Friday, June 15, 2007

Eclipse Aviation Delivers Another First for the Revolutionary VLJ Market

Albuquerque, NM -- June 15, 2007

Eclipse Aviation, non-manufacturer of the world's second or third very light jet announced today that it had achieved yet another first for the emerging Very Light Jet market.

Said Andrew Broom, Director, Public Relations "As you know, Eclipse was the very first, well, second really, Very Light Jet to be fully type certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. In our great haste to first gain our provisional type certificate at Oshkosh of 2006, a scant 8 years after the beginning of our revolutionary aircraft program, it appears that we have a few minor design issues."

"Today we are announcing that we have achieved another first, beating Cessna, Adam, Embraer, even Diamond and Cirrus, by being the first and only VLJ to be the subject of what the FAA calls an Airworthiness Directive or AD. This AD will limit our revolutionary and very popular industry leading VLJ to daytime only operations, to visual flight rules or VFR flight only." continued Broom.

"This means that not only do pay half as much for our jet, you get to use it half as much too. Since most accidents actually occur at night and in bad weather, usually with icing present, we are really helping to keep our customers safe by making a plane that just can't fly in those conditions in the first place, demonstrating our commitment to the safety of our unsecured investors, err, I mean our customers." said Broom, straight-faced.

About Eclipse

Eclipse Aviation, non-manufacturer of the world's second or third very light jet, is in the business of sort-of designing, kind-of certifying and occasionally producing almost modern, somewhat affordable jet aircraft that will, someday, revolutionize the transportation market. The company is mis-applying advanced electronics systems, and mis-managing manufacturing and business practices to try to produce aircraft that cost half that of today's small jet aircraft (from many years ago), we really hope but have no actual clue if they will be significantly safer and easier to operate than those of today, and we keep telling people that they will have the lowest cost of ownership ever achieved in a jet aircraft, so it must be true, right?

An encore performance from ColdWetMackarelofReality


airtaximan said...

As we have said many, many times already - e-clips knew this was going to be the case, long before they made any public announcements.

"This AD will limit our revolutionary and very popular industry leading VLJ to daytime only operations, to visual flight rules or VFR flight only"

How do we know?

- Their air taxi company is called "DAYjet"

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...


That's funny right there, I don't care who ya' are, that's funny.

With apologies to Larry the Cable Guy.

Speaking of Larry the Cable Guy, I understand his next movie is the sequel to his hit Health Inspector movie.

Larry the Cable Guy, Eclipse Quality Inspector - Git-R-Done!

Black Tulip said...


Greetings from afar. Nice writing in your last two news releases. Glad to see that you are maintaining the high standards of satire on the blog.

To paraphrase John Dryden (1631-1700) again, "Invective is the slovenly blow of the butcher's axe while satire is the cut of the sword so fine that it severs the head and leaves it standing in its place."

Black Tulip

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Thanks BT.

As Carlos Mencia says - If you ain't laughin', you ain't livin'.

This is occasionally like watching a tragic comedy unfold. It is funny, and sad, all at the same time.

Stan Blankenship said...

And not to be outdone in the humor department, a37pilot wrote...


The wonder jet was meant to redefine aviation as we know it. The problem we are having is that we are applying dinosaur definitions. The chart below should help clear things up.
PAR - Precision Approach Radar
PAR - Prepayments are required
VFR - Visual Flight Rules
VFR- Very Frequent Repairs
IFR - Instrument Flight Rules
IFR- Inflight Reboot Required
DME - Distance Measuring Equipement
DME - Doesn't Mean Everyone (as in doesn't mean everyone will ever get their jet)

hummer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cj3driver said...

DayJet (VfrJet) has some very competitive "existing" competion on the short hops.

Take a look at the Satsair ( website. They quote Lakeland to Gainesville, 119mi, 1.1 hrs and a "member" rate of $462.00 and you get the whole plane, non stop. A new SR22. Thats $154 per seat. They will even take you this evening, even though there are forecasted showers. Thier existing service area is 10 times the size of DayJet and they will take you to pretty much ANY airport for the same price per hr.

