.

I know I wouldn't be interested in "taking delivery" of an aircraft that is little more than a certified proto at this stage in the game.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

bambi wrote,
" have searched the website but don't see anywhere where KKA is now claiming that the plane does not need any taxi fuel. Do you not take into account the taxi fuel? "


Yes, you have to use startup fuel in the calculations. I use 40 pounds. I'm not the only one who has verified the numbers; others have done it using other platforms to do the calculations. Maybe you entered something wrong?

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,
"It's quite possible those Depositors requested to be pushed back in line, pending getting an aircraft that functioned practically and wouldn't require being torn all to hell at a later date to install the "upgrades". "


I think you're wrong. I know the owner of one of those planes. He's anxious to get it; hopes it will be any day now so he can start his training in it.

Ken

EclipseBlogger said...

Airtaximan said... I still like AirJordanMan better!

You'll have to earn the respect that goes along with that name.

airtaximan said...

EO:

You said:

"AirJordan (I appreciate this very much, instead of Cabbie!)

"My understanding is that Eclipse will only present a plane to the FAA after it passes ECLIPSE internal inspections.".... This would and has caused some SN numbers to be delivered out of order."

Did they tell you this, along with the FACT that all the deliverd planes are CofA?

What issues exist with the planes that have not been delivered in line?

BTW, this "excuse" for the first few planes that have been sitting around for months and months according to E-clips, is competely rediculous. Of course the planes are inspected and "fixed" by E-clips INTERNALLY prior to presenting them to the FAA.

I can't imagine what quality/cert issues exist with the 2 planes in the line that they could not have been taken care of... this is two planes? I thought there were 30 or more sitting there for months now? I thought there are more than 1,000 employees at E-clips? This seemslike it could be some pretty serious POOR QUALITY, no? It makes no sense, really.

I think this is a poor argument, and an open door for depositors to get screwed again and again on their delivery position. I admit, with what's been going on, I'd pay a premium to wait, if I thought a later plane would even be deliverd at all...but anyway, I'm curious:

Do you buy the excuse for the two planes not being delivered in series? Do yu think the delivered planes were all CofA before delivery?

Why "no comment"?

airtaximan said...

EB,

I admit, I am no Jordan! But I'm trying hard to earn the respect. Your buddy gave me the name, so... perhaps I'm gaining in that regard? ;)

airtaximan said...

Gunner,

No one knows what's really going on..this reminds me of the AOPA-no-show.
- someone notices an issue
- A lot of speculation here
- no comment out of ABQ
- Ken somehow says he knows the real story and we're all wrong

I can't understand how come Ken knows all the buyers? He knew the "unknown buyer" and now he know the guy-whose-plane-is-too- screwed-up-to-certify-and-deliver? MAN, this is an impressive network of e-clips buyers he's friends with. I wonder if they've all worked together in another industry outside aerospace before!
;)

I sincerely do not think the buyers are trying to wait until later, although it is a completely reasonable thought process. Especially if Eo is right. E-clips has rejected the plane based on their own internal review, as not suitable for presenting to the authority - this after months and months of sitting around with 30 other planes.

I'm glad Ed had the stroke of amazing luck that HIS planes were OK to be certified, out of production and delivery order...remarkable coincidence, I must say.

I guess if you've held on this long, you'll believe anything, right? Especially if the other buyers are all your friends.

Ken Meyer said...

at wrote,
"I can't understand how come Ken knows all the buyers? He knew the 'unknown buyer'"

You've misquoted me. I do not know the buyer of S/N 3.

Ken

airtaximan said...

Ken:

didn;t you say you knew him, he was a wealthy guy who was adding the plane to his current aircraft, and did not want to be identified?

I meant no harm, I just thought you told us this?

Sorry - I'll print a retraction.

To be clear: I could have been wrong regarding Ken knowing the buyer of A/C 3 - he really just knows all about him, despite his wish to remain unknown to the rest of us.

You work for the CIA, FBI...worried about something?

AeroObserver said...

Sorry to get a bit off topic, but I thought I'd set the record straight on Langley. He actually had the right design and SHOULD have beat out the Wright Bros. However, it was Langley's adherence to his launching method -- catapulting the Aerodrome A from a houseboat -- that caused the problem. The engine (which in itself was light years ahead of Charles Taylor's engine) couldn't sustain the airplane's speed after being catapulted, causing the Aerodrome A to stall and drop into the Potomac River. On June 2, 1914 -- eight years after Langley died -- Glenn Curtiss put floats on the Aerodrome A and successfully flew it, proving that the airplane should have been the first to achieve manned, powered flight.

I'm sure there's a lesson in here somewhere for Eclipse...

Green-or-Red said...

Stan posted "from the King" a few topics ago....

Weight... Previous....... Final

Ramp...... 5,950.......... 6,029

Max T.O... 5,920.......... 5,995

The difference between Max Ramp and Max TO should be the fuel burned during taxi ~ 34#

Plastic_Planes said...

ATM said...
I can't imagine what quality/cert issues exist with the 2 planes in the line that they could not have been taken care of... this is two planes? I thought there were 30 or more sitting there for months now?

Just a guess (as I no longer rumble the halls of SP2), but I imagine there are still some paperwork issues with a few of the early birds. DJ probably got some early priority fixing them up.

I venture to guess there were not 30 "completed" planes sitting around waiting for delivery. I am sure many of these AC were partially completed with "travelled work". There were times when AC were moved without high dollar items or items that were subject to engineering rev bumps. I also know that early on that there were also issues with certain options not being approved, so they were either delayed or built without (for later incorporation). It's really a standard practice in this industry.

The most likely issue with early AC was probably the paperwork, though. There were lots of frustrating days and nights trying to get all the SAP and MES systems up and running correctly (yes, a software problem for the ex-software guy), and that resulted in a lot (really, a lot) of paper routers to clear and close. David Crowe's AC had literally a 3', x 1½' x 4' cage to hold all the paperwork for his AC.

All told, I believe the SAP issues are behind them and they are just trying to clean up some early issues.

/s/

airtaximan said...

PP, good to know.

No way 2 Dayjet planes are not CofA? Thoughts?

Frank Castle said...

eclipseblogger said.....

"Also, I see Frank Castle checked in but didn't answer the Mustang delay and problem question - as predicted."

No, sir. I don't think you have that ~quite~ right. True, I did not answer the question, I ignored it, knowing full well it would be in some news release somewhere, just not up in lights like Vern's announcements.

Here is your prediction....


"I don't think you'll get a satisfactory reply on that question. Castle will probably say that this is the Eclipse Critics blog, and not the Mustang Critics blog. Therefore, the shortcomings of the Mustang have no place being posted here, and are not relevant to the discussion."

I believe you stand corrected.

EclipseBlogger said...

Cherokee Drive said... On March 5, CharterX reported that Wichita, Kan.-based Cessna Aircraft Company had identified a software glitch in the Garmin G1000 software on its Citation Mustang. Garmin believes the "glitch" is fixed.

Gee, I thought the opinion around here was that it's not fixed until the FAA says it's fixed. (Just kidding, I know better).

OK Uncle Frankie, how about some details about what the "glitch" was/is. Why don't other users of the G1000 have the same "glitch"?

bill e. goat said...

Frank,
Does Cessna have a "glitch in it's getalong" ???

(Can't we all just getalong? :)

EclipseBlogger said...

Goat, bedtime.