Saturday, May 05, 2007

The Mustang vs. the Eclipse 500

Cessna put out a slick comparison between the Mustang and the Eclipse.

A copy of the piece can be viewed over at:

www.eclipsecritic.net

There is a big difference in the airplanes...a big difference in the prices.

But another measure is the difference in what a buyer pays for the airplane minus what he can get out of it when it is time to sell.

Cessna airplanes hold their values pretty darn good. Due to inflation, there are probably many examples of Citations being re-sold on the used market for prices higher than their original price tag.

Certainly the early Eclipse buyers hope to mitigate that situation somewhat with their low buy-in cost. But if the company goes belly-up, these airplanes are going to be very difficult to support and virtually worthless.

One last thing I would like to add, Eclipse sees the 500 as a good adjunct for corporate flight operations...the perfect little scooter for short flights, single pilot operation, transporting lower echelon personnel. Don't agree!

If the Director of Corporate Flight Operations has a stable of $5m plus corporate jets, he is not going to try to save the company a half-million on anything marginal. He keeps his job by sticking with risk-free recommendations. You can't put either the Eclipse airplane or the Eclipse company in that category.

The Mustang is a safer bet.

308 comments:

1 – 200 of 308   Newer›   Newest»
Ken Meyer said...

Interesting stuff, Stan. Thanks for posting it. It will help!

I wonder why Cessna feels the need to compare its product directly with Eclipse. They've said all along their plane is is not a VLJ. Now, they're wanting to compare it to one! I think they've realized whether they like it or not, that Eclipse really does compete with Mustang, which is pretty impressive when you look at the $1.3 million price differential.

Ken

Stan Blankenship said...

Ken,

Had the same thought. Cessna doesn't even call the Mustang a VLJ, it is an 'Entry Level Jet'.

airtaximan said...

I wonder if E-cllips will call the e500 an "entry level jet" when the price becomes north of $2.5 million?

EclipseBlogger said...

I always come here for a good laugh. You guys crack me up.

Black Tulip said...

How many assume the Eclipse will live up to the specifications used by the Cessna technical writer to develop the brochure? I believe the performance gap between the two aircraft will widen.

Also Cessna is polite but to the point about the implications of using 'disruptive technology' - the Avio NG. Gear won't come down; hit control-alt-delete.

The tortoise is gaining on the hare.

Black Tulip

airtaximan said...

EB,

We ARE pretty funny..sometimes even funnier with the personal swipes..

Anyhow, its good news for e-clips that Cessna takes them seriously enough to put out info like they are doing.

I believe it's designed to relieve some "misinformation".. just my own little belief.

I forget, so you have a e-500 delivery position?

What do you make of the order book revelation that Dayjet has 1400 of the orders?

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"Anyhow, its good news for e-clips that Cessna takes them seriously enough to put out info like they are doing."

They're not just "taking them seriously." They appear to be downright scared of them. Why is that??

Ken

Tom Mosher said...

Cessna scared of Eclipse? That's a joke.

Cessna's backlog just for the CJ4 is $1 billion...that's more than what Eclipse could bill if they sold 500 planes a year.

Cessna's total backlog is $8.4 billion.

Metal Guy said...

Yes, Cessna comparing their aircraft to the Eclipse is a sure sign they are downright scared of them. Of course, Eclipse has been doing direct comparisons to the Cessna for years. Eclipse must be downright scared of Cessna. Good logic.

flyforfun said...

As someone who looked at the Mustang before I ordered a Phenom 100 I can tell you that they are using the Mustang as carrot for moving their customers up to one of their planes in the CJ line. Some can't make the jump and end up with the Mustang but many move on past it. Resale is something they talk about over and over. I have a friend who had a new Bravo and bought a new CJ3 and got more for his Bravo than he paid new and flipped into the CJ3 with very little extra. Scared, I think not. Selling and delivering a lot of jets of all kinds yes.

WhyTech said...

The preoccupation with initial purchase price demonstrated by some on this blog is misguided IMHO. There is soooo much more to aircraft ownership than initial purchase price, some of which is economics of ownership, and some of which is less tangible ( the ownership "experience.") To me the Mustang is a far greater "bargain" at $1mm more than E-clips because:
1. proven staying power of Cessna, with a very long track record of quality products
2. a parts & service support infrastructure that E-clips will not have for may years to come if ever
3. conservative design points that result in an acft that one can live with with minimal hassle, even if this means foregoing some why tech features.
4. training at Flight Safety, a respected and well proven resource
5. likely resale value
6. Etc, etc.

Even the Phenom and Grob SPn, both interesting new designs in the "owner flown jet" category, cant compete with Cessna yet on many of these points.

You pay your money and take your choice - to me the Mustang is a great value. Pushing this a bit farther, I purchased PC-12 which I believe is an even greater value at $1mm more than the Mustang for many of the same reasons, but also for cabin room, range, flexibility, etc. It flys lower and slower than either the Eclipse or Mustang, but I have found that except for bragging rights, this makes little difference in the utility of the airplane.

WT

airtaximan said...

Leave it to Ken to come up with a point of view that spurs so much discussion.

It is amazing that anyone could think Cessna is SCARED of e-clips.

If they were, they would drop the price of the Mustang for a two month special offer, and watch e-clips go TU... hey, they could even justify it by removing half the standard Mustang interior (no potty, remove a seat and offer it an an option, no refreshment center or cabinets) and make some of the Mustang standard avionics functionality "an option"...leave MTOW and claim better payload-range... the "introductory price" could be $1.8 million (so what if they lose $500k per plane, right? That's VErn's scary plan). Finally, they could call this Mustang a VLJ!

I can see it now: Cessna Mustang-NG

Now that's funny!

Gunner said...

whytech is quite right as to the fact that purchase price is only one part of the cost of ownership. Focus for a minute on the other major component of the acquisition cost: JetComplete.

Eclipse has bundled JetComplete into the purchase cost of the aircraft; yet, to this day, I'm of the impression that they have yet to PRICE the program; nor is there any price guarantee for Depositors. If someone could confirm this, with backup info, I'd appreciate it.

IF there is no price guarantee on JetComplete, look for it to be pretty darned expensive; that's one way to get the $1.6mill price up a few hundred grand over the course of the first few years.

Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

Whytech wrote,

"The preoccupation with initial purchase price demonstrated by some on this blog is misguided IMHO."

Well, many of us like to pay cash dollars for things we buy, and that certainly is a little easier when the item costs $1.3 million less :)

But then there are those who don't pay cash for things. If you have to pay interest on the extra $1.3 million and fly 150 hours, it will cost you something in the ballpart of $600 per hour just in debt service.

And many of us like to insure our airplanes. At a typical price of 2% of hull value, the $1.3 million difference comes out an extra $173 for every hour of flight (assuming 150 hours annual flight time).

Between insurance and cost of money, you could easily run up over $750 per hour more to enjoy owning the Mustang. And it burns 45% more fuel (about 30 gph more, typically). At $4.50/gal, there's another $135/hour. Now you're pushing $900 more per hour for the Mustang. Nice plane, but the big question is whether it is worth that much more every single hour you fly.

Ken

WhyTech said...

Ken said: "Nice plane, but the big question is whether it is worth that much more every single hour you fly."

Ken,

"If you have to ask the price ....."

My point is that the whole story is not in the initial purchase price. What is your time worth? How much shlepping to ABQ for aero mods, NG retrofits, etc, etc is too much? One needs to take a lifecycle approach to ownership economics and other issues to make a reasonable comparison, and some of the issues cannot be entirely evaluated in terms of dollars. In purcahsing an airplane, I am looking for a traveling machine, not a lifestyle.

WT

Black Tulip said...

There was once a man named Phipps.
Who put a deposit on an Eclipse.
The rumors started to flow.
And the price seemed way too low.
So Phipps cashed in his chips.
(And now reads Vern's lips.)

Black Tulip

Ken Meyer said...

Whytech wrote,

"My point is that the whole story is not in the initial purchase price. What is your time worth? How much shlepping to ABQ for aero mods, NG retrofits, etc, etc is too much?"

That's a bit of a foul ball.

Aero mods are going in on S/N 39 and above.

Avio NG is projected for S/N 100 and above.

Most of the owners of planes delivered this year will not need to "schlep" to Albuquerque for either of those.

You brought up another point worth elaborating on:

"parts & service support infrastructure that E-clips will not have for many years to come if ever"

That one is an important point. I think it's essential that owners be able to get service for their aircraft. Eclipse thinks so too. The Albuquerque major service center is already up and running. The 61,000 square foot major facility in Gainesville will be open in weeks if it isn't already. The 48,000 square foot major facility in Albany is almost completed, too. Van Nuys, Oakland, Chicago and South Florida will all host service facilities in the coming months.

They're actually building the support structure for the Elipse much faster than Cessna did for the Citation.

But it's a good point--the service structure for the Eclipse, while coming along nicely, is not yet fully-developed, and that's a consideration.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"Eclipse has bundled JetComplete into the purchase cost of the aircraft"

Not sure what you mean by that, Rich. JetComplete is priced by the hour; it's not part of the purchase price of the aircraft though you can purchase hours at the time of delivery and pay upfront if you want.

The pricing and features of JetComplete were under review when I met with the JetComplete people a week ago. The last I heard was $149/hr plus $94/hr if you want HSI and overhaul coverage. That tallies out about a hundred bucks an hour less than the comparable packages for the Mustang (and the Eclipse package includes navdata updates, insurance discounts, and dispatch services that the Mustang program lacks).

I do agree they need to finalize the package and the pricing ASAP so people can plan accordingly.

Ken

flyger said...

Ken Meyer said...

Most of the owners of planes delivered this year will not need to "schlep" to Albuquerque for either of those.


That remains to be seen. I could *easily* see that *every* plane delivered this year will have to go back to ABQ for Avio NG.

Has Avio NG even flown? Let's say it has. It's going to take months to test it and get it approved. There are only 8 months left in the year. That's hardly enough time to do the paperwork with Avio NG much less the engineering.

They're actually building the support structure for the Elipse much faster than Cessna did for the Citation.

And Cirrus did a better job than the Wright Brothers. So what's the point? That in 1960 Cessna took longer than Eclipse in 2007? As for service, Cessna wins this one hands down!

Ken Meyer said...

Flyger wrote,
"Has Avio NG even flown?"

It seems to me that if you don't know the answer to that key question, you're not qualified to dispute the company's recent report that Avio NG has been in the works for months and is on track for cut-in around S/N 100.

"So what's the point? That in 1960 Cessna took longer than Eclipse in 2007?"

I don't think Cessna was selling Citations in 1960 :)

The point is that Cessna took years to build a handful of service centers for the CE500, but Eclipse is doing it in months. That means they do indeed take support very seriously.

Ken

Bonanza Pilot said...

Ken,
I appreciate your calm answers to so many questions. I have always felt that people were focusing on the wrong thing..for 1 billion bucks you should be able to certify a brick..and I assume with enough time and money that Eclipse will pull that off. It appears that Eclipse cost themselves a ton of money/time by not hiring enough people who had gone through the process before - they truly learned things the hard way. I don't doubt certification and delivery - I just think prices will rise dramatically with a corresponding drop in volume. One of the reasons the order book has been questioned so much is the change in price that has already occurred...it is tough to sell thousands of anything for 1.7 million plus dollars. What will the order book look like when the plane costs 2.5 million?

Anyway my question for you involves costs of flying the Eclipse. It sounds like you have done some work on this...one area that I am unclear of (and since I don't own the AFM can't check) is fuel consumption. Have you calculated hourly variable operation costs for your future Eclipse. You have estimates for jet complete, and I have read wildly different estimates for insurance (a fixed not variable cost)...but I am curious as to what a block to block fuel burn would be on say an 800nm trip....what if you can't get to FL410 and have to do the trip lower. I think understanding those numbers will help us to understand what a charter or air taxi guy will have to charge in order to make a profit. Can you break down what your expectations of those costs are on a short, medium and long range trip.

I hope you understand the people here are all very envious that you are getting the jet - if you offered rides we would be fighting over each other to get in line - but the comments on Eclipse are not based on that...they are based on strange opaque behavior and outlandish boasting by the company. A lot of what Eclipse says doesn't pass the smell test - and without access to facts we end up in a circle of speculation. Is the AFM available online...I sure would love to do some of my own figuring!

by the way if you do start offering rides - remember that I begged first!

airtaximan said...

Ken:

I like the 150 hrs use to look at the added cost of insuring and debt service - maybe you should think of what will happen IF the RATES for insuring and financing the e-clips are higher than insuring and financing a Cessna.

- this is likely the case right out of the box, and I can see some occurances which might make insuring and finanncing a Cessna a dramatic advantage.

- Bonanza Pilot says: "for 1 billion bucks you should be able to certify a brick.. "So I say: what happend? Its taken so long, so many suppliers by the wayside, systems in the garbage, and controversy - I wonder what they've been concentrating on? This really worries me.

-lastly, for Bonanza Pilot: why the mixed info on fuel burn, op costs etc? "alot of what e-clips says doesn't pass the smell test" is what you say..I say, that's the reason, together with the dreadful history of the company that everyone is not looking for a ride. Some are... but, rest assured, Dayjet will eventually have 300, er...uh...I mean 1400 of these planes for you to grab a ride in... coming to a little airport..er...ah.. I mean Dayport near you soon. GO catch a ride, I'm sure for an hour flight it will cost you somewhere between $300 and $1200, and you'll probably be forming a very close freindship with two people you've just met! BEtter pray they hand out mouthwash...

Enjoy...

EclipseBlogger said...

ATM said... What do you make of the order book revelation that Dayjet has 1400 of the orders?

I have been aware of the DayJet order and options on the orderbook since about 2003. I have been unable to say anything about it, nor have I been inclined to, as it was not publicly acknowledged by either DayJet or Eclipse until recently. All sources of financing, past and present, do not seem to have a problem with that aspect of the company.

Nothing Like the Sun said...

Regarding the DialJet 1400 orders...the New York Times had an interesting article on April 24th on DJ, "IF Checkered Cabs Could Fly..." But, they state in the article only 239 planes ordered...

"The company plans to begin flying the nation's first on-demand, per seat air taxi service in June. DayJet, with $68 million in equity capital, has so far ordered 239 Eclipse 500 jets (each one selling for $1.5 million)."

The article was also an interview with Ed., so the 239 order could have been corrected to the 1400 by Ed, if DayJet were wanting that order to be made public. Common sense says that DJ probably withheld that order info from the article because they know that $68M in capital does not make a 1400 jet order sound, ah, legitimate?! But somebody else obviously does...

(10% down on 239 jets is ~$35M, which is probably realistic financing options for DJ- at best).

Now if planes could run on the methane gas extracted from BS...we all know what airplane would get the best fuel economy!!

WhyTech said...

Ken wrote:

"Aero mods are going in on S/N 39 and above.

Avio NG is projected for S/N 100 and above.

Most of the owners of planes delivered this year will not need to "schlep" to Albuquerque for either of those."

Ken,

IMHO, aero mods and Avio NG are the first, not the last, of a long string of mods, AD's, SB's, etc that Eclipse owners will have to deal with. In part, because this is typical for a brand new design, and, in part, because Eclipse seems to have created more problems for themselves than is typical. Given projected production rates, ABQ and service centers will be swamped for several years to come.