True, VfrJet will probably shave 20 min. off the flight time after the pitot system is fixed, but the cost will be triple (and that’s per seat). To get a reasonable rate you have to travel to a “VfrPort” or pay extra and VfrStop. …and there’s a good chance you will share the taxi with someone else.

Satsair reports that over 30% of flights are the non-business "friends and family" type vacation/recreation travel. If this is the case, the DayJet system will not be cost effective for 2 or more travelers, given the hourly rate for the whole plane, and the multitude of legacy charter operations at a similar price, for much larger aircraft, C500, B200, Pilatus, ect.

Satsair just ordered 50 more planes from Cirrus.

hummer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

DayVFRJet, kinda nice ring to it.

SATSAir is the real deal, they are upgrading all existing aircraft to the new G3 Turbo version of the SR22, FIKI and everything.

Steve Hanvey of SATSAir is I think another ex-Raytheon guy like Blue at Spectrum. I think Hanvey was in an executive role at Raytheon Aircraft during the development and growth of Raytheon's TravelAir fractional program (one of the best).

hummer said...

All kidding aside (as shown in my last two posts) I am having a really hard time of trying to understand the business model of Day Jet and how they can attract enough business to cover their expenses and succeed. Can anyone clarify this for me?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...


If you speak Russian I understand that Ed has some chaos theory mathemeticians and ant farmers who can 'splain it to you.

In terms most of us are used to seeing though, it seems pretty inexplicable.

This is I think probably why so many here think it will be TangoUniform by Dec '08 and why Ed and Vern are convinced it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

gadfly said...


It’s that IFR (InFlight-reboot Required) statement that would bother me. A few versions back of “Windows” (NT, W2000, something . . . there was always “something”) we got the “Blue Screen of Death” . . . and we had to “hard boot” the thing, and hope that our multi-thousand dollar wonder would continue to operate.

There was always that “Control-Alt-Delete” command (which never did anything) . . . and non-functional keys like, “Esc” (Now, that should be connected to the ejection seat which is connected to the parachute which is connected to the “pilot” . . . now that would make sense of the “Escape” key . . . Microsoft had Eclipse in mind, “way back then” . . . well, we all get the picture.) It certainly wasn’t “UNIX” which always did exactly what you told it to do, even if you didn’t want it to, with no message about “are you sure?”

So, here I am, dis-oriented, on a “clear day”, flying VFR at 15,500 feet well within the legal limits of the little bird . . . and some clouds suddenly decided to “appear” . . . dew point, air temp, coming together without warning . . . sort of thing. And maybe the sun just went down.

Now what? Is the bank going to “understand” when I don’t make the next payment? And those paying customers . . . correction, “paying customer” (I forgot about the maximum payload for a moment) . . . it that “paying customer” required, by law, to pay up through the family members in his will? It’s all so confusing!


(It’s concerns like that, that keep a person awake at night . . . and it puts a strain on a marriage. Oh well, maybe the “NG” version uses “Vista” . . . I understand that it’s now called the “Green Screen of Doom”. Comforting to be a part of the “green” crowd.)

Gunner said...

The answer is simple. It's a clever, back door play for the local street taxi run. Just take the wings off that bird and reinvent yourself:

"Eclipse: We take the AIR out of Air Taxi"

I can just see the news conferences now: Eclipse Taxis are about to darken our streets. We need User Fees to cope.


hummer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cj3driver said...

Mirage00 said;

“…I feel a yawn coming on...
I remain amused…”


I wouldn’t be amused, or feel like yawning, if I just plunked down 1.8 million hard earned dollars for a new jet, …and its VFR only. The monthly cost for my new toy is over $20,000.00! …and I’m stranded because its cloudy? …. And I have to take it back to ABQ when?…. and for how long? Who pays for the downtime, travel expenses, lost time at work? Not only that, pull out the AFM and check the fuel burn and speed at 17,500. You better not be going over 100nm.

This is a brand new jet!

I’m assuming you have a PA46. Remember when the Lycoming AD’s were issued. My Mirage was grounded for over a year. Luckily I had another plane (although Lycoming did take care of me), but there were a lot of unhappy operators, and multiple lawsuits. Just like Eclipse, Lycoming knew what the problem was, but it still took months to make the fix and get approvals.

I feel very sorry (and mad) for the 60% deposit holders. There must be a couple hundered of them and I would love to hear how Eclipse is “making it right” for those people. ....I’m quite sure, those customers are not “amused”.

hummer said...

I wouldn't be caught dead (bad phrase) in the cockpit without my fully charged (does the Eclipse have a cigarette lighter) updated portable Apollo GPS. Then I don't give a damn what happens to the glass, I can get home that night or the following for dinner.

Gunner said...

I give Bamba and CWMoR all the credit for soothsaying around here. But I'll take credit for this one, posted yesterday:

"a jet that is fast becoming the laughing stock of aviation"

Faster than even I thought.

gadfly said...


Does your Apollo GPS include a "tip and bend"?

If not, you may want to "upgrade".


cj3driver said...

Now that I’m thinking of it, I can’t believe the VFR AD wasn’t issued a long time ago. How could one safely file IFR and then “hope” for VMC conditions enroute. At FL250, you can’t cancel and go VFR when there is a cloud in front of you. What if there is traffic conflict and you cant get a vector, … declare an “emergency”?. I guess you would have to. I can just see the report, “uh… I had to declare an emergency and make a 120 degree rt turn because there was a cloud in front of me…” never mind the 747 decending thru 260 at 4 O'clock, doing 400 kts.... scary.

The mandatory VFR AD should have been issued when the problem was discovered. Not just for the safety of the eclipse drivers, but for all IFR traffic.

cj3driver said...

If there were ever "favors" granted to Eclipse by the FAA, it would be on this IFR/VMC issue. How could the FAA not have insisted that if the plane is restricted to VMC, it must remain VFR only, and, below 18,000?

I'm not sure what the process is for the issuance of an AD, but, maybe this is something the FAA originally wanted, but it takes time to implement. If this is the case, Eclipse should have notified its customers not to file IFR until the problem is fixed. Luckily there hasn't been an accident yet. If Eclipse was my company, I would have required this as soon as the VMC restriction was recommended. There are too many instances where IFR routes, or ATC clears you into IMC conditions.

Isn’t there a rule out there if you cant fly IMC legally you cant file IFR? If there is not one, there should be.

planet-ex said...

I knew something was wrong with that pitot-static probe when I looked up the specs on it and the one that Cessna is using on the Mustang. The Eclipse item had a wattage rating more than half that of the Rosemount probe (Rosemount at about 480 watts).

hummer said...

Why do you suppose that some Eclipses were taken off flightwatch especially when they were flying in the clouds and thunderstorms? Could later be evidence of something not quite right? This is what is going to make the Part 135 operation in Florida very very interesting. You got to file.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Gunner might be on to something with the non-air air taxi for DayVFRJet.

I seem to recall when the BD-5J did not pan out as Bede expected, many were converted into cool-looking enclosed motorcycle type trikes. Still see them on e-Bay every now and then.

Wow, everything old really IS new again.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Picture of the BD-5 derivative Pulse trike.

About 400 were made.

hummer said...

I think the FARs say that a 135 Dispatcher can not give a flight to a pilot nor can the pilot accept and fly a flight that is in anyway in violation of any FAR. . .PERIOD. The pilot, Dispatcher and the 135 Operator can be procecuted, lose their licenses and be put in prison.
Try flying hazardous materials without the proper authorization.

gadfly said...

As a child cannot choose it’s parents, so the “little jet” cannot choose it’s designers and manufacturers. That being the case, I almost feel sorry for the little thing . . . born “deformed”, and with limited mental capacity. The designer of the famous A6M Zero, said about his first design, the A5M, “It looked like a demented duck!”. But he went on to design the next aircraft, and it was a success.

Well, the “little jet” is “cute” in it’s own way, but it is . . . shall we say, “challenged” in many ways? Unfortunately, it appears that it will never make it in life . . . it simply lacks the necessary genetics.