Not my idea of fun. In fact, having been burned more than once, I would not consider purchasing an aircraft with fewer than 100 flying in owner hands, AND at least five years of fleet history. This doesnt gurantee an absence of problems, but reduces the probability considerably. Just one point of view.

WT

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

The cognitive dissonance is in full swing again.

Price does not equal value. Does not matter whether you are talking cheeseburgers, used cars or wonderjets. Value is more important than price to anyone with even a modicum of common sense.

Missing in all of the pro-Eclipse spin is the cost of your REQUIRED mentor pilot. Will these guys all be volunteers who happen to be 747 check airmen? I think not.

Also missing is the ACTUAL cost of updated JetComplete. Ken quoted the last published costs which Eclipse tossed under the bus two months ago.

Newsflash - the costs for services (JeppView, etc), just like the costs for parts for production and spares, are DIRECTLY tied to production volume. No volume, no cheap parts to build the jets, no cheap parts to keep 'em flying.

No cheap parts = no cheap purchase price.

No cheap parts = no cheap maintenance.

No cheap services = no cheap operations.

No production volume = no fuel discounts.

No fuel discounts = no cheap operations.

Eclipse has little if any understanding of the true cost to operate or maintain the wonderjet - flight test does not really help in this regard and what value can be taken is reliant on a lot of work well before flight test begins in order to identify and capture the right information.

Eclipse has already tossed at least one insurer under the bus from earlier in the program, along with the engines, the avionics TWICE (remember BAe Systems), their world class training partner, their lighting supplier - the list goes on and on.

The only given with this program is that you cannot take anything the company says at face value.

Cessna is reacting to Eclipse as they would to any POTENTIAL competitor - by positioning its product and identifying, in a very generous way I might add, the deficiencies and differences. Cessna did not have to be so kind in its' characterizations, but I would expect nothing less.

While Eclipse's bombastic CEO lacks the class to refrain from calling Cessna and companies like it a dinosaur that fears innovation and change, Cessna is a class act and gives Eclipse far more credit than is do.

The airplanes, as Cessna accurately points out, are not in the same category, the same class.

It is Eclipse which has always wanted to compare itself to Cessna and gain credibility and validation.

I think the comparison is ridiculous, but Cessna makes a compelling case for the true utility of the Mustang and highlights, in an unecessarily nice way, the basic shortcomings of the wonderjet.

Ken Meyer said...

Coldwet wrote,
"Missing in all of the pro-Eclipse spin is the cost of your REQUIRED mentor pilot."

You're making a differentiation where one does not actually exist. Most Mustang pilots will need 25 hours of "mentoring" unless they have a previous jet type rating or a lot of turbine time. That's old news; it is in FAR 61.63. For experienced jet pilots transitioning into the Eclipse, mentoring will consist of a hop or two. You've created an artificial difference that does not exist in real life.

"Also missing is the ACTUAL cost of updated JetComplete. Ken quoted the last published costs"

Nope. I quoted the $149/hr figure that recent purchasers have signed on at.

"Eclipse has little if any understanding of the true cost to operate or maintain the wonderjet"

You're forgetting that they have 3500 hours or more in flighttest, many of which are actually beta (i.e. operational) flights.

"Cessna is reacting to Eclipse as they would to any POTENTIAL competitor."

I agree. That's the same thing Socata is doing with its attack ads against Eclipse. Both companies are concerned that buyers may notice the price differential exceeds the value differential :)

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

bonanza pilot wrote,
"Have you calculated hourly variable operation costs for your future Eclipse. You have estimates for jet complete, and I have read wildly different estimates for insurance (a fixed not variable cost)...but I am curious as to what a block to block fuel burn would be on say an 800nm trip....what if you can't get to FL410 and have to do the trip lower."

Yes; I've worked out the direct operating costs for the Eclipse. Mile for mile, it's a hair less than my 340.

For your 800 nm trip--

FL 410, max cruise -- 2:36, 148 gallons

FL 370, max cruise -- 2:24, 160.7 gallons

FL 330, max cruise -- 2:20, 178.7 gallons

FL 330, longrange cruise -- 2:51, 159 gallons

FL 290, max cruise -- 2:20, 199 gallons

FL 290, longrange cruise -- 2:57, 170.6 gallons

Those numbers include startup and taxi fuel burn, climb and cruise according to the draft AFM performance numbers released by Eclipse.

For comparison, at FL 410, Mustang takes one minute longer and burns 56 gallons more. At FL 350, Mustang takes 5 minutes longer and 65 gallons more fuel. At FL 330, Mustang takes 7 minutes longer and burns 70 gallons more fuel.

Does that answer your question?

Ken

Tom Mosher said...

Support for the Eclipse? Only ABQ is a certificated Part 145 repair station. Gainsville is not - and no, the certificate for ABQ cannot be extended to another facility. Each is separately certificated.

The rest of the sites have to be cerficated and manned (plus the mechanics have to be trained). So...until that happens, there is only one place to fix an Eclipse.

a37pilot said...

Has anyone been able to track an Eclipse flight at any RVSM altitude? Highest I've seen is FL270.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

Cessna has said in print that they clearly expect to have more qualified pilot\owners so the regulation you quoted will likely be far less applicable, but your point is taken.

Since you bring up the training, I am reminded that FSI is already training customer pilots for the Mustang in a qualified and certified Level D Sim, Eclipse won't have FTD's until later this year and a sim is '08 if I recall correctly.

A question that has yet to be answered I believe is who pays for the cost of operations (fuel, tiedowns, Mx, etc.) during training in your airplane since there are no FTD's or Sims?

Less publicized than the hyperbolic 'money back guarantee' re: poor pilotage, Eclipse has said in print that if the customer does not agree with their Mentor's evaluation of their flying ability, they will assign another mentor. 25 hours is the FAA minimum, another startup jet company (Adam) has suggested 50 to 125 hours might be necessary for non-jet pilots.

FWIW - 80% of the Mustangs are expected to be owner-flown, where Eclipse says 35% of the order book is individuals (less than 900 of the claimed 2500 'orders').

The $149 is the last published JetComplete cost, and the $94 is also the last published cost for HSI\OH, so it would make sense that until they announce new pricing they would use the old pricing, no?

I forgot nothing about their flight test, you forget I have two decades of directly relevant industry experience. 3500 hours in a developmental flight test environment, with very specific test mission profiles to fly, being modified and maintained by experimental flight test mechanics, is not even remotely close to normal private operations. Basic mission profiles are only part of the overall learning process.

They will not likely have learned much of value unless they planned very specifically for it, used the systems, tools, and documentation that YOU will be REQUIRED to use, AND actually executed on that plan which frankly Eclipse has a pathetic track record of.

Socata 'attack ads'? Isn't Eclipse the company that had ads with people decapitating props off of Malibus at the same time terrorists were decapitating journalists?

Since when did calling a spade a spade become an attack? They want to play with the big boys, it is a tough business. If your favorite wunderkind company can't stand the heat, they ought not be in the kitchen.

Ken Meyer said...

Coldwet wrote,
"If your favorite wunderkind company can't stand the heat, they ought not be in the kitchen."

I don't see them running for the exit.

Maybe you were trying to denigrate the company with the phrase, "wunderkind company," but I think it's a pretty good description of them:

Wunderkind:
1. young successful person: somebody who is extremely successful at a young age
2. child prodigy: a child who is unusually talented at something

Well, with 2350 orders before they delivered a single plane, most people would concur they've been pretty successful at a young age, and by winning the Collier Trophy, they've demonstrated their unusual talent. So, yeah; wunderkind company it is :)

Ken

thebigriper said...

Ken, I often think you are unfairly attacked by a few of the participants in this blog but occasionally you say something that removes that thought from my head.
Awarding the Collier Trophy to the Eclipse at that time was a true shame. It tarnished an honor that really meant something. I have yet to hear anyone with any real background in this industry say they thought Eclipse should have gotten that award at that time. It takes away from the earlier winners that really deserved it.

JetA1 said...

Ken said,
"You're making a differentiation where one does not actually exist. Most Mustang pilots will need 25 hours of "mentoring" unless they have a previous jet type rating or a lot of turbine time. That's old news; it is in FAR 61.63."

Once again, Ken is a self-proclaimed authority, and is die-hard dead-wrong. The only Mustang pilots that will have to fly off a 25 hr SOE are those who don't have a previous type, or don't do part of the checkride in the airplane. Dave Goode didn't have any previous jet types, and simply did part of his checkride in the airplane, and flew home without a "mentor" pilot.

Don't think we'll ever hear of an e-clips going home for the 1st time without one of these "mentors".

Kind of funny, considering how "revolutionary" and "safe" the plane is proclaimed to be.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

There is much beyond the denotation of a word that any yahoo can google or wiki. You might look up connotation, and then try to appreciate the cultural meaning of a word and understand the context of its use.

Wunderkind is in the eye of the beholder. That is why I said 'your favorite wunderkind'.

Historically, wunderkinds burn out early; die young; suffer from depression, mania and psychosis; have been noteworthy fascist apologists and anti-semites; as well as sadists.

Other than that, you are probably right, Vern is in really great company.

Ken Meyer said...

jeta1 wrote,
"Once again, Ken is a self-proclaimed authority, and is die-hard dead-wrong. The only Mustang pilots that will have to fly off a 25 hr SOE are those who don't have a previous type, or don't do part of the checkride in the airplane."

I wrote, "Most Mustang pilots will need 25 hours of "mentoring" unless they have a previous jet type rating or a lot of turbine time." I don't make up the rules; they are in the FARS. Look it up if you don't believe me.

FSI is a Part 142 school conducting the Mustang training in simulators. If you take their Part 142 Mustang training you'll need 25 hours of supervised operating experience in accordance with FAR 61.63 unless you meet one of the exceptions (such as previous jet type rating or 2000 hrs total time plus 500 hours turbine time as I alluded to in my earlier post). The FAA does not permit you to evade this requirement by taking the checkride in the aircraft, if the training was simulator-based at a Part 142 school.

Bottom line: most new jet pilots transitioning to the Mustang will need "mentoring" just like they do in the Eclipse. Experienced jet pilots will not, but they wouldn't need much mentoring (if any) in an Eclipse either because the Eclipse mentoring program is entirely skill and experience dependent.

One interesting quirk of the rules--Some pilots will actually need less mentoring in the Eclipse program than in the Mustang program, believe it or not.

Ken

EclipseBlogger said...

Tom Mosher said... The rest of the sites have to be certificated and manned (plus the mechanics have to be trained). So...until that happens, there is only one place to fix an Eclipse.

Yes, the rest of the sites have to be certified and manned. So what? Wouldn't it make sense to complete the construction of those sites first? Also, it would make sense to deliver aircraft and have them in customers' hands. You make a valid point, but the timing makes it of little consequence. You're reaching.

ColdWetNosense said... The $149 is the last published JetComplete cost, and the $94 is also the last published cost for HSI\OH, so it would make sense that until they announce new pricing they would use the old pricing, no?

The $149 price was quoted by Ken as the recent price to the latest customers, and has not been publicly announced, and has never been published. Again you confuse blog "facts" with facts.

ColdWetAndReallyDumb said... Socata 'attack ads'? Isn't Eclipse the company that had ads with people decapitating props off of Malibus at the same time terrorists were decapitating journalists?

I didn't like that ad, but I don't think any other moron ever made THAT analogy. The banner on the ad had to do with the French Revolution, therefore the guillotine. Where do you get this nonsense.

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"Other than that, you are probably right, Vern is in really great company"

Indeed, with such wunderkinds as...

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Steven Spielber
Steve Jobs
Blaise Pascal
Steve Wozniak
Pablo Picasso
Tiger Woods
etc etc etc

I can appreciate that many of you did not feel the Collier Trophy was awarded to a worthy recipient last year. However the National Aeronautic Association found ample reason to award it to the company:

"Eclipse is applying innovations created in the technology industry to drive down cost, increase performance, improve safety, and spur a new type of air travel—the air taxi.

"Innovations used in the Eclipse 500 include friction stir welding, the PhostrEx fire suppression system, electromechanical actuators and digital electronics with integrated software.

"Perhaps the company’s greatest contribution is making jet technology available to a larger segment of the population. With an acquisition cost one-third of today’s small jets and the lowest operating cost per mile of any jet, the Eclipse 500 provides the lowest jet costs ever achieved."

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

EB,

If someone urinated in your Eclipseerios this morning it was not me, I can assure you. If my critique is hitting too close to home for you, then I hope it is of help to you and others.

Remember, friends don't let friends suffer from ED (Eclipse Deposit). Think of me like Smiling Bob from those Enzyte commercials.

PS, I love it when you guys call me names, lets me know I am getting to you.

The JetComplete and engine costs were published on the JetComplete comparison page at www.eclipseaviation.com. - that comparison is no longer live as, according to Eclipse itself, they are COMPLETELY REVAMPING JetComplete including Pricing and Coverages, but it was up for several YEARS and was the subject of many blog discussions with DIRECT quotes on prices and coverage.

The economics comparison sheet on Eclipse's website still shows the pre-paid individual rate of $115\hr for JetComplete, the non-prepaid rate was, I believe, the $149 figure.

The $94/hr for HSI and OH on the Pratt's does NOT include LCF parts BTW, that is another OPTIONAL expense.

Conklin and DeDecker, the bible for operating cost data, suggests the actual cost to operate the E-500 to be $100\hr more than Eclipse does - less than $80\hr difference for the Mustang and the Eclipse.

The insurance figures Eclipse uses are for atypical Mustang customers (see my previous post), AND include an unspecified insurance 'discount' for JetComplete participation.

No JetComplete participation, no 'discounted' insurance, costs go higher.

The nonsense you speak of comes from 2503 Clark Carr Loop SE
Albuquerque, NM 87106 - and is dutifully regurgitated by Vern's faithful here, ad nauseum.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

You may recall, I am, I believe, the only critic here who supported Eclipse getting the Collier. Based on the info available then, and specifically the justification NAA used (which we now know was premature) I think it may still have been a good decision.

Would be very interesting though to know if the NAA committee still feels the same as more info comes out.

JetA1 said...

Ken wrote:
FSI is a Part 142 school conducting the Mustang training in simulators. If you take their Part 142 Mustang training you'll need 25 hours of supervised operating experience...

Exactly how many jet type ratings do you have, Ken? Ever heard of taking the FSI part 142 course and then doing most of the checkride in the sim, and then the bare minimum in the actual airplane. Check the regs, o wise one...its all there, and believe it or not, it's not that uncommon.

Stating that "most new jet pilots transitioning to the Mustang will need "mentoring" just like they do in the Eclipse" is another Eclipse-esque misrepresentation of fact, trying to suggest that mentor pilots are also REQUIRED for mustang drivers, when in fact, they are NOT...unlike your favorite little jet.

EclipseBlogger said...

ColdAndWrong said... PS, I love it when you guys call me names, lets me know I am getting to you.

You're not getting to anyone. I'm just pointing out how incredibly unreliable your info is, and how rediculous you are.

ColdAndStillWrong said... The JetComplete and engine costs were published on the JetComplete comparison page at www.eclipseaviation.com... The economics comparison sheet on Eclipse's website still shows the pre-paid individual rate of $115\hr for JetComplete, the non-prepaid rate was, I believe, the $149 figure.

Again, wrong info. The Non-Prepaid price was $125. Keep trying.

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"Conklin and DeDecker, the bible for operating cost data, suggests the actual cost to operate the E-500 to be $100\hr more than Eclipse does - less than $80\hr difference for the Mustang and the Eclipse."

The Conklin and deDecker reports show that the direct operating expense of the Mustang is $121.08 more per hour or $0.44 more per nautical mile. On a typical 800 nm trip, the Mustang will cost you 350 bucks more. Not that much, but not zero either.

But wait a minute. That leaves out a couple of very important items:

1. It doesn't include cost of money--interest on the $1.3 million divided over 60,000 miles per year will wind up adding about $1.40 to the per mile cost of the Mustang over the Eclipse.

2. It doesn't include the cost of insurance. At 2% of hull value, you can add another 43 cents per mile.

Include those items and the 800 mile trip now costs almost 1900 bucks more in the Mustang than in the Eclipse!

Those are very real considerations for pilots considering the two aircraft.

Ken

flyforfun said...

Ken, concerning the mentor pilots it should be pointed out that two multi typed pilots at my home base have called Eclipse about becoming mentor pilots for the Texas area and they were both told that at this time they don't need anymore mentors in this area. However when my friend who is a depositor called they said that the closest mentor would be in Dallas. That is 250 miles from where we live. We asked if he could get someone typed here and use him they said he would not be considered a mentor pilot for time purposes. He will have to get someone else typed in his plane and take instruction from him and fly with him for enough hours before presenting himself to Eclipse for evaluation. On top of that their mentor pilots are going to charge $600 per day. Figure in the cost of getting that mentor pilot back and forth from Dallas everytime you want to take a trip.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Unreliable,

Hmmmmmm....I have been spot on about:

- AOPA Grounding
- Wing Bushing
- RVSM
- DME
- GPS Nav
- Avidyne Divorce
- Windshield and Cockpit Side Windows
- and more stuff I can't even remember right now, yup, perhaps off by a few dollars on hourly costs for JetComplete based on memory and I am 'totally' unreliable - funny.

You can keep saying I am wrong and unreliable over and over again EB, I understand it is one of the psalms in the Eclipse choir book.

But sayin' it again and again don't make it so, just ask your pew buddy Ken.

Name one thing that Eclipse, or any of you apologists for that matter, have actually been correct on, without caveats, without hope filled future tense qualifications.

The 'attack the messenger' tactic has failed, sooner you guys recognize that and encourage your high priest in the 505 to actually finish the jet the better.

The press is asking the real questions now.

People are seeing the inconsistencies on FlightAware and in the press releases.

They see the failed delivery schedule promises, 8 months to go to deliver 390+ planes.

They see the failed vendor management approach that has killed the avionics TWICE, the engines, the actuators, and more.

You guys can try and nitpick all you want but the cat is out of the bag.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

You forgot the resale value where Cessna has a real track record and Eclipse has none.

Also, there is still the issue of JetComplete pricing\coverage which is presently being revamped (the E5C expects higher costs and possibly even reduced coverage), and the unspecified but apparently substantial insurance discount and 'estimated' fuel discount for JetComplete participation.

I think you would agree based on your previous comment that a few hundred an hour in operating cost for aircraft costing $2M is like the difference between the cost and mileage on a BMW M5 and a Mercedes ML500.

Where we disagree I think is that IMO we are actually comparing the M5 to a Suzuki XL7. Sure they both are SUV's and have four wheel drive, but they are not really comparable beyond that.

flyger said...

Ken Meyer said...

It seems to me that if you don't know the answer to that key question, you're not qualified to dispute the company's recent report that Avio NG has been in the works for months and is on track for cut-in around S/N 100.


Who the hell are you saying someone needs qualifications to question what is an unrealistic schedule? If all you can do is say others don't know what they are talking about, then you aren't very useful.

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,
"I think you would agree based on your previous comment that a few hundred an hour in operating cost for aircraft costing $2M is like the difference between the cost and mileage on a BMW M5 and a Mercedes ML500."

No, I really don't agree with that. I think $1900 on a typical 800 nm trip is very much worthy of consideration. I can afford to buy one of these planes because I notice little things like $1900 here and there :)

BTW, what is it to you anyway? Why should you care? I'm here 'cause I'm buying a jet and I want to find out as much as I can before I plunk my money down. It's a variation on the Socratic method--you guys challenge me, and it makes me go out and learn stuff so I can answer your questions.

But why are you here? What interest do you have in this that would drive you to write so many messages about the plane when you're not a customer and don't seem to have any particular reason to be interested in this in the first place?

It's not a cut; I'm just scratching my head trying to figure out what is driving you.

Ken

Bonanza Pilot said...

Ken,
thanks for the fuel burn figures...that is exactly what I was looking for. I am trying to understand what it will cost to fly this thing as both an owner and an air taxi guy. Fuel savings is always an issue..I remember being surprised that the Jetprop Malibu conversion burned so much less fuel than the Meridian even though they used the same airframe...but I am not as surprised with the Eclipse burning less than the Mustang because of the weight difference.

Knowing how much fuel costs..and then factoring in costs of jet complete, pilot and insurance we can figure out how much an Air Taxi will have to charge per hour to break even. I am pretty impressed with the 55gph hour figure at altitude..that is great for a twin jet!

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Fair enough question Ken.

First off, I doubt the $1900 figure for the reasons I have stated above re: Insurance, JetComplete, etc.

As to why I participate here. I have explained it before but these things do get lost in the noise occasionally.

As someone who has had a long and rewarding career in aerospace, and as a pilot who uses the system, I have quite a bit invested in the industry and the system - in their integrity, in their utility, in their ease of use and economics.

When somebody comes in and shakes things up, making promises, calling folks\companies names and questioning their ability, causing regulatory rumblings etc., I have an interest in making sure that my fellow aviators, and the travelling public, are not taken for a ride - at least not a ride they did not intend.

I was a big fan of Eclipse when announced. I have followed the project with great interest literally since 2000.

I still want to see the plane succeed and the company to mature into a real OEM.

But the toxic rhetoric, the name-calling, etc., first from Eclipse itself, and then from some of your less level-headed compadres here, have served to turn my opinion from one of supporter to critic.

The missed deadlines, the blown schedules, the failed systems, the un-met promises all can be overcome.

But it will take humility, honesty and integrity and by all measures private and public, those things are sorely lacking where needed on Clark Carr Loop.

Eclipse has never suffered from a lack of vision or ambition. Those things are to be encouraged.

But lying about their absence from AOPA, about the GPS\DME and RVSM, asking for hundreds of progress payments, when so much obviously remains to be done, is wrong, just wrong.

Add into this the idea that there could be hundreds then thousands of these little jets clogging the skies and carrying passengers and the need for a safety culture, for honesty and integrity go up exponentially - I doubt the company can meet that requirement under its current management.

I do hope that you, and EO24, and even EB or Mirage or Redtail eventually get a little jet that does what they said it would do, that you should expect it to do, safely, reliably and efficiently.

EclipseBlogger said...

ColdAndWrong, were you stating the correct facts, or not. Hint: not, again. And, you don't have to look it up on the website.

Gunner said...

CWM0R-
Not that it's news to you, but it seems the Great Divide on this site revolves around the Actual Aircraft vs the Promised (Paper) Aircraft....and it always comes down to that. The Faithful insist on presenting future promises as present realities. Whatever Eclipse says is taken to the bank; whatever a critic says requires "proof"; whatever a critic proves requires parsing.

For myself, I LOVE the Eclipse concept. A 360 knot twin jet, sucking 55 gallons per hour and traveling 1100 NM, for a $1.6MM entry price Who wouldn't love it?

I'll go a step further than that: I'd prefer the Eclipse Paper Aircraft to the Mustang. Like Ken, I've no interest in hauling about a whole lot of space surrounded by fuselage that I'll never use. I have no desire for a lav on a 4 hour aircraft. I don't even mind the lack of luggage room; I'd simply remove a seat or two and reconfigure for my gear.

Perhaps the ONLY thing I don't like about the Paper Airplane is the fact that it relies on first generation avionics software, without independent mechanical backups. (First generation software because the First, First Generation software was DOA). But, even that I could remedy with money.

The problem is that all these neat performance numbers and aircraft features are still on Paper only. None have actually been demonstrated in the manner that traditional aircraft companies demonstrate their products. It's all promise and closely held "proprietary" info, dropped on the public in Press Release form and parroted by The Faithful as though received on stone tablets from some Mountain.

Promises; Secrets; A Paper Airplane:
- Avio NG to be finished in June
- Regional Maintenance Facilities that spring up, staffed, operational, and certified in less than 6 months.
- "Cut ins at SN 38 and 100".
- Jet Complete that will be most affordable, but isn't priced even though planes are being delivered.
- A Order Book that consists of 230 DayJet planes; or 1,400+. What's the Big Deal? Who Cares?
- Fall Short of performance? Just add a fairing, some tip tanks and dial up the engine by 3%. Voila, a two month design fix, on an 8 year old project for which nobody ever though of tip tanks or power curves before.


Like I said, I absolutely LOVE the Eclipse concept....enough so that I deposited $130K on one. But, between concept and reality, we find a company that seems two have only two speeds: Hype and Lie. Which throws into question not only all the promises that The Faithful love to hype as realities, but the basic underpinnings of the design...its durability and its safety.

Until such time as The Faithful admit that Eclipse has missed every major milestone by at least 100% (price, weight, time to cert, Air Taxi costs, etc), there can be no "reasonable" conversation with them. They prefer to believe that, "starting today" Eclipse spokesmen are trustworthy and all the lies and hype of the past has not affected the plane they'll receive at all.

Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

"Everything Eclipse does has been set in June '00 economics"

The Eclipse is priced in June, 2006 dollars.

Ken

FlightCenter said...

I’ve created two collaborative website pages which are designed to allow anyone to quickly and easily keep track of Eclipse 500 aircraft orders and deliveries.

Stan thought these pages could be a valuable resource for the entire community and so he has posted links to these pages in the Links section of this blog to provide easy access on an ongoing basis. The Links section is on the left side of the blog, directly under the Blog Archive section.

Alternatively you can click on the links below and then bookmark the two pages in your browser.

Eclipse 500 Delivery Data

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p6sMZZhQxJ6PguqQ3m0X_cg

Eclipse 500 Order History

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p6sMZZhQxJ6NZ8fpN0TycSg

The pages are based on information that is a matter of public record, either from Eclipse’s own press releases, public statements and interviews as well as industry data from industry and government sources.

The Eclipse 500 Delivery Data website page has two sheets. The first sheet is titled Eclipse Delivery Data and includes the raw data tracking each individual aircraft serial number, registration number, registration name, C of A date, delivery date, and whether it has Avio FG (First Gen) or NG, whether it is a Model A aircraft or Model B aircraft. The second sheet is titled Eclipse Delivery Summary and provides a couple charts and tables showing Eclipse 500 quarterly deliveries and cumulative deliveries.

At present this document shows 5 total aircraft delivered. I’ve seen comments in the blog that state that more aircraft have been delivered, but I don’t have any publicly available data to substantiate that.

There are currently 54 N number registrations reserved for Eclipse 500 aircraft.

The Eclipse 500 Order History website page tracks Eclipse public statements as to the size of their order backlog for the Eclipse 500. The last statement I’ve seen from Eclipse says that they currently have more than 2,500 orders.

I’d strongly encourage the other folks reading this blog to collaborate by providing new data as it becomes available and by updating the Eclipse order and delivery data using this tool in a collaborative wiki fashion.

Let me know if you have any corrections, updates or new data, as well as any suggestions for improving the presentation of the data, or suggestions for other data you feel we should be tracking.

For anyone who would like to provide corrections, updates, or new data, please send me an email at aspire2excel at gmail dot com.
(I had to format my email address in this way because I’ve been getting spam from my previous posts.)

Please send an email if you have some data that you want to see reflected in the public documents, as I don't have enought time to read through every post looking for nuggets pertaining to deliveries and orders.

I’m hoping that we can use the collective power of the group to update this data.

Gunner said...

Oops. lest my message be parsed to death in typical fashion, let me go on record as saying that Eclipse did NOT miss its weight by 100%. It was something less than that.

Glad I cleared that up. ;-)
Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

EB,

$115 in FY '00 dollars with a CPI-W correction similar to that used on pricing until the re-price to $1.5M plus options in '06, would be right about $150 in 2007 dollars.

That would seem to be one possible reasonable explanation.

You can try and derail this by making it about me or a few dollars all you want, objective readers see the writing, and my de-facto accuracy (as well as that of the blog in general) on the wall.

Nice try, NEXT.

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"Like I said, I absolutely LOVE the Eclipse concept....enough so that I deposited $130K on one. But, between concept and reality, we find a company that seems two have only two speeds: Hype and Lie."

Why don't you buy a Mustang? Given your concerns, I think you'd be better off spending the extra money on a product you'll feel is more mature and a company that you'll feel isn't deceiving you.

Serious question now...Do you feel your concerns are widely shared by others? Why aren't Eclipse customers defecting to Mustang in large numbers?

Ken

EclipseBlogger said...

WetAndGettingMoreRediculous said... $115 in FY '00 dollars with a CPI-W correction similar to that used on pricing until the re-price to $1.5M plus options in '06, would be right about $150 in 2007 dollars.

I don't even have to comment on how lame that is. Everyone sees you for what you are.

Gunner said...

Ken-
In answer to your questions, I think I already addressed the Mustang issue. More aircraft than I can rationalize carting around for my typical passenger/cargo manifest.

Diamond looks like the front runner for my purposes; in fact, I deposited on three D-Jets a week or so ago. Interesting thing about it; the paper work even includes the S/N's for the D-Jets, so that no games can be played by the company. Novel idea, huh? ;-)

As to defections from Eclipse to Mustang....how would one possibly know? The Order Book is such fiction all we have to go on is anecdotal info:

- I defected from Eclipse
- Niner Z passed on Eclipse and has yet to make up his mind.
- Another poster here passed on Eclipse for Embraer.

How many have announced defection from Mustang to Eclipse. Even you admit you may well buy both; so the Mustang is obviously not a poor choice in your book.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"I deposited on three D-Jets a week or so ago."

Congratulations! What are your projected delivery dates?

Ken

Gunner said...

1- Second Qtr '09
2/3- Fourth Qtr '09
Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

EB said:

"I don't even have to comment on how lame that is."

And yet, you comment BECAUSE everyone sees me for what I am, and they see you for what you are too.

No facts offered, no numbers, no competing theory or explanation - just arrogant derision - self-righteous dismissal.

Does your office overlook the flightline from the second floor of 2350 Clark Carr Loop? You sound awfully familiar.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Why 3 positions Gunner?

Gonna see if there is any speculation going on in Diamondland?

EclipseOwner387 said...