It deserves our sympathy!

Gunner said...

Gad said:
"That being the case, I almost feel sorry for the little thing . . . born “deformed”, and with limited mental capacity."

I've thought a bit about this, Gad. About the aircraft with so much promise and the workforce with so much dedication. This was to be a tight little sports-car, personal, entry level jet; fast, reliable and efficient. It might have been that (though probably not at $1.7 Mill). It would not have been "revolutionary", though it might well have been quite successful.

It's really so unfair to both the jet and the Eclipse workers to have it come out this way. I mean that.

I wonder if there is a Depositor out there that would refuse to rewrite history and have this dream brought to production by a Cirrus or a Diamond or even a Bede rather than what they have been saddled with. At least then they could believe most of what they're told.

Everyone in this passion play deserves so much better; except those who have made "the dream" not about the Jet, but about their place in aviation history.

airtaximan said...


common sense, for one or two passengers on 500 mile trips, the props have the e-clips beat on price, and there's no real time savings.

those guys are operating simple cirrus planes, and are making a mark on the industry.

the e-clips revolutinary air taxi plane and Dayjet's fancy computer system, is well... nothing.

"we're in the computer business, we just happen to be flying people" will be the demise of Dayjet... they forgot the plane has to meet the competition - it fails, plain and simple.

Impose a stop... have a game for a pricing model, charge between $1-$4 or charter prices for the plane, and you have absolutely nothing.

People hate small planes or don't mind - and the ones that hate will never fly e-clips over Satsair.

All the commotion about, well...BS, plain and simple.

Enter, per jet and some unnamed price, and you probably have a real business jet choice, with proven equipment, known operators, and more comfortable jets.

Welcome to the hype revolution - where only the press is really intrigued, and where the equipment manufacturer has to invent his own customers.

airtaximan said...

from the perspective of the private owner...

I can almost hear them: "honey, I swear, one day we will be able to fly this thing where we want. I swear, it will be upgraded. I swear, I'm not an idiot, it will have functioning avionics. I swear, the mentor pilot will not have to fly everywhere with us. I swear, its only amatter of time before the AD and the rediculous inspection intervals are removed. I sear, the cracking and yellow tags do not mean the plane is unsafe... and the trim - it will get glued back on, I swear. Honey, I know what I am doing, and I did not just blow our money on this darn thing. It WILL work one day - and I am not just being a cheap bastard - this thing will work one day - I swear."

It's one of the stupidest things in jet history, really. Showing the customer you don't respect them, or even your own product. After 9 years and $1billion... its gotta really suck.

I can almost hear the factory floor: "why are the assholes delivering incomplete planes? Why are they lying to the customers? How long can this go on? How can we be proud of THIS - its supposed to be a cutting edge jet goddamit!!?"

airtaximan said...

A simple question. SIMPLE.

Does e-clips KNOW how much they are going to charge for Jetcomplete?

They must. If not, what the frick are they doing? They must.

It's been months, and there's no supplier hold up on this, no pesky FAA, and nothing left to be resolved. The plane is being delivered, and the maintenance centers are (ok, a real joke, here) operational.

WHERE IS THE JETCOMPLETE honest-to-goodness-non-introductory-low-ball-scam-price?




Shane Price said...


The 'Big Issue' for JetComplete is best demonstrated by yesterday's AD.

How can support for the E50 (as in, not quite an E500) be costed when they still don't know WHAT the aircraft is?

JetComplete must include everything, ESPECIALLY items that require action after an A.D. is issued. Otherwise, it falls short of being 'complete'.

Hang on, this is the Eclipse we're talking about. Complete is not a word that is understood down that neck of the woods.....

Another worrying thought. Several fully paid up members of Comic Relief (aka 'the faithful') were more than smug earlier this week about 'big news' in a day or so.

Well, its Saturday (early afternoon) in Europe as I write, and no news, other than the aforementioned resrictions to VFR and FL180.

Could it be that the 'Deacon' misled the flock? They thought the Pitot issue was gone, instead they get an A.D.

Until 'Tuesday' when S/N 39 is delivered....


FlightCenter said...

I agree with much of what has been said comparing SATSAir's SR22 fleet, to DayJet's E500 fleet, but to be fair...there are advantages and disadvantages.

The current fleet of SATSAir SR22s are all limited to 17,500 feet. No RVSM certification required.

Even with the turbo, you aren't going to see an SR22 flying above the low 20s. The turbo will help getting above some of the weather, but there is still a lot of weather at and above piston turbo altitudes.

The SR22 is not certified for flight into known icing and there are no plans for FIKI cert. So SATSAir will have some serious issues when it comes to flights in the winter.

The SR22 does not have cabin class seats available for the paying passenger. Passenger comfort, while significantly better than Cessna single engine pistons, is pretty marginal for someone chartering an aircraft for business.

Baggage space (and weight) is rather limited. You aren't going to fit clubs or skis in a Cirrus.

The biggest disadvantage for a charter customer will be that it only has a single piston engine and a propeller.

However, let's look at a couple advantages of the SR22 over the E500.

New aircraft shipping from the factory are equipped with a WAAS GPS capable of flying LPV approaches(localizer precision approaches with vertical guidance). I haven't heard any statements from Eclipse as to when the E500 will be capable of flying WAAS LPV approaches.

There is a lot of redundancy built in to an SR22 that you won't find on an E500. Four electronic displays (2 from Avidyne & 2 from Garmin) plus mechanical airspeed, altimeter and ADI backups. Two solid state ADAHRS plus a mechanical gyro (part of the S-TEC autopilot). Mechanical fuel gages, as well as electronic fuel gages and electronic fuel totalizer. Mechanical circuit breakers instead of electronic circuit breakers. On top of all that, there is the parachute.

Gunner said...

I flew Stormscope for a number of years; then Stormscoe and color radar; recently upgraded to Stormscope, Radar and XM Weather.

I've only flown this configuration about 50 hours, but had occasion to hit weather in routes from TX to WY and WY to NC. Typical central weather with lines od thunderstorms, hail and tornado from the OK panhandle to north of Omaha. Picked my way thru it like a pup thru a cactus field, VMC at 14k most of the way.

I gotta tell you, I'm not at all certain that the old saw about the importance of "getting over weather" holds as much weight as it once did. There is no doubt at all that it makes for easier and more direct flight planning; also far more efficient for jet travel. But, in terms of weather, you still have to climb thru the stuff and descend again.

More important, in the case of a DayJet, I think it's a moot point. If they start climbing to FL410 on 500 mile hops it'd only be because they're "deviating vertical for weather". I'd think the most efficient profile (@31K) is gonna place them in the same position of having to pick their way around the stuff, regardless.

The latest cockpit weather technologies, in many ways, define the too often abused term "revolutionary" far more than the EA-50X ever will. May Le Petit evolve to the point where it can use same.

FlightCenter said...


I agree completely that having datalink weather in the cockpit is by far the biggest revolution we've seen in recent years. It provides dramatic increases in safety, in utility, in confidence while enroute, in figuring out where to go when the weather changes after you launch...

I've been flying with datalink weather for about 2 years now and really don't ever want to fly IMC without it. It is probably the best ROI upgrade you can find for your aircraft.

I also agree that datalink weather can let you fly lower by providing the information you need to stay clear of the thunderstorms.

However, right now datalink weather doesn't have icing forecast information. I'm told it is coming. You can try to make an educated guess on icing by looking at winds aloft and then looking at Nexrad, but Nexrad doesn't show the whole picture when it comes to visible moisture.

Flying a non-FIKI aircraft in winter, I find myself canceling flights and wishing that I could get up to the jet flight levels when there is icing forecast at the lower levels. SATSair is going to have the same issue.

Areas of known icing or forecast icing in winter are much larger and much harder to avoid than thunderstorms in the summer. Even if you are flying an aircraft certified for FIKI, you are going to be much better off flying a jet above the crud. Just look at the FedEx record with ice and Caravans.

airtaximan said...


while you are correct, I suspect e-clips knows more today then when the promised JetIncomplete. They have a TC and PC, and they have delivered some planes. They have a new avionics suite coming - and the suppliers are known.