I talked to another position holder at my local airfield tonight. I was getting ready to go pick up my Malibu that I had a 430W installed and upgraded my 530 to WAAS. I also had my 396 professionally yoke mounted and cabled for crossfilling, audio panel music and ships power. I am very happy with this install and can't wait to play with it more but that is a different story for a different time. Back to my other story. I was pretty excited to run into this other position holder because I respect his opinion as he is an avid aviator, successful businessman and much more experienced than I in all those categories. He told me he recently visited the Eclipse factory. He gave me some insights into some things he saw but one thing he said surprised me. He believes we may see the new aero mods cut in much sooner - like the mid teens on the SNs. He pointed out that slowing up production to save the significant hassle/cost later was perhaps the current view at Eclipse. Obviously this was just his opinion/takeaway from the visit but I felt it was worth sharing with the blog as it would be significant if true.

Gunner said...

CWMoR-
Actually, it was four, but the fourth went to an unrelated party. Not at liberty to explain why I'm taking three just yet, but you can imagine volume allowed for some negotiation. Regardless, I believe they'll be great investments when Eclipse either folds or "succeeds" and has to price its jet at $2.3 million.

Besides, I own three motorcycles and I can only ride one of those at a time, too. ;-)
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"1- Second Qtr '09
2/3- Fourth Qtr '09"


Is 2nd quarter of 2009 still S/N 51-110?

And 2009 still ends with S/N 175?

It is a nice plane. I was going to check it out again in Houston last weekend, but it didn't fit into my plans, so I'll have to wait until Oshkosh.

I saw the flighttest prototype last year when it made its debut appearance at Oshkosh, and I've sat in the mockup, but it will be nice when they have a real plane to show folks.

Ken

Gunner said...

EO-
A production slowdown to allow the mods to catch up makes sense to me and has been suggested by several here. I doubted Eclipse would go that way because it's so, well, prehistoric. (And sensible!) ;-)
Gunner

FlightCenter said...

Gunner,

What are the terms for placing a deposit on a D-Jet? Can you provide a quick summary? I think a lot of us might be very interested.

By the way, Eclipse first gave out position numbers for initial depositors and then followed up in September of 2003 by proving serial numbers complete with serial number certificates suitable for framing for the folks who placed their deposits back in 2000.

Gunner said...

Ken-
I believe your numbers on the D-Jet are correct. I didn't pay that much attention to the actual numbers, just to the schedule and my own SN's.

Actually, they have shown the actual jet around a bit this past year. They seem to be doing pretty well getting orders with the mockup tour, though. They have a 20 year history of meeting and beating deadlines, price guarantees, performance and promises.

Who knows?
Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

EO24,

If correct that would be a great sign, a more mature decision and the kind of thinking I have been asking for for some time.

Couple questions for you if you don't mind.

Do you have a tentative delivery date yet?

Have you discussed JetComplete with Eclipse yet?

TIA

Gunner said...

fc-
The terms are on their website PDF download. Basically, $100K down with performance and schedule guarantees. Boilerplate stuff. If you really are interested, carefully read the contract and email me any questions at:
eclipse@thefiringline.com

Gunner

bill e. goat said...

Rational thought and critical reasoning, part 1 of 2

Hi Preacher, sorry I couldn't respond to your Friday comments earlier, but due to travel commitments I've been away from a PC. Wish you were using a different handle, but that's not going to keep a BS flag from being thrown. One was thrown at Frank, not for being dumb and arrogant enough to set himself up, but rather for not having enough character and intellectual honesty to fess up (intentional fowl).

This one is being thrown at you for the absurdity of your reasoning skills (unintentional foul, I trust).

Regarding our recently depart wacko (so offensive that even quoting him can get you post deleted by the blog admin), some of our fellow bloggers observed:

“Frank's inappropriate comment was removed” (by Stan. NOT by Frank).

“I have to say that I disagree with the removal of Uncle Frankie's posts. Everyone here should know where this guy is coming from, and how to interpret his past posts, and future posts”.

“It was a hateful and disgusting remark. Shameful. Really terrible”.

“no one has ever posted anything like that before”.

"Frank Castle, you're an a$$".

“Frank's post was disgusting” and I wish he had never associated himself with Cessna (if he actually works here).

“I don't know anyone who goes as far overboard as Frank”.

Hmmm, yet Preacher says:
“I don't see the need for "Frank" to apologize.”

Goat says:
Well, Apparently our dearly departed wacko didn't either:

“When I venture out into the big bad world, look out. I am mean, pissed-off, and could care less if you like it, me, or my beliefs”.

“I stand by my remark of days ago”.

“I will exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to DEFEND my First Amendment rights”.

Goat: What was that again, Preacher?: “I don't see the need for "Frank" to apologize” ???

(I guess I am being silly when I interpret that as a sociopathic threat to kill anyone who disagrees with him. Or is that only the blog administrator who edits his trashy comments? Or is it just the rantings of an armed lunatic?

Sorry Preacher- I can't tell, I really can't. But you're right- surely no need to apologize. NOT!).

Departed wacko:
“For you, Stan”...blah blah blah.

Preacher: “And now he's gone, and you just had to twist the knife further”.

Goat: Oh Please. A whiny, lame-o, B.S. Cop-out gets BUSTED, whether the poster is here to defend it or not.

Sorry Preacher, this was PURE B.S. I didn't bust Frankie for his over-the-top wacko post that the other bloggers correctly condemned (by the way Preacher, where were you then?), I didn't bust him for his psychotic rant about killing anyone who want to censor his dream of his constitution (by the way Preacher, where were you then?). But his “departure address” was just plain whiny BS.

Sorry Preacher, I'll go with indulgence, yes. Repeated, arrogant, unrepentant BS, NO.

Twist the knife? NO WAY dude, just using a knife to cut the BS.

(BTW, I too was concerned that the dearly departed wacko's job might be in jeopardy, and considered an appropriate response. Instead of adding further insults, I appealed to everyone's better nature, and compliment Ken on his repeated tolerance, and Frank on his refinement, and in fact also tried to be reassuring.

Check it out Preacher. I trust you can do more than just do selective reading and interpretation, if you try).

But I'm not sure...

Preacher:
"I don't see the need for "Frank" to apologize. From what I saw, the offensive posts attributed to him were deleted by the blog administrator”

and,

Preacher:
“his posts are still here...the offensive posts attributed to him were deleted by the blog administrator.

Goat:
??? He does not need to apologize- the blog administrator deleted his offensive postings???

Preacher, preacher, preacher...do you NOT see the ABSURDITY of your argument???

(I don't post this out of angst or perplexion- I just don't want to see such ludicrous logic, poor reasoning, and absurd double-standard arguments).

EclipseOwner387 said...

CWMOR,

No tentative date. No JetComplete talk either. Last week I was told SN24 was close to being transferred to Final Assembly. I should find out more this week.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Thanks EO,

Are you interested in JetComplete?

Are they pushing it or not?

Believe it or not I really hope it all works out for you.

bill e. goat said...

Rational thought and critical reasoning, part 2 of 2

Oh and Preacher, concerning “nit picking”.

Well, one can either nit pick, or be a nit-wit :).

No, it's just that when I see a lot of words being substituted for a lot of sense (or truthfulness), I consider throwing the B.S. flag.

Let's take your strange post from yesterday morning:

Preacher:
“I would like to address something, since one of our own was attacked. (maybe he's one of us.....). Stan knows who I am and where I work. My job will not be threatened, and Mr. Meyer will not be walking thru the factory looking for me.”

Goat:

Who is “our own”????

Elaborate on “attack”- do you mean insisting on honesty and truthfulness is an “attack"? (It's convenient to frame it that way, if it's coming from "one of them", right???)

Who is “one of us”????

Preacher:
“Stan knows who I am and where I work”.

Goat:
So what? Stan knows who most of us are. Are you implying that gives you extra credibility?

“My job will not be threatened, and Mr. _____ will not be walking thru the factory looking for me”.

Um, yes? I guess you mention it for a reason- which is ???

Preacher: “But, he did speak his mind. Like many here, right and wrong. And, that is subject to an hourly interpretation of the "truth".

Goat:
Sorry Preacher,
Offensive speech does not become inoffensive through reinterpretation. (An apology does negate it somewhat though, if someone is man enough to do it).

One's best attempt at representing the truth does sometimes need to be revised, as the known facts change.

But deliberate B.S. NEVER becomes true, no matter how many times it is “interpreted”.

Preacher:
“ It's obvious that people here are going to keep twisting. So, maybe I'll keep watching”

Sorry Preacher. The only twisting going on here, is when people try to “spin” B.S.

EclipseOwner387 said...

CWMOR,

I think it is going to be interesting the next several weeks for me. I am interested in JetComplete. From what the early delivery guys are saying, Eclipse is still trying to nail down the product/pricing. The feedback is that the team behind JC appear genuinely interested in providing a solid product/service.

Thanks for your well wishes.

EO24

Gunner said...

EO-
As I've said before, I, too, wish you only the best with your new Eclipse.

I've no doubt that JetComplete is intended as a win/win. Owners will be able to budget maintenance and take advantage of group purchasing; Eclipse can recapture dollars after the sale. Not a new program; but a sensible one, none-the-less.

From my viewpoint, JC costs are tied so completely to the order book as to be inextricable; and for that reason alone, Depositors should be absolutely fixated on the Order Book realities.

The JC program simply cannot be priced without fair estimates on the fleet size that will need to be maintained in, say, 2009 or 2010. The owner costs (and benefits) of JC are gonna be one helluva lot different at a fleet size of 600 vs 2,600....that is, unless Eclipse plans on subsidizing the program mightily.

Gunner

BD5 Believer said...

Quick Question...somebody please tell me the $94 per hour for HSI and O/H is PER engine?!!

Which would be slightly expensive for that thrust level, BUT completely beleivable if you do a full risk analysis and shift all the risk to the OEM. And one could argue that at that price per engine, LLP should be included.

But at $47 per hour per engine, even without Life Limited Parts..is completly unreal...if you can sign up for that price today....go do it!!!

Also what does the fine print in the engine deal say about AD compliance and mandatory S/B's? Who's dime? What about cycle averages/ratios?

Seriously, if it is truly $94 for the ship set - and the OEM is carry all, repeat all, the risk , sign up now for as long as you can!!

It is also great to see people talking about maintenance again...but my questions from a few weeks ago remain...were are they hiring from...how are they being trained. How many are on board already?

New question: would any of you future owners take a straight A&P sign off in your log book? or would you always prefer a 145 repair station sign off?

BD5 Believer said...

also - ask about lease engine costs and availability...even as bullet proof as most PWC engines are, at some point spares are going to be needed...who pays and who controls the lease pool?

gadfly said...

What a world:

Here I sit, reading a blog of a goat attacking a preacher. My wife is on the phone talking with an almost lifelong friend . . . the daughter of an electrical engineer who worked for the “Third Reich” at Pienemunde on the “Vengence Weapons” (under duress, of course), while I am watching an interview of “Emmi Bonhoeffer”, (whose brother-in-law was the famous enemy of Hitler, and was put to death for his preaching the Gospel) . . . on a DVD of the BBC production, “World at War”. I think that, even as old as I am, I am a “victim” of multi-tasking.

And, after an excellent morning of worship, teaching a class (II Timothy 4, in case anyone cares), having a good New Mexican dinner with friends, and enjoying “quality time” with my beloved wife . . . I look in on this ridiculous discussion (read: argument and name-calling) of “grown men” over the claims of the manufacturer of a little jet aircraft that has on rare occasions achieved about half of what Kelly Johnson achieved at Lockheed in 1943 with the P80 “Shooting Star” . . . in 143 DAYS (37 less than the goal), first flying in January of 1944. Yes, I know that at HALF the weight and 2/3 the speed, and a shorter range, and at a ceiling of just 90% of the P80, the “Eclipse” uses less fuel per mile, etc., etc. But I am so glad that the earlier video did not include Clarence “Kelly” Johnson . . . although the comparison to Orville Wright was clearly out of line and way over the top. “Grapeness” (in the expression from the Claymation "California Raisens") much be achieved. And Clint Eastwood said something about a “man has to know his limitations” . . . or something to that effect.

Oh yeh . . . Kelly Johnson used the opportunity to begin what was to be known as the “Skunk Works”, and the finished “P80" was sold to the government, of all organizations, for the 1944 price of under $100,000 . . . using a centrifugal jet engine, designed by an Englishmen. You math experts can figure all that into a formula . . . with the “first customer” being the federal government, desperate to win a “real war”, where the military was expected to win. It is amazing how far we have come in over sixty years.

Please make allowances for an old man that doesn’t fully appreciate the present state of affairs . . . and all the problems that you have to deal with . . . the things that my generation, and the generation before mine, invented for your pleasure. We just didn’t get it all together, and now it’s your turn to make it all “right” . . . ‘Sorry ‘bout that!

gadfly

(Oh, don’t worry about the tooling that we provide for jet engines . . . they’re for the competitor of the P&W engines used on the “Eclipse”. And besides, our customer, although much larger than P&W, has a common desire with P&W to produce a power plant that will get you safely home, regardless of which aircraft you choose for your traveling pleasure.)

(Goat, while you were gone, some good stuff came through, but you'll have to put on your boots and retrieve it yourself . . . 'Sorry 'bout that.)

gadfly said...

In the words of "Digger O'Dell, the friendly undertaker from Brooklyn" (and friend of Chester A. Riley, the aircraft riveter),

You are all looking natural.

I've covered a lot of ground today. You may not like flowers at first, but eventually they'll grow on you.

I must be shoveling off!

gadfly

(With all of your little jets, you young kids have missed so much!)

Say "Goodnight, Gracie".

EclipseBlogger said...

WetAndWrong said... No facts offered, no numbers, no competing theory or explanation - just arrogant derision - self-righteous dismissal.

I did give numbers, I corrected your errors of the "facts". You came up with some cock-and-bull story in response about projected inflation from 2000 dollars for JetComplete - again, a totally bogus account of the facts from you.

EclipseBlogger said...

BD5 Believer said...
Quick Question...somebody please tell me the $94 per hour for HSI and O/H is PER engine?!!

That is $94 for both engines. The price and service are offered by P&WC, and not by Eclipse. Eclipse is selling the contract for P&WC as a single contact point. You can argue whether this is a good deal or not. $94 times 3500 hours calculates to $329,000, not including interest if you set your own money aside.

airtaximan said...

why would anyone considering an e-clips, place a deposit?

orders (max, there's probably less) for next two years already on the books 1400 -
scheduled productionfor next 2 years - 1400...

Unless you care whether you get your e-clips in Jan as opposed to March of April of 2009...

Why would you place an "at risk" deposit?

airtaximan said...

FWIW,

on JetIncomplete...

-its being revised..
-so was the price of the plane
-so was the delivery schedule
-so were the avionics
-so were the engines
-so was the orderbook

- its a rubber plane and rubber program...rubber.

After $1 billion, still talk of mods and NGs is pretty sad? One must ask "why"

Aroound a week ago, I kept asking, "where are the planes? Where are the planes? There are 1000 people busting their humps in ABQ, 57 planes in production, half for over 6-7 months already... where are the planes.

-funny, now there's a rumor that they've slowed production (intentionally - this IS funny) so they don;t have to modify so many planes.

- I doubt it (very much). Insiders have said the biggest problem has been getting parts from the supply chain. Well... I WONDER if this is the long pole.

- nice PR though - -we'll slow down production (and forego the revenue, positive press, good will, and getting our customers (part of) what they want and paid for a long time ago...) so we can backpeddle on our plane, and modify LESS planes... this WAS an option at the onset of this, no?

Hmm...sounds like something Vern would say - AFTER he ran out of parts....

Whew! Its so nice that we got out PC, now we can begin cranking'em out the doo...NOPE, lets, SLOW down...

What a crock of BS.

Black Tulip said...

There is a Mustang in the air this morning according to FlightAware. Its doing 353kts across the ground at FL320 with a crosswind.

Anybody seen one of them there Eclipses in the air lately?

Black Tulip

Gunner said...

BT-
I'd like to know what happened to N229BW after diverting to AMA on a scheduled flight from ABQ to LIT with "planned" diversion to AMA.

Somebody said it may have returned to ABQ VFR. Agreed that's possible, but pretty unusual.
Gunner

flyger said...

EclipseBlogger said...

That is $94 for both engines. The price and service are offered by P&WC, and not by Eclipse. Eclipse is selling the contract for P&WC as a single contact point. You can argue whether this is a good deal or not.


It is a good deal. You would be hard pressed to operate a cabin class piston twin for that reserve when you realistically include engine, prop, exhaust, accessories in the equation, plus mid time tops and cylinder pulls. Per mile, the turbines win by a large margin.

There is no question the Eclipse is economically in a different class than the Mustang. A Cessna 150 is different than a 172 in much the same way.

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"orders (max, there's probably less) for next two years already on the books 1400 -
scheduled production for next 2 years - 1400..."


So you're concerned that they have a two-year backlog of orders???

"What a crock of BS."

You sound awfully angry at Eclipse. ColdWet told us why he's so interested--he's altruistic and wants to make sure his fellow aviators and the traveling public are not taken for a ride.

So what's your reason for devoting so much time to denigrating a project you have nothing to do with?

Ken

EclipseOwner387 said...

Gunner,

N229BW is being used to train Mike Press. Don't training flights and checkrides have diversions and things like that? I don't see it as strange at all. I understand Mike Press is down to two more flights before his checkride. I wish him well.

ExEclipser said...

BT: 110DJ is scheduled to fly to Denver today at 8 AM (per flight aware), but 45 minutes later, it's still not up.

Gunner said...

EO-
Thanks much for the info. Wasn't aware that was Mike's trainer.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

Ohhm, Ken...now I see..

Iwrote two unrelated comments in one post, and you decided to put them side-by-side to make a point...

Nice job.
Why are you soooo concerned with discrediting me?

You sked a good question: what's my interest in all thi? Usually asked when more truths are coming to light, and rebuttal of the facts are thinner and thinner...

- my job is airtaximan, so aviation is my life and my passion. Debating these issues is entertaining for me, and it does not come from e-clips-haitng, like you need to believe in order to not see the other points of view. Its like the war in Iraq, under-funding of the FDA and our food supply, or problems in the middel east...all topics of interst for me.

I'm sorry for you that you need to ask for financial credentials and motivations in order for your to "qualify" opinions, instead of just dealing with the issues/opinions and debates.

You act as if you have a lot on the line, for someone considerng a fleet of jets, including a Mustang. Why not just debate the points, and stop resorting to silly self imposed "qualifiers", Ken? Are the points just too hard to deal with? aAnd, please, don't restructure my posts and take a snippet here and attach it to a point there - its a sad way to operate.

I made two points:
Point-1 - there remains no real reason to place a deposit with e-clips - their orderbook and proposed production schedule is such that you WILL end up with an e-plane in early 2009, no matter what? They do not have orders beyond end 2008 or early 2009, so why "reserve" a position with non-refundable at risk deposit money, when no matter what, you will get a plane early 2009.

Point-2 - the recent comments about e-clips deliberately slowing down production, so they will have fewer planes to retrofit, in my opinion is BS. Crock of Vern-smelling BS. They celebrate the PC, say YEAH! now we can begin cranking out planes, the FAA is no longer slowing us down, we have our PC. We work 24/7, the FAA does not...BUT wait - lets SLOW down production now!
-common knowledge, e-clips does final assembly of built up parts and systems, mostly furnished by 3rd party suppliers...AND, they've had trouble receiving enough supply. Quality, delivery, consistency, papaerwork...supply chain problems... so, I provided a logical, plausible explanation to WHY they are not delviering the 20-30 planes that have been in production since Sept (earlier, actually) 2006..

Where are the planes?
The renently provided possible answer, they've slowed down production so that they would not have to modify so many planes post delivery... makes no sense. If they were this smart, they would not have added hundreds of people in the last few months to the payroll. They would have been smart enough to anticipate the cost and cluster -they are not that smart.

That is my point.
Please don't confuse the two.

They are like the current e-clips and the promised e-clips: distinct and seperate. Combining them is confusing.

anonymous avionics engineer said...

"It seems to me that if you don't know the answer to that key question, you're not qualified to dispute the company's recent report that Avio NG has been in the works for months and is on track for cut-in around S/N 100."

Are you actually naive enough to believe ANYTHING Eclipse says?

airtaximan said...

AAE,

as rediculous as it might seem, from reading many of the posts on this blog over the last year, you will find that your question could easily be...

"Are you actually naive enough to believe EVERYTHING Eclipse says?

amazing...

anonymous avionics engineer said...

ATM:

I stand corrected.

airtaximan said...

AAE,

are you still with the company?

Why have we not seen many deliveries despite many, many planes inproductionand 1000 or more workers?

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

NZ,

Just curious in the interest of full disclosure.

Did Mr. Sigari reveal his previous employment at Eclipse?

Not able to find Aviva on the web, other than the European Insurance giant, is this an under the radar fractional?

Understand if you feel unable to 'splain more.

Stan Blankenship said...

coldfish,

Try this:

http://www.controller.com/listings/detail.aspx?OHID=1118561

anonymous avionics engineer said...

ATM:
No, they had to get rid of me. I have this thing about the truth ...

Buckerfan said...

Black Tulip asked last night "has anyone seen one of them there Eclipses in the air recently"?

Today I flew my wife down from Switzerland to Cannes (you know, the place on the med coast in france where they have the film festival). We were looking for a day in the sun and a nice lunch. Anyway there we were on short final and I spy a curious tiny jet looking thing holding for departure on the same runway. "My god, is that an Eclipse!!!???" I exclaim. "I know there is one in Europe doing the rounds, but this is toooo strange".
I was so flabbergasted I completely forgot what I was doing and was about to land in the grass to the right of RWY 17 what with a 10 knot crosswind component, when my much more attentive wife brought me back to my senses with a quick jab in the ribs.
Anyway I asked GND as we taxied in, and sure enough it was indeed the wonder jet. We had the pleasure of watching it run a few patterns with propective customers aboard. I was going to introduce myself to the Eclipse team, but fear I may be persona non grata, being an ex position holder and malcontent etc.
Anyway I will be visiting Eclipse during the Geneva Business aviation show in a couple of weeks and will report to you all.
Voila et zut alors, le p'tit avion, il vole.

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FlightCenter said...

GPS, you say Mike needs a GPS! Mike Press don't need no stinking GPS to fly his Eclipse.

Why, when men were men and pilots hadn't become GPS cripples, we'd fly NDB approaches to minimums at night in weather. It's a damn luxury to have an HSI and an ILS.

Should be mandatory part of the Eclipse training to pass the checkout without using the GPS.

Anyone who can't pass their instrument checkride using only a VOR and ILS should be washed out of the program.

They'll only increase the insurance rates for the rest of us.

;->

Lloyd said...

Gunner,

I'm sure that you will like the D-Jet. The main problem with this aircraft is it is limited to FL250. This is still piston territory and not where jet engines operate at their best effeciency.

Go to the Eclipse site and do a comparison!!

BD5 Believer said...

EB,

thanks! and you hit the nail on the head...it all comes down to risk management and the cost of money. Do you feel lucky or not?

I would say at $94 / hour for the a/c that is a good deal. This is still a new engine, so why not let the OEM carry the risk. Also the market normally rewards an a/c at resale with a higher price if it has had OEM power by the hour. The buyer knows wht he is getting.

Lloyd said...

BD5 said:
"I would say at $94 / hour for the a/c that is a good deal. This is still a new engine, so why not let the OEM carry the risk. Also the market normally rewards an a/c at resale with a higher price if it has had OEM power by the hour. The buyer knows wht he is getting. "

What will change the equation drastically is the escalation of TBO to 6,000 hours. This was anticipated a long time ago. It may take several years to accomplish the escalation, but then it's not such a great deal.

anonymous avionics engineer said...

"Should be mandatory part of the Eclipse training to pass the checkout without using the GPS."

It should be mandatory to fly IMC without PFDs and MFDs, not to mention flaps and landing gear. Oh yes, FADECs as well, stuck in the 'fail safe' (engines running, say 50%) mode.

Gunner said...

Lloyd-
I don't think the 25,000 foot ceiling on the D-Jet is at all problematic, except that it's less fuel efficient than 41K. But then, I think you'll find these jets, often as not, in the 30-35K range.

I think Diamond's approach makes real sense, especially for those of us who have plenty of time to transition to twins at 41K ft later. Less stress on the airframe and the crew, for one.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

You know, Gunner, your interest in the D-Jet has been kicking around in my head for a day now, and I'm still a bit puzzled.

Stan probably ought to start a thread about Eclipse vs D-Jet--there is so much to discuss there and D-Jet may be very attractive to a lot of the owner/pilots currently looking at Eclipse (it hasn't been so far, of course--there are 7 or 8 times as many owner/pilots ordering an Eclipse as a D-Jet). Speed, carrying capability, ceiling, weather capability, systems and engine redundancy, etc etc are all interesting aspects of the differentiation between these two planes (which, after all, cost almost the same).

But what really caught my attention about your purchase is this:

You've been complaining for months that Eclipse is a paper airplane that may one day be something, but today lives only on paper (I don't actually agree with that assessment, but that's your point of view, right?). So you ditch your Eclipse position and go out and buy 3 D-Jets that are even much more just wishful hopes on paper as I write this. The D-Jet may or may not ever reach fruition. Nobody knows.

Eclipse has a type certificate, a production certificate, and 14 airplanes in the hands of customers. It is simply unknown if Diamond will ever get the D-Jet certified.

And you complained about the Eclipse electrical layout at one point. Have you seen the report of the Diamond DA-42 with dual engine failure? It looks like the DA-42 design allowed a routine electrical sag (from raising the gear) to crash both FADECs and thereby crash the plane. Eclipse has never had that kind of monumental system failure from inadequate design.

The point?

It seems like many of the faults you've found with Eclipse exist with the D-Jet and more so. If you're concerned about plunking your money down on a paper airplane, why did you put a deposit on a D-Jet?

It's not an attack; I'm genuinely scratching my head how a guy who's main complaint about the Eclipse is that it isn't yet 100% done can decide to switch to a plane that is years further behind in a hoped-for transition from paper to reality.

Ken

Lloyd said...

Gunner,

25 K is the service cieling. You can't fly it highter.

JetA1 said...

Ken said:
"It looks like the DA-42 design allowed a routine electrical sag (from raising the gear) to crash both FADECs and thereby crash the plane."

That's not right Ken. Once again, look a little closer into the facts.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Lloyd,

I think Gunner meant that Mustangs and Eclipses will be spending most of their time in the low to mid 30's even though they can go to 41K feet. I feel the Diamond has the potential to be a great owner flown Jet. It is the old single versus twin argument in my opinion for starters. Disclosure: I have a DJET deposit as well. Only one though - I am not the big swinger Gunner is! ;-)

Lloyd said...

Well, Maybe... We were talking about the D-jet specifically and from his post it appears that he thinks that D-jets will be flying in the 30 to 35K alt.

Not so unless the redisign the airplane completely.

We'll let Gunner clear this up.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

The only way to call the one-in-a-million dual engine failure experienced by D-GOAL 'routine' is if your flying routine is to find your battery discharged, disregard the published procedure for starting the aircaft, and let get-there-itis cause you to make a extremely unwise go-no go decision.

I hope this is not your routine.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/23/213371/accident-ignites-da42-engine-row.html

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3258490

sparky said...

Ken,

A couple things you need to be called out on.

By your own reasoning, you’re in no position to question gunner’s decision to purchase a D-jet. You’re not purchasing one; therefore you are not allowed an opinion on the subject.

And exactly when did a marketing brochure become an attack? Are you so worried your little wonder jet that you don’t want anybody to compare the two aircraft. It’s marketing 101. Deal with it.

You cry about an attack on eclipse, but turn and lob a few of your own at Diamond.

First off you cite an incident where a pilot purposefully circumvented the manual and crashed his airplane. I can’t remember if the pilot died in the incident or not, but it goes to show that no matter how hard you try, theirs no such thing as idiot-proofing anything. You read the story, yet tried to blame it on a design defect. You know it wasn’t, and if someone had accused eclipse of something like this, you’d be up in arms. Hell, you whine like a girl every time anybody brings up DEMONSTRATED shortcomings about your aircraft.

Then you go and hack on Diamond for having a paper airplane. Is Diamond three years late in producing the aircraft? Did Diamond promise something and not deliver? Has Diamond ever blamed any of their shortcomings on vendors or incorrect installations?

Diamond has a proven track record of designing, building and delivering quality aircraft into the hands of owners (non-tethered), and before you try to reply that Eclipse is doing the same thing, spending a billion dollars to make 8 aircraft in nine months with 1200 people isn’t exactly what I’d call proven.

I also believe you made a statement about a donation? Any proof to back that up? Of all the stuff that’s been thrown about around here, two things really stand out:

1) You made any type of monetary donation to anyone.

2) You have enough liquid assets to pay cash for a $1,300,000 aircraft.

Maybe the second one came about because of the known problem with financing an Eclipse aircraft, and you had to assume paying cash to skew the numbers in your favor.

I know it’s on-line and you can be anything you like, heck I look a lot like brad pit and just bought my own island in the south pacific, but please, at least keep it believable.

Koolaid-drinker1 said...

Ken Meyer Said to Gunner.....

"So you ditch your Eclipse position and go out and buy 3 D-Jets that are even much more just wishful hopes on paper as I write this. The D-Jet may or may not ever reach fruition. Nobody knows."

Ken, Here is some sour Kool-Aid my good freind.

Flying Paper D-Jet

But I do see what you are trying to point out to Gunner.

KAD1 (aka CAD1)

EclipseOwner387 said...

Sparky,

I am confused. What did Ken say about a donation?

In Ken's defense, I think Ken's questions/comments are similar to what the Eclipse depositors have endured from many on this blog since I have been following it. You gave good answers/counters to his remarks and are many of the reasons why I plunked down some cash. Again, it is a risk and not to be taken lightly. Diamond's track record and Canadian Cert path could expedite the processs and reduce risk. We will see.

sparky said...

Posted by Ken, 8:53 am, May 4, 2007

AT, you seem to be pretty fixated on convincing everybody you have $10,000 to bet. OK, here's the deal--

I challenge you to put your $10,000 into something useful.

Click on this link and put your money where it will actually do some good. Put it into the AOPA PAC and joing the fight against Aviation User Fees.

I did. Now it's your turn. Then people won't keep thinking you're just making stupid boasts all the time.

He was asked several times to provide proof of this transaction, just as he was asked about what two aircraft he and his wife owned.

You’re being called out Ken. You’re a big man while typing anonymously, back it up or go home.

bill e. goat said...