The "unknowns", well, they are a fact of life for a company with no in-service history and no real track record. That's what you get...

So, why not come clean, now, and tell the world you "missed again" by 30% or so.

E-clips can always increase the price later - that's the revolution - right?

They indeed should know the economics behind the operations of the revolutionary, designed for high-cycle-economic-highly relaible-air taxi-jet.

Otherwise, its all been a big fat joke to the tune of $1 billion spent on the program, AND God only knows how much deposit money - if you designed a product for cost (hourly total operating cost based on utlization for a market requirement, and operating and ownership over the expected product life) YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME FAIRLY CLOSE AFTER YEARS OF DESIGN AND THE DESIGN COMPLETED AND DELIVERED, NO?

The ADs... truth be told, no way they will anticipate this, at this stage. The plane in very light... and there's no reason to believe its been designed for any sort of durability. Hence the cracking...

Shane Price said...


I agree with you!

We differ only in your 'faith' (awkward word, especially in this context) that Eclipse have a good handle on what JetComplete should cost.

The JetC product has some elements of insurance about it. Eclipse are prepared to repair/replace almost every part of the a/c for a fixed cost per flying hour.

I say 'almost' in case one of the Drive By(e bye) Boys find something that isn't.

To offer this level of assurance they will need their suppliers to go 'back to back' with them, otherwise any self respecting auditor would make huge provisions against any (seems remote) profits.

Its standard procedure in complex systems to get this type of backup from your suppliers when offering what I would call a 'maintenance contract'

So, my hunch is that they can't NAIL down their thrid/fourth/fifth (delete where applicable) supplier for each of the many systems that are covered and which could fail.

P&WC would be simple for the engines. However....

The Avio NG?


add to list as you see fit.


We agree that Eclipse SHOULD publish the pricing for JetComplete.

I just don't think their auditors will ALLOW them to.

And, if I was a partner in the accounting firm who is unfortunate enough to be in this position...

I wouldn't either.


ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Engine coverages are separate from JetINComplete, see the fine print. This coverage from P&WC is split into Hot Sections\Overhauls for one price and Life Cycle Fatigue parts for another price.

Suddenly everything isn't quite 'everything' and affordable isn't quite 'affordable'.

Again, JetINComplete is a neat idea, but the fine print wars have only just begun. Putting words together with no spaces between them (JetComplete, OneCall, etc.) might be good enough for the MBA but it has nothing to do with accurately estimating cost of operations or calculating exposure risk for a fleet wide Mx event.

It says if you are not in JetINComplete you don't get SB coverage for example.

How 'bout them apples, say Eclipse issues a Safety-of-Flight SB for something they screwed up, like a freezing pitot, cracking windshield, cancelled avionics contract or slipping wing attach bushing for example.

You get to pay for it at retail (parts AND labor) unless you are in JetINComplete.

Not a commercial operator? No tire and brake coverage.

Not a commercial operator? They will not ALLOW you to do Mx at your own facility.

Last word from the faithful some time back now, was that new pricing would be announced soon, rumor was about 30% increase.

Frankly, unless JetINComplete has some truly oppressive regulations or requirements in it, EVERY operator should probably sign up for it and use as much of Eclipse's money as possible.

No reason to pay for Eclipse's learning curve (and it will be a VERY painful one) with your own money when they are offering you access to theirs.

Looking at what they propose to offer, and even giving them credit for volume, anything less than double their original estimate will result in an ongoing financial loss of such magnitude that even Vern won't be able to raise enough coin to keep it going.

It will be the financial equivalent of a sucking chest wound with no medical help nearby.




Gunner said...

I believe XM does provide freezing level info, though I haven't schooled myself in that part of the system yet. It does provide cloud top levels, however, which is some help.

I am deice equipped (which means, in my piston twin world, I've got just enough wiggle room to divert OUT of it, not to continue in it). But I fly to various parts of the country pretty regular and can't remember the last time I ended up no-go or destination-diverted as a result.

The last time I was held up for ice was Nov '04 in Montrose, Co. I got to the airport early and decided to wait it out. A Challenger jet decided otherwise. Dick Ebersol's son and crew died in the crash on takeoff. I hangared the Baron for two hours, dried it off and left, VMC all the way over the top at 17K.

Again, I'm not saying that the higher flight levels doesn't add to the REAL value proposition; simply that it's not quite the factor it was just a few years ago. For me, the greater value in a jet is their ability to properly handle ice in the first place. This is one of the things I like about Diamond; wet wings vs boots.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Been kinda quiet around here lately in terms of the WonderJet Twins and the Drive-By Brothers, I am worried about the little guys. Probably dazed and confused.

Must be taking longer than expected to put a positive spin on an Airworthiness Directive.

I have faith though that they will return. As before, look for praise for Eclipse for getting 'out in front' of the forthcoming FAA Airworthiness Directive, and being so 'open, honest and transparent' about the issue.

Look also for a variety of totally unrelated (oft-times repetitive) mentions of seemingly positive (or at least non-negative) news about other issues, and of course the trashing of the dinosaurs and critics, along with someone 'yawning' about how there is nothing new to see here.

airtaximan said...


can you say, MRO RESERVE?

fairly common...

And Shane, you are correct - -its a BIG accounting issue. If you thought they were losing money on the early deliveries before, imagine how this risk might affect things.

airtaximan said...


perhaps along with aircraft tracking silence, they have radio/internet silence in place now too.

What do you think the mainteannce folks in Gainsville are doing today? Fixing plastic trim?

Gunner said...

OTOH, perhaps at least one or two are starting to get the REAL message out of ABQ. My money's on Ken and Sherri Meyer as among the first "defectors" in the coming months, but I doubt this Blog will receive any credit for that.

Quite the opposite; we'll actually be blamed for making Eclipse's success so much more "difficult". Vern will be painted as something of a tragic martyr, "crushed" by the aging dinosaurs and a handful of "disgrunts".

airtaximan said...


I think you are wrong.

"Defectors" have a choice.

Gunner said...

Eclipse will have a couple more market surges, regardless. Just look at the history of steady, yet BACKWARD, progress since Dec 31, when a fully functioning Eclipse was projected at 1,000 deliveries per year and AVIO was imminent. Compare to where we are today.

Despite that history of 1 step forward, 3 steps back, Eclipse has seen a couple sellers' markets. Ken will have his chance to unload, if he so desires. PT Barnum proved as much.

As for the Drive-By Brothers, no skin in the game other than a paycheck. ;-)

Stan Blankenship said...


"My money's on Ken and Sherri Meyer as among the first "defectors in the coming months..."

As I recall, you had similar thoughts on eo387 and now, he is next in line.

FlightCenter said...


Agreed. You are lucky that you've only had to cancel once in 3 years for ice. You must live in a warm locale.

I've had to cancel on numerous occasions and had plenty of long delays while waiting for better conditions. It makes the passengers quite nervous.

The wet wing really takes quite a while to remove ice once it has accumulated, much longer than I like. However, it seems to work quite well at preventing ice.

That means you better have it turned on in advance of getting into potential icing situation.

For any wet-wing, I'd want to have enough anti-ice solution in the tanks to last the entire flight. That isn't the case for an SR22. I have to give Cirrus credit as they've added a much larger TKS tank on the turbo and basically doubled the time you can have the system on.

Of course, the best de-ice solution is lots of hot bleed air, but you need plenty of spare engine power for that.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Super High-tech twinjet - $1.4M

Maintenance Facility - $25M

Russian chaos theory mathemeticians and ant farmers - $3.5M

Writeup focusing on poorly fitting plastic trim and a diversion and RTB becasue there were CLOUDS on the big inaugural press flight - PRICELESS

The Eclipse 500, think of it as Aviation Lite, half the capability and cost of a real jet, and all the hype!

planet-ex said...

airtaximan said...

perhaps along with aircraft tracking silence, they have radio/internet silence in place now too.