Ken, Stan, ATM:
discussions on the "entry level jet" and Mustang pricing vs Eclipse.

Got me to thinking (about time, some might unkindly add!)...

Cessna has a huge gap in it's product lineup (um, except sorta for the Caravan).
The 210 replacement will come in at $350K+.
The Mustang comes in at $2.7M-ish.

That's almost an order of magnitude difference- what will "plug the hole" in their lineup???

A half-scale Caravan with speed mods?, A new twin of some sort? A single engine VLJ to go down-market around Eclipse? (They have a tremendous backlog of existing models. But still, it seems unsound to have such a big hole in the product lineup).

Interesting times ahead...

Reminds me of the heady times in the late 90's- so many new products. The dot.com and 9/11 events sort of threw everything into neutral for a few years. But as giddy as it sounds, it seems like we are in the midst of a stunning aviation renaissance. Sort of like the digital electronics breakthrough of the 1980's combined with the jet age of the 1950's, wrapped up into the volume production of GA in the 1970's.

We are hacking away about Eclipse, pro and con- but it's kinda fun to take a step back from the “trees” to consider how big and inviting the forest is becoming.

bill e. goat said...

(...guess there's still room for some woodpeckers in the forest. Isn't that what people mean when they refer to Vern's bust? (Not the B.S. “bust” that he so richly deserves though :).

EclipseOwner387 said...

Sparky,

Ken Meyer is about as unanonymous as anyone on this blog. He puts his name on his posts! Do you?

What's with the "Go Home" comment? You only want eclipse haters here?

airtaximan said...

Ken said:

"there are 7 or 8 times as many owner/pilots ordering an Eclipse as a D-Jet"

Really, Ken...care to provide the numbers for us?

sparky said...

No, I enjoy the open discussion found on the blog. and for the record, I don't hate eclipse. I've said, more than once, that i think it will be a nice aircraft....IF they finally produce what they've promised.

There are people on both sides of the fence here whose statements lead to ever increasing bickering and nit-picking. This doesn't lend to a good discussion for anybody. All I did was call that out.

I don't need to make wild and unrealistic claims and accusations to back my arguments. I can rely on facts and document them. Some can't.

Gunner said...

Lloyd-
Re-read my statement in context. You'll find that nowhere did I claim the D-Jet will be routinely (or ever) flying at 30-35K. In context, I mentioned the D-Jet vs the Mustang & Eclipse. I'll leave it to your literary acumen to figger out which class I was talking about at that flight level. If I have to explain with tech data, I swear, I will yawn and go straight to sleep.

Ken-
I've no need to defend the D-Jet. And you could do far better in trying to raise the Eclipse on the shoulders of a known aviation enterprise.

Still, I "defected" (good word; it's YOURS) from the Eclipse at $1.6 million for THREE Diamonds at $3.9 million. Why would that bother you enough to have you cogitating for a full day? For myself, the answers were easy: I trust Diamond more for $3.9mil than Eclipse for $1.6mil. My money; my choice. Just like you and your new Eclipse/Mustang Fleet at $4.4 mil. Your money, your choice.

Diamond has a stellar record for safe and sensible aircraft; Eclipse has Vern. Diamond has a working prototype; Eclipse has a Certified working prototype. Diamond is producing a sub-optimal jet designed for FL 25; Eclipse is producing so many jets with so many varied restrictions, I'm no longer certain what their product is.

Why the fascination with the D-Jet? It's just a plain-Jane, SE Jet, limited to 25K feet; hardly in the Eclipse class (I obviously can't afford the Eclipse class); and hardly sexy enough to attract would-be fighter jocks. Sounds to me like your same complaints about Cessna "attacking" Eclipse.

Are we now to believe you consider my Diamond(s) viable competitors to your 370kt, high cycle, 41k ft, Next Gen avionics, Air Taxi wonder? Don't be silly....nobody will use a single engine jet (or an unproven, cramped, no payload twin) for Air Taxi. But, then, I think Diamond knows this. That's why they project healthy sales at 200/year.

Composite dinosaurs. Go figure.
Gunner

Gunner said...

ps:
EO-
Congrats on your purchase of a D-Jet position. Together, we'll laugh, we'll cry, we'll have FUN!
Gunner

airtaximan said...

Ken, when yu say:

"So you ditch your Eclipse position and go out and buy 3 D-Jets that are even much more just wishful hopes on paper as I write this."

It brings to mind the reason for this blog, none of which relates one bit to Diamond, no matter how much solice you take in comparing e-clips with them.

Thus far, in aviation, the paper versions of airplanes have been, well, reliable. Diamond's development history included.

E-clips is not included. They could win an award for the following:
1- most unrealistic systems selection
2- most missed schedule milestones
3- most exagerated orderbook (by including options as orders)
4- most money spent on a development program under 10,000 lbs
5- largest fleet order cancelled
6- most deposit money spent before production
7- most failed training programs/training providers
8- highest increase in sales price versus intial sales price
9- most orders/options taken by one startup fleet company
10- most mods announced pre-certification
11- most aircraft delivered with scheduled re-work
12- most delivery promises missed

...need I say more?

This is why your BS remarks about Diamond have nothing to do with e-clips. E-clips is in a class by itself, as the worst aviation company in history, as far as meeting announced goals, performance, and schedule - no other company deserves to be criticized for selling from paper...e-clips does -ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING YOUR CONTINUAL REFERENCE TO THE NEW AND IMPROVED MODIFIED AND FIXED UP PLANE THAT IS STILL PAPER.

E-clips paper has proven to be worthless...

EclipseOwner387 said...

AirJordan,

Ken is probably pretty close on that swag - if we are still using about 750-800 owner/pilot Eclipse orders as a guestimate. I would have guessed a more conservative 4-5 times just comparing to the SN I have on DJET. I am curious how DJET allocates SN's to new customers. Maybe Gunner knows since he has the heavy assets?

Gunner,

Thanks! I will see you on the DJET haters blog in a few months.

;-)

airtaximan said...

Gunner,

the diamond plane makes terrific sense for air taxi compared with e-clips, AND there have been unannounced fleet orders ;)

PS. a Cirrus based air taxi company just ceased operations... P2P... theyr eceived some gov't money,a nd found out that the SR22s had dispatch reliability in the mid west in the winter..

Gotta scratch a little on this revelation... there'll be many, many more in the air taxi world, I'm sure.

Gunner said...

EO-
No idea how Diamond assigns SN's, or if there are open numbers before mine (though I'm pretty certain there are). All that matters to me is that I have Hull Number. I can track it. I can call "foul".

Here's to the Diamond Haters Blog. I suspect we need no new site. ;-)
Gunner

EclipseOwner387 said...

ATM Said,

E-clips paper has proven to be worthless...


I say: Not true.

EO24

bill e. goat said...

Speaking of "busts"...

Ken: BS Flag thrown:

Eclipse Proponents- 10 yards (or is that 10 months), and 10 glasses of Koolaid!

Flyger wrote,
"Has Avio NG even flown?"

Ken sez:
“It seems to me that if you don't know the answer to that key question, you're not qualified to dispute the company's recent report that Avio NG has been in the works for months and is on track for cut-in around S/N 100”.

Goat:
Did they borrow a C-130 and put their avionics lab in the back??? :)

Ummm, I thought it was, "has been in the works for months, and is on track for a cut-in around S/N 45" ???

Guess they're making progress- on truthfulness :)

I'm not sure if it's S/N 45 or 100? We can settle the issue by just saying 2008 :)

But, by virtue of putting up with all the abuse tossed your way, you are simultaneously awarded one "get of of jail free" card.

(Net outcome- suspended time (hmmm, probably like waiting for your plane:) and 30 days of community service- to be served by continuing here on the blog! That'll teach 'ya!!! :)

BTW- I agree with your projection of cost of ownership- I think once the airplane matures (say three years, after some teething pains- hope you have a good dentist with an A&P :), the acquisition cost will be proportionate with ownership expenses, compared to the Mustang.

sparky said...

EO,

You make reference to what Ken and other purchasers having endured on this blog. It's called Eclipse Aviation Critic for a reason.

I really find it interesting that anybody could honestly defend the company. In the history of aviation has any one company exhibited the unprofesionalism that eclipse has?

Again, I think it will be a nice bird for the owner/pilot. I believe we've punched enough holes in the airtaxi market and order book hype to show that at it's current price, the company will not last.

Congratulations to you guys for getting a $2+M aircraft for whatever it is you've paid for it. I really do hope it all works out well for all of you, and I mean that. I wouldn't want anyone to lose that kind of money. (well, maybe ken)

But while you're dancing in the streets celebrating TC and PC, keep in mind that this isn't the end of the game by any means. You guys have just now made it to the starting line.

There was a lot of talk about service centers and how fast eclipse is putting them up compared to cessna.

Cessna started from scratch, eclipse is just working off the model.

As to manning those facilities....67% of the order book is going to one location, where do you think the talent is going to be concentrated?

flyger said...

anonymous avionics engineer said...

"It seems to me that if you don't know the answer to that key question, you're not qualified to dispute the company's recent report that Avio NG has been in the works for months and is on track for cut-in around S/N 100."

Are you actually naive enough to believe ANYTHING Eclipse says?


I don't. Note that Eclipse hasn't yet said Avio NG has flown. I doubt that would go without mention. Also, Ken didn't say it had flown or not. So he appears as well informed on this as the rest of us, or would rather bash me than tell us what he knows.

If not knowing what Eclipse hasn't said makes us unqualified, then we are all like that!

airtaximan said...

EO,

Ken said 7-8 times the orderbook, so I was asking..

You know Mr. Perfect and Mr. Nit -pick (same person) need to be a little more precise than off-by-factor-of-2... then again, he did convince himself to buy an e-clips...

I seriosuly think he's dealing with his own buyer's-remorse issues on this blog - trying to say, "Ken, Ken, Ken, It WAS a good Decision to but the e-clips, it WAS a good decision to buy the e-clips...."

There is so much effort put into showing the e-clips is better than it is, so much defensiveness of the rubber orderbook, and all the misinformation...

and now, taking pot-shots at Diamond..

makes ya think the guys having a lot of problems with a decision he made, 'cause he can't seem to get a grip on the facts...

** sounds like congrats are in order for your Diamond position - somehow, I'm sure you've done all the homework, and you know exactly how to get what you want out of the decision...good move - happy for you, again.

airtaximan said...

EO,

you know it was a metaphor, and I cenrtainly agree with YOU that you have done very well. I've extended congrats, and I respect you abilities and success - -that's for sure!

But, the actual plane DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE to the initial paper plane - and that's the "take issue part"...

k?

bill e. goat said...

ATM- "its a rubber plane and rubber program...rubber".

...and Vern is the Teflon C.E.O.

(Teflon- perfect for cooking...?the order books? :)

Plastic_Planes, where'd you get that "handle" ???

airtaximan said...

Gunner, EO, et als...

I hear ken's on the phone with VErn again....

"Vern, Vern, Vern...I've got it!!!

"OK, Ken, WHAT?"

"Diamondcriticblog, pipercriticblog, cirruscriticblog, Adamcriticblog, cessnacriticblog, TBMcriticblog... You get the idea...right Vern...?"

"OK, Ken, I get it...but, mums the word on this discussion, good luck tell Sheri I said hello, and you are still in for the 60% deposit...right Ken..."

"Of course...ve"

"click..."

EclipseOwner387 said...

Sparky,

To use your terms Eclipse is in the race. They have made it to the starting line with TC and PC. Some companies never make it there. For that Eclipse has acheived something special and extraordinary. It also means that the process is proven to build planes (may have been rough getting there but it is FAA approved.) Now the question is: can they deliver them, fix the squawks, train orderly/safely, service them and make any money in the process. I am not sure about the making money part, but I do feel good about the other things because it is doable. It will take some hard work and money but it is doable. Will I be happy in the end? Time will tell. Am I happy right now? Yes.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Good nite all! It was fun bantering again tonight. I am off to bed. Flying to Destin tomorrow.

sparky said...

If I were designing and selling an aircraft that was overwelmingly, being used as a commuter aircraft, and I think we've shown this to be true in eclipses case, wouldn't it make sense for the AFM to reflect this?

Why no BFL? Do the numbers rule out too many of those 5000+ airports they plan on using?

just a thought.

One other thing i was thinking about....wing bushings.....eclipse claimed that the problem with the wing bushings was related to improper installation.


Were the people responsible for installing the wing bushing sequestered from all the other processes at ABQ, including the QA department?

You would think that something as important as attaching the wings to the aircraft would warrant a closer inspection than say, the cup-holders.

Same thing with the cracking windscreens and side windows.

Again, eclipse claims the problem can be traced to improper installation.

Do we have a decision on the freezing pitot system yet?

Hey, never mind the details. TC & PC! Scream it from the mountain tops, just mind that you don't fly into them.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

You can say you were wrong about your characterization of the Diamond\Thielert engine failure, come on, I know you can do it.

I have admitted when I was incorrect, the two or three times it has occurred, you can do it.

Just say that the accident pilot decided to deliberately not follow the procedure in the POH, and made a go\no-go decision that flew in the face of the recommendations of the POH, resulting in a crash.

Just say that you honestly misunderstood the circumstances surrounding the engine failure, or that you deliberately misrepresented it - whichever is true.

You can do it.

I believe in you.

Just say it, "I was wwwwrrr"

sparky said...

EO stated
"To use your terms Eclipse is in the race. They have made it to the starting line with TC and PC. Some companies never make it there. For that Eclipse has acheived something special and extraordinary."

Sorry EO, but this is where we differ greatly on opinions.

They've burned through close to a billion dollars and have yet to certify what they've promised, under questionable circumstances.

Close to a Billion Dollars...that's a big number.

Look at the Eviation Vantage, a program that just went by the wayside again because of funding.

Look at the three airframes that Epic has produced. Expirimental, yes, but check the stats. These are truly remarkable aircraft. Give them a billion dollars and i would almost guarantee certification, FOR ALL THREE.

I guess what I'm trying to show is that Eclipse aviation has not really done anything impresive, when you take into account how much money they've spent.

If you look at the history of aviation you can see hundreds of designs. Some succeed, some fail. Most often by their own merits.

This isn't the case with Eclipse. This is a company that shoud have failed a long time ago, and the only reason they've avoided going down as another lesson in aviation is some inexhaustable source of financing.

I don't think their would be an Eclipse aviation critic if not for Vern Raburn. I don't know if he's genuinely dishonest, or just got caught up in his own hype and sees no way out but to finish what he started.

Either way, I don't think it bodes well for aviation in general to have someone like him associated with the industry I make my livelyhood in.

anonymous avionics engineer said...

Amen, sparky. Eclipse's unending supply of money is none other than Bill Gates.

anonymous avionics engineer said...

As to whether Vern is honest or not, a better question might be is he stupid enough to believe his own PR or not. that is where the answer is. And for the record, I do not believe he is that stupid. He is trying to do his best with an incompetent management regime. It's kind of sad working there. Vern hiccups and there are 40 broken noses the next morning.

bill e. goat said...

CWMOR sez:

"Historically, wunderkinds burn out early; die young; suffer from depression, mania and psychosis; have been noteworthy fascist apologists and anti-semites; as well as sadists".

Goat:
What are you buttering Vern up for- are you trying to get one and move to the front of the line or something??? :)

BTW, I think you are referring to "JetComplete-NG" now.

But,
"Where we disagree I think is that IMO we are actually comparing the M5 to a Suzuki XL7".

I'd say more like an 1995 Honda to a 1995 Hyundai. The Honda get's r done (yikes- where'd that come from; dependable, efficiently), the Hyundai of 1995, well, just plane (ah, plain)...sucked.

But 10+ years later, the Hyundai is giving the Honda a respectable run, at the low end...

Will Eclipse be here in 10 years? Well, if they could have survived the past 10,...

And just think, if Eclipse continues to hire 1000 production people per year, by then they'll have reached critical mass on the gift shop sales, and won't HAVE to sell any airplanes :).

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,
"I trust Diamond more for $3.9mil than Eclipse for $1.6mil. My money; my choice."

Indeed it is your choice. Your choice. Your folly. But let us be crystal clear on this point:

You fault Eclipse for not being quite done yet, but somehow you're perfectly happy with the D-Jet--a plane which is nowhere near certification and nowhere near delivery. A plane which may never be certified and may never be delivered.

Eclipse has delivered 14 aircraft. Count them! 14 Aircraft!. There aren't any D-Jet's delivered anywhere in the world.

I'm interested in the D-Jet enough to ask to see one. Can you guess what they told me? I would have to look at a MOCKUP of the plane because it turns out they only have one actual plane, and it isn't being used to show to people because it's the only thing they have for certificaiton testing. Eclipse had 5 aircraft for certification testing at a similar point in its development.

So, I'm still scratching my head, Gunner--how does a guy whose complaint with Eclipse was that they had a few I's to dot and a few T's to cross wind up happy switching to a company who is just starting out??

Two months ago you were singing and dancing about FIKI certification. But you no longer need to worry about that--D-Jet is a year or more from flight certification before they can even think about FIKI certification!

I'm the first one to say that each and every one of us that is lucky enough to be able to purchase a plane has the exquisite pleasure of deciding for ourselves how best to spend our money. But you've nixed Eclipse for a few things not yet done while signing onto a company that is miles behind it!

How do you explain that, Gunner?

Ken

anonymous avionics engineer said...

14 Aircraft since TC last October, WOW, I'm impressed. Sounds like there is a lot more to be done than a few i's dotted and t's crossed. Like maybe the engineering that should have been done in place of the band aid job that has been done over the past 4 or 5 years with all the suppliers walking. It is not very often that the FAA gives out a 'green' TC (like the design isn't ready yet), but if anyone has earned it, Eclipse has. Like everyone has said, in a few more years it will probably be an OK airplane ... until then, the buyers are signing up for test pilot school at their own expense, with their families lives on the line.

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"You can say you were wrong about your characterization of the Diamond\Thielert engine failure, come on, I know you can do it."

Absolutely. I'll be delighted to say I was wrong when you prove me wrong. Until then, the cause was that the battery went dead, the electrical system couldn't handle that, and when they raised the gear, they crashed both FADECs.

You see it a different way? Let's hear your version.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

Anonymous avionics guy wrote,
"14 Aircraft since TC last October, WOW, I'm impressed."

You ought to be. How many AdamJets have been delivered? How many D-Jets? How many PiperJets? Cirrus "the Jets?"

Eclipse delivered about a dozen planes in 5 weeks. They have their production certificate and they're cranking planes out now. I can certainly see why that has some of you upset.

Ken

anonymous avionics engineer said...

It has been more than 5 weeks since TC has been granted. Obviously, even to someone as unknowing as myself, there is a lot more work that had to and is still being done. In other words, the typical Microsoft gambit: sell a product before it is ready. Let the buyer beware.

anonymous avionics engineer said...

Upset, hardly. I can't wait for the numbers to start rolling in. Let's let God sort all of this out, shall we?

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote

"'there are 7 or 8 times as many owner/pilots ordering an Eclipse as a D-Jet"
Really, Ken...care to provide the numbers for us?"


Sure. The last published count was 140 D-Jet orders with 120 of them to owner/operators. 120 * 7 = 840 and that's right about where the owner/operator count for Eclipse is.

The fact is, for all sorts of reasons, guys like gunner represent a small minority--the bulk of the owner/operator VLJ orders have been going to Eclipse.

Ken

ExEclipser said...

I'd like to switch lanes for a second. I'd like to know (and I'm not being smart asterick here) how many other jet companies have started up in the last decade from scratch? I can think of a few - Sino Swearingen, Adam (I'll throw them in there just 'cause they've been working on the 700 just about as long as the 500), and that's about it. What are those company's investment levels?

In another lane of thought, Vern has always stated that his aircraft's price is based on cost, not market demand. Sure, he could have done the same strategy as every other aviation company out there and based the price on market and it would have been around $2.1 Mil from the get-go and possibly wouldn't have needed to raise prices. But he wouldn't have 2500 orders, either. His desire is to get people out of props and into jets. If energy costs hadn't doubled in the last 3 years and Airbus and Boeing hadn't bought up 95% of available aircraft aluminum, I'd venture to say that you'd still be seing a $1.2 Mil price tag.

FlightCenter said...

Ken,

You say 14 airplanes have been delivered. What documentation do you have to back up that statement? Which serial numbers have been delivered and on what dates?

As of today, the FAA data only shows 5 aircraft with a C of A.

Serial #1,2,3,6 and 7 have been issued C of A. (Technically that doesn't prove they've been delivered. It just proves that the approvals necessary for delivery have been issued.)

Serial # 8, 10, and 12 have been issued experimental certificates. These aircraft can't be delivered to a customer with an experimental certificate.

Serial #4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... have not been issued a C of A.

Serial #18 hasn't applied for an N number and has not been issued a C of A.

Serial #4 was claimed to have been delivered, but then sent back to Eclipse for some mods. I'm betting the C of A will not be issued until those mods are completed.

airtaximan said...

x-clipser,

you say:
"But he wouldn't have 2500 orders, either"

I say, no matter what, Vern would have found a way to publish 2500 orders - no matter what...

At $2.1 or $2.3 do you think Dayjet would have ordered/optioned less?

Funny thing is, the capital cost of the aircraft is very much secondary for air taxi...Dayjet had the same order in the 2002 timeframe, when the plane WAS less...

airtaximan said...

Ken:

when was the last real number published for e-clips orderbook/individual buyers?

Face one fact - the e-clips orderbook is rubber...made up as we go along.

Any assumptions you make, are OK - just say, I think, or I assume, or maybe, or lets say.

Finally, at between 50% and 75% less than most the other VLJs, e-clips has probably (no one knows, right?) less than half the individual owner market.

Without their fleet order/options from Dayjet, they have an unimpressibe orderbook...and virtually no business case.

Keep the faith, Ken... but understand, its blind faith...

airtaximan said...

ken:

smell the cofee, pls.

you say:
"How many AdamJets have been delivered? How many D-Jets? How many PiperJets? Cirrus "the Jets?"

How many of these guys promised hundreds LAST YEAR? HOW MANY OF THESE GUYS SPENT $1 billion? How many OF these guys asked for 60% progress payments from hundreds of unsuspecting buyers?

'comon Ken...

airtaximan said...

AAE,

"14 Aircraft since TC last October"

Man is this ever an understatement..

David Crowe (and other planes) were started in May of 2006...by Sept there were 25 planes or more in production....sincethen, there have been a reported 57 planes in production...


WHERE ARE THE PLANES?

I'm sure dayjet will receive a handfull soon...thye HAVE TO begin service (after a few false starts) or the condo of cards comes down pretty darn fast...

WHERE ARE ALL THE PLANES?

someon please tell me what happend to the high rate production machine moving planes out like Dunkin Donuts?

There have been 1000 people, now 1200 people working at e-clips fro months now...where are the planes?

Is there a problem?

airtaximan said...

ken:

when you say:
"But you've nixed Eclipse for a few things not yet done while signing onto a company that is miles behind it!"

They are not miles behind e-clips... its only a race in this regard to folks like you.

Some people distrust e-clips. The distruct runs deep. It is related to all things "safety and quality", which to some are more importnant than waiting a year.

Diamond has successfully fielded many, many planes. They are proven safe, the company is proven reliable and realistic about their goals and schedules.

e-clips is WAY behind.

To some folks, these issues matter more than the race you desribe.

Also, Diamond will do it for a fraction of the program cost, and they will do it in half the time... these issues signify professionalism, reality and reliability. E-clips cannot say the same.

Gunner said...

Ken-
By your comments I now understand where you're coming from in your continued fixation on Diamond. You feel the FIRST guy over the Personal Jet finish line is the best. Well, then we're back to Mustang, aren't we? Eclipse already lost that race handily.

You're right in that Eclipse probably will get its Paper Plane certified before Diamond. So what? This is no grant of integrity or longevity.

Diamond has a long way to go to certify the D-Jet, but it's a known aircraft manufacturer with proven designs and maintenance already in place. Eclipse has a long way to go to certify the Eclipse that's being sold. But, even then, the Company will retain an image for unprofessional conduct and questionable dealings with its suppliers, investors, regulatory agencies and client base.

Dealing with Diamond was a breath of fresh air after the Three Stooges Comedy at Eclipse. They deal honestly; they know their product and its limitations and they're more concerned with making aircraft than headlines. They tell no lies about where they're at and what is currently functional.

I still don't understand why you're so fixated on this little single engine paper airplane. By your own reports it's not even in the same league as your little twin engine paper airplane. Is it the fact that I'm betting $4.2 million on it? (my mistake earlier when I said $3.9, sorry).

See, just like you, I thought about buying an Eclipse AND a Mustang for that same money. But the Mustang is far more aircraft than I need and the Eclipse is far more hype than I want. Perhaps, if they get rid of Vern and evolve into a real aircraft company, I'll take a second look. If they start today it could be accomplished right about the time Diamond certifies the D-Jet. See the logic?

Suggest you start a D-Jet Critics Blog. Let's see how many people show up. ;-)
Gunner

airtaximan said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weOcrP7u7Y8&NR=1

a380 evacuation...pretty cool...

ExEclipser said...

Honestly, have you seen the D-Jet? It's a five seater, 2 up front, and a three-way bench seat in the rear. The bubble cabin you can almost sit in, but I was quite under impressed with the mockup at Sun-N-Fun. And how much is it going to cost? And it's a single engine? I find much more comfort and value in a late, over-budget, under-performing Eclipse any day.

It seems to me like the biggest gripe in this blog is that Eclipse has been spouting off guarantees they couldn't live up to and has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in re-engineering the plane to make those guarantees, which in turn has created schedule slides. They're delivering and Adam isn't even to first base with their prop job. Where is their criticism? Wonder if Pogo is bashing their head on the wall with their A-700 purchases?

Forget all the hype, guarantees and all of the money spent to get to the point where Eclipse is today. If you wanted a low cost jet you could fly alone today, what would you buy? Some may still go for a D-Jet or a PiperJet or a Mustang or an A-700. But for the money and performance (in what it is, not in what was promised), your best value is the Eclipse. And you'll get one sooner than a Mustang, D-Jet, PiperJet, or an A-700.

airtaximan said...

execlipser,

"if Pogo is bashing their head on the wall with their A-700 purchases?"

they left that order by the wayside a long time ago.

they are ordering 50 eclipses..

Gunner said...

execlipser said:
"And you'll get one sooner than a Mustang, D-Jet, PiperJet, or an A-700."

Exactly why some of us won't fly in the plane. ;-)
Gunner

airtaximan said...

the only way e-clips can increase orders, is by rasing the price, announcing the new higher price is coming...and offering a delivery position at the odld price if yu "act before midnight tonight"..

otherwise, you do not need to place a deposit for an e-clipse. You'll have more than enough to chose from in late 2008 or early 2009...no deposit (risk) required...

sparky said...

Execlipser wrote

"Vern has always stated that his aircraft's price is based on cost, not market demand."

All aircraft pricing is based on cost, but you have to know how many of the aircraft you can be expected to build in order to accurately price your model to be both profitable and competitive.

It looks like vern knew neither. otherwise the pricing would have stayed the same, and you wouldn't have a fictional order book.

all things considered, that was a pretty stupid coment.

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"I still don't understand why you're so fixated on this little single engine paper airplane."

Fixated? Good grief.

I am indeed interested in this VLJ, actually in all VLJs. Always looking at options.

You seem to be singing a different song today than last week. Last week, your problem with the Eclipse was that it wasn't done yet--that the company is selling a plane they haven't quite yet delivered. I believe you said the "paper plane" was perfect for your needs except it doesn't yet exist and may never.

Now that we discovered you've signed onto a project that is actually way further behind, your tune is emphasizing the "three stooges comedy at Eclipse."

OK, it isn't so much that Eclipse isn't 100% done yet. Your concern is you didn't like dealing with them.

And just out of curiosity--are you aware of the delay the Diamond Twin Star faced with its introduction in the U.S.? It was over a year! Being a "known aircraft manufacturer with proven designs and maintenance already in place" (your words) didn't help them deliver on their Twin Star promises in a timely manner, did it?

I like the D-Jet. I'd be delighted to discuss the pros and cons of this plane with you. But right now, I'm interested in pointing out that much of what you've been saying against Eclipse is also true of Diamond--but more so--their product is very much more a "paper plane" than the Eclipse.

I think what really happened here is that Eclipse got you angry, and now you can't ever go back to them. You're saving face.

Ken

airtaximan said...

Ken:

Its pathetic watching yu try so hard to make e-clips look better than they are, and try to make everyone else look worse than they are.

remember the promise:

"E-clips is not one of those dinos over there - this is a revolutionary, high tech, low cost, air taxi optimized jet that is easier to fly, afford and maintain than all of those other planes"

The program cost overruns, delays, bad decisions, jettisoned systems (avionics and engines) and rubber order/option book speaks for themselves. While proclaiming their greatness at every turn, you seem to be conveniently forgetting that compared to what they claim, the company's trackrecord is worse than the dinos they've targeted.

Sorry buddy, everyone here can see right through you, and if Gunner choses to by Diamond, and distrust e-clipse, I think it has nothing to do with anything you bring up.

Its just common sense.

EclipseBlogger said...

Cabbie said... Gunner, the diamond plane makes terrific sense for air taxi compared with e-clips, AND there have been unannounced fleet orders ;)

Cabbie, you amaze me. Not even Gunner believes that statement, and has come right out and said he thought the D-Jet wouldn't pass the AirTaxi litmus test as a single engine jet. And, what this about unannounced fleet orders? How dare they! Are they now trying to emulate Eclipse. Where's your criticism for their not releasing that information?

Gunner said... Lloyd- Re-read my statement in context. You'll find that nowhere did I claim the D-Jet will be routinely (or ever) flying at 30-35K.

Gunner, your statement was pretty ambiguous. I too had to re-read it. I would expect "more gooder" grammer and sentence structure from a publisher.

Gunner said...

Ken-
That dog simply don't hunt. My "tune" has not changed one bit.

I don't like the EA-50X because I don't trust the Management Team that has created, lied about, hyped, bullied and strutted around it. I don't trust the contract engineers who designed it around Vern's vision. I don't believe the Order Book. I don't believe the pricing can hold. I don't trust the serious design issues that have been admitted to after Certification of the Beta Model. And I don't intend to be the test pilot for an aircraft that is a Work-in-Progress.

I'd much prefer to bet on Diamond. The corporate culture is far more to my liking and, obviously, the dollars are not paramount to me as they seem to be for others.

I've been extraordinarily consistent in my position toward Eclipse ever since my (what was that word you used?)....oh, yes; ever since my "defection".

I own 3 D-Jet positions. I don't trust the EA-50X. You own 1 EA-50X position, yet you're looking at the Mustang and the D-Jet. Don't know about YOU, but my behavior appears entirely consistent.

Ken said, "I think what really happened here is that Eclipse got you angry, and now you can't ever go back to them. You're saving face."
Yup, I'm spending over $4 million dollars just to "save face" with Vern. And I wanted to murder my father and marry my mother, also. Thanks for the psychologic insight. But, then, I've stated more than a half dozen times that I'd buy an Eclipse IF the Paper Airplane ever becomes a reality and IF the company ever grows up and recognizes that it's in the business of making safe, dependable aircraft; not hot air.

Spin attempt noted and dismissed. Enjoy your Fleet. ;-)
Gunner

airtaximan said...

Sparky,

what you say is very true...and...

yu would not be able to buy one with no deposit in late 2008 (yr 1 of production) or early 2009, if he knew what he was doing...

Boy, he can rasie money though - -I'll give him that.

airtaximan said...

EB,

"earth to EB, earth to eb...come in eb..."

yu say:
"How dare they! Are they now trying to emulate Eclipse. Where's your criticism for their not releasing that information?"

Eb, do you think I have a problem with anyone NOT announcig a fleet order? This is funny.

The problem, if you haven't picked up on it yet, is..e-clips misinformed the public by stating that Dayjet ONLY had 239 orders plus 70 Options WHILE at the same time they said they had a total of "over 2500 firm orders backed by non-refundable deposits"

Over 1400 of THOSE orders were Dayjets, not 239+70 - this was a lie. How many more of the 1400 orders are actually "options"...who knows.

This has nothing to do with keeping confidential information about a fleet order private.

So, I have no problem with a company quietly taking fleet orders, and not disclosing them, stating they have XYZ other orders. But to mischaracterize the magnitude of one single fleet order and state its only 20% of what it is to make everyone think you have more orders from other folks, is well, "new to aviation"... not "good" new either.

Get it?

airtaximan said...

EB,

you knew about the 1400 (really 1440, right?) Dayjet orders/options...care to disclose how many are options? What is the non-refundable deposit on the options?

-was it you who said that e-clips disclosed this to investors, etc...and you've known about it for a long time? (real question, can't recall)

Also, do you have any insight into why there have been very few deliveries out of ABQ since PC?

what's the hold up?

airtaximan said...

Gunner,

there's no way Ken is loking seriously at Mustang or diamond... transparent BS.

He's hooked on e-clips...

He'll just report back bad stuff about the other guys...

Trying to feel better about himself and his purchase... like the rest of his posts here -

- a real inner struggle at this point, apparently.

- he's already decided to dislike the other planes - look at what he writes, and look at how he treats you (defector) - imagine how HE would feel if he switched?

+ I think most people with the wherewithall would just buy a Cessna, and stop worrying about all the potential problems with e-clips.

airtaximan said...

EB,

there are 10,000 planes in part 135 today, many, many singles...whoever discounts the single engine for air taxi is being silly.

SATSAir has hundreds in air taxi today. Single engine dinosaur propellar planes... and apparently they are doing pretty well.

If you think Dayjets computer system somehow renders single engines obsolete for part 135, well...I would politely disagree.

unless of course you make the argument that someone getting out of their car into an air taxi would only do so in a twin engine - then, I'd have to say "perhaps you are correct"...no one knows this yet. BUT, I suspect, they won't care, either...

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,
"unless of course you make the argument that someone getting out of their car into an air taxi would only do so in a twin engine - then, I'd have to say 'perhaps you are correct'"

Right. How many TBM-750's are there in air taxi service? :)

TBM-750/850 is a great plane. Aside from its high initial acquisition cost, its numbers should have made it a successful air taxi aircraft. But it did not take the air taxi market by storm because people don't like planes with only one engine, and they don't like twirly things on the plane.

Ken

airtaximan said...

Ken:

try, try again...

there ARE 10,000 prop planes in air taxi today...so you TBM example is is silly, except, I guess it means a few knots more speed is not really what worth you think its worth... in air taxi..

'specially not for 1-2 hour trips...

thanks for the help..

you seem like a very unsavvy buyer, with your own ideas that are not connected to the facts...

enjoy your fleet.

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"I guess a few knots more speed is not really what you think its worth in air taxi.."

Right. The VLJ air taxi revolution, in my humble opinion, is not about a few extra knots. It is about personal, per-seat, on-demand jet service at an affordable price. An essential element of that is a plane with low acquisition cost and unprecedented operating efficiency, able to be produced in large enough numbers to suit potential burgeoning demand. The Eclipse meets all those requirements; it's the first plane to do that.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"enjoy your fleet."

Thank you.

What planes do you fly in your fleet? Do you own them?

Ken

sparky said...

Ken,

While your usually wrong/transparent on just about everything you post, I have to give credit where credit iis due.

Jet aircraft are seen as inherently safer by the traveling public. Studies have been conducted that show an almost 30% in traffic for routes that have switched from turbo-prop to Jet aircraft.

Now don't turn around and try to make the case that the 30% increase is enough to fuel the Air Taxi market.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken you asked me to provide you with 'my version' of the events leading up to the dual engine failure - there is no 'my version', there is the words of the subject flightcrew, the results of the post accident investigation, and the words of the OEM prepared and EASA Certified AFM\POH - PERIOD.

In the post I gave you links to a professional pilot group discussion and an article covering what happened as additional source data.

The flight crew went out to fly, and found the battery dead.

They used ground power to start both engines although the POH specifically states you start ONE engine on ground power and do not start the second engine or dispatch unless and until the running engine has charged the battery to sufficient level to start the other engine WITHOUT GROUND POWER.

The pilots deliberately did not follow the POH procedure Ken, it is pure and simple. They did not follow procedure then they crashed when the plane which was not 'airworthy' in the technical sense due to the low battery, suffered an EXPECTED failure.

You characterized, actually mischaracterized, the failure as the result of a 'routine' power drop across the buss when the gear were retracted.

It is not hardly routine when the battery is not in condition to be flying, which is why the procedure exists in the POH in the first place.

None of this is OPINION Ken, the POH can be looked up and read, and the Flightcrew ADMITTED they did not follow the procedure called out in the POH.

Now you may think the data in Section 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the AFM\POH is optional, but failure to respect the limitations and follow the published procedures ROUTINELY results in action against airmen. Similarly, failure to maintain an aircraft in accordance with Chapter 4 and the published procedures in the AMM will result in action against repairmen.

With the low battery how long due you think EFIS would run? Standby instruments? This is why modern electrically dependent aircraft have specific procedures and limitations re: dispatch with low\dead batteries. I will bet your precious wonderjet has specific guidance about engine starts in cold temps and a minimum voltage reading prior to takeoff.

Those procedures and limitations are developed and CERTIFIED to prevent accidents like the Diamond experienced. The flightcrew deliberately deviated from the published procedure and paid the price, thankfully no one was KILLED and only the plane was damaged.

Now about that apology....

ExEclipser said...

Alright - I've looked and looked and can't find where DayJet is going to hire 5 pilots per airplane at $50k/yr. The only info I can come up with on their website says that even though the aircraft is certified for one pilot, they will initially be flying with two.

airtaximan said...

sparky,

there have recently been a lot of prop sales to airlines...

while the jets are perceived as modern, safer, etc... a twin engine jet is not a requirement for air taxi... which is where this began.

The fleet of single engine prop planes inpart q35 is growing very quickly... no special centralized computer system required!

;)

airtaximan said...

x-eclipser,

"How many pilots will you hire by the end of 2006?

DayJet anticipates hiring close to 100 pilots by the end of the year."


Heere's you reference to 5 pilots per plane:

http://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilotsample/dayjet.html

A lot of other great info too...

This was posted around February or March I believe...

enjoy

sparky said...

ATM

i agree, I think it's been demonstrated that the whole air taxi market is a joke.

But, people in general still prefer jets to props, at least the unlearned....hmmm, hey ken...ah, never mind.

airtaximan said...

sparky,

air taxi IS not a joke...millions of passenger travel on props and jet every year all over the world, today. Its been this way for 50 years.

- the e-clips plane and the Dayjet business are nothing new
-this is the problem with the "air taxi revolution" being claimed by Vern and Ed.

EclipseBlogger said...

ATM said... Over 1400 of THOSE orders were Dayjets, not 239+70 - this was a lie.

I don't see it that way. The 239+70 were the only positions made public - the rest were undisclosed until DayJet made it public.

ATM said... was it you who said that e-clips disclosed this to investors, etc...and you've known about it for a long time? (real question, can't recall)

What I was implying previously, and what I will say now, is that all kinds of investment companies have looked over these issues and have made their own conclusions. Their decisions were to back Eclipse with real dollars. Some of these firms include Credit Suisse, Merrill Lynch, UBS, and others. Go figure.

ATM said... EB, there are 10,000 planes in part 135 today, many, many singles... whoever discounts the single engine for air taxi is being silly.

I don't disagree with that, but how you get from the Eclipse not being suitable, to the D-Jet being viable for airtaxi service, is beyond me.

airtaximan said...

EB,

"I don't see it that way. The 239+70 were the only positions made public - the rest were undisclosed until DayJet made it public."

OK: so how does e-clips have more than 2500 without the disclosure fot the 1400 order made by Dayjet?
- They Don't.

Once again, until e-clipse, every other company distinguished between orders and options. If they said they had 100 orders, this did not include options. If they said they had 100 orders, 20 of which were from XYZ, we would not find out later that XYZ has 6 times those "orders" many of which were options.

- you can admit it, they lied.

- many of the investment companies you list as evidence that the info was visible and correct is irrelevant. These guys invested in ENRON, Worldcom, Adelphia..and many other now defunct companies. In fact, except for securred debt, most of the companies you refer to MADE MONEY ON OFFERING THE INVESTMENTS (including e-clips) and recommending the investments to "investors". Thin argument, but nice try!

when you say:
"Eclipse not being suitable, to the D-Jet being viable for airtaxi service, is beyond me"
- no added payload range (meaningful) and for 1-2 passengers which is what will be the case for air taxi companies including Dayjet, E-clips makes less sense.
- If you believe the magical promise that many passengers will flock to this "new" air taxi business, go for a plane with more seats, greater payload-range than e-clipse.

PS. I'd offer that Cirrus makes pretty good sense too - see SATSAir..
that's how...

airtaximan said...

anyone here know what happend to the 20-30 e-clips planes that have been in work since sept /06?

why is there not a stream of planes coming off the line?

What happend?

ExEclipser said...

ATM: Thanks for the link, but the link is bad. At least it looks like I have to pay to read. Anyway, saw the ref to the $50K in a different section on that page, but nothing anywhere about 7 pilots per plane.

It would not suprise me to see most of their initial hires to be left-seat qualifiable and then in a year or so reduce the requirements (and pay) for new right seaters. They're trying to get the best experience base possible right now and that's a good way to do it.

As for the reference about having 100 pilots by the end of 2006, that's been on their website from about day 1 when I'm sure they were hoping to have 50 planes by 12/31/06.

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ExEclipser said...

And you know the cost to build an Eclipse how? Or does it simply not fit your predetermined formulations? Sorry, but I'm not going to accept a "because that's what company A's airplane cost".

PubGrubber said...

ATM

A quote from a Boeing Press release on the 787.

"Just one year after having introduced the 787 Dreamliner, we have now captured orders and commitments for 237 787s from 19 airlines around the world."

How many firm orders and options?

This is consistent with their PR, backlog numbers were stated as "orders and options" but the breakdown was not given.

And this is how the "big boys" play the PR game.

sparky said...

Yeah ATM, how 'bout them Boeing orders...

Pubgruber, tell me your not serious....please.

PubGrubber said...

Sparky,

Sorry.

However; if you do keep track of the press releases, sometimes they will stipulate # or orders and # of options as the airlines make each purchase. Just not very consistent.

Gunner said...

Eclipser said:
"And you know the cost to build an Eclipse how?"

If cold hard facts were all that were allowed on this Blog, The Faithful would have to be the first to the sidelines. Experience and deduction have their place; and have repeatedly proven more accurate than Eclipse PR, finger pointing and explanations of "it's well into development. We'll be 'cutting it in' in a couple of weeks".

There is no other manufacturer that has priced a similar aircraft even close to Eclipse's $1.6 mill. Deduction demands the following possible explanations:
- All others are marking up their Jets by about 100%. Lack of windfall profits puts the lie to that.

- Eclipse has an order book that will drive unit costs thru the floor. Busted.

- Eclipse has developed a manufacturing process that is about 40% cheaper than the competition. The FSW Myth has been busted, so that doesn't explain it. The overhead, including officers, is off the charts, so that would seem to put a lie to it.

Heck, this is the same company that designed AND tested their aircraft in a virtual computer simulation, claiming it created cost efficiencies; yet they STILL managed to burn thru 10X the investment in the Mustang.

Gunner

Plastic_Planes said...

Eclipse has developed a manufacturing process that is about 40% cheaper than the competition. The FSW Myth has been busted, so that doesn't explain it. The overhead, including officers, is off the charts, so that would seem to put a lie to it.

It's all simply in the numbers. Economies of scale do apply here. I saw numerous analyses that broke down parts costs at volumetirc deliveries, and above 750 or so a year, the pricing drops significantly.

In addition, the E-Clips model is predicated on reducing total labor content down quite a bit (to the "hundreds" of hours) That is a small number for the complete assembly of an all metal A/C.

BTW, I have seen a large number of posts about "1200" workers and hwy they can't build that many jets... The total number includes all DL and administrative functions (Sales, Marketing, Engineering, etc.) I would guess (yes Ken, it's a "guess") that they have about 600 DL people right now. The rest have other duties "as assigned".

/s/

Gunner said...

PP-
Thanks. Yes, we've all seen numerous projections on various items from Eclipse. And we've each seen what their projections came to after the reprojected projections and the first corrected recast to the reprojected projections.

But it all comes down to basics. There's nothing magical in their manufacturing or purveying; they simply need to produce about 1,000 aircraft per year and find the customers to buy them in order to be profitable. Thus far, they've demonstrated neither capability and have consistently mislead about both.

Surely, they could drive the price of the Jet down well under a million bucks if they could simply deliver 10,000 aircraft per year. But why stop there? Why not go for a $200K twin engine, 41K, air taxi rocket. It's doable...all you need is a keyboard, a spreadsheet, a vivid imagination and a wink-and-nod promise of "options" from Ed Iacobucci.
Gunner

BD5 Believer said...

Back to an earlier discussion between several bloggers regarding pilot staffing leverls at Dayjet:

According to an article in the May AIN that just hit my desk, Ed is quoted as wanting to have 50 a/c operational by year end, with 250 pilots, 50 mechanics, 75 customer service reps, and 10 to 15 Dayports in operations.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 308   Newer› Newest»