What do you think the mainteannce folks in Gainsville are doing today? Fixing plastic trim?

Probably nothing but burning around $2 million per year.

19 A&P's
1 Repairman
+ support staff
+ overhead
=$2 million or so...

Gunner said...

FC said:
"The wet wing really takes quite a while to remove ice once it has accumulated, much longer than I like. However, it seems to work quite well at preventing ice."

Yes and boots can really get you into trouble if you blow 'em too early. Just a question of whether you prefer de-ice or anti-ice. I prefer anti-ice, or better yet, BOTH as with Bleed Air.

(BTW, I'm FL based, but fly lots more in winter than summer, and anything above 8-10K outside of Florida is sub-freezing during the winter.)

Stan said:
"As I recall, you had similar thoughts on eo387 and now, he is next in line."
Bite me! ;-) (I never said I was clairvoyant and granted that mantle to a couple others here.)

But I'll say this:
I don't believe EO will have much interest in or use for the plane they're gonna try to deliver him. As I recall, he already had to pilots lined up for training and employment flying the Jet until he came up to speed. That's an expensive commitment for a VFR only aircraft, with a fraction of the "Go" systems he has on other planes he owns.

But he may be at the point of no return; I believe they hit him up for Progress Payments. Regardless, my money's on that guy; the very fact that he advanced was probably the biggest endorsement Eclipse has received this year.

WhyTech said...

flight center said:

"I haven't heard any statements from Eclipse as to when the E500 will be capable of flying WAAS LPV approaches. "

Here is a SWAG (simple wild ass guess): Chelton is providing the FMS; Chelton does not currently support LPV appraoches due to the fact that their FreeFlight GPS receiver is not Beta 3 capable. Chelton has announced that they have selected a new vendor and that this GPS receiver is Beta 3 capable. I have learned that the new vendor is Spectralux and they are saying "certification in October, 2007). So, IF E-clips is going with the Chelton/Spectralux system, it would seem to be after Oct when this capability will be available. How much after is anyone's guess.

Re wx datalink. I have been using this since 2000, first in my Baron, now in my PC-12, and soon in an Enstrom 480B helicopter. It is in the "dont leave home wiithout it" category for me. I also have radar and Stormscope in the PC-12, but consider NEXRAD a no go item in the summertime.


sparky said...

One of the things I find interesting is the avionics suite in the ea50 is the lack of choices the owner/operator has.

The dayjet guys don't care, it's a job. They fly whatever their paid to. The owner/operator on the other hand has no say in what type of equipment he's utilizing.

The current posts about XM, stormscope, WX weather just show that all pilots prefer different equipment.

If you buy any other aircraft and want to customize your flightdeck, you buy the equipment and have it installed by whomever is qualified. Some if it can be bought off by a form 337, some with a log book entry and some by STC.

The ea50 on the other hand voids it's airworthiness if you change anything in the cockpit. You're slaved to whatever the original configuration is.

Another down-side is if one of the OEM's dis-continue their current equipment, Eclipse has to re-certify the entire system, because it's all tied together. And you have to wait for them to get around to doing it. If you have a failure and they haven't thought far enough in advance, your grounded until they feel like updating.

I know, the faithful will say they've taken that into account...just like the current problems they're experiencing with training pilots.

Gunner said...

Those are REAL good points that I hadn't considered.

Here's another: DayJet and Its REAL Relationship to Eclipse-

This entire relationship creates more questions than it answers. Here's an OPERATING company, with an enormous investment, ready to go.....for months. Pilots have been hired, Dayports opened, competition on its heels and the CEO would naturally want to show the world what Astro can do.

He could easily prove his model AND begin operations with any number of piston, turboprop and jet platforms that have been mentioned here; even platforms that can be leased. The EA-500 is hardly the ONLY aircraft that fits his model.

Yet Ed continues to delay, awaiting the completion of the EA50X? Which, based on yesterday's report, will probably not be before year end for Part 135 purposes.

I am not buying it. Not for a second. DayJet needs revenue just like every other startup with investors. They can't allow the competition to get too strong in their market, either. I don't believe Ed, let alone his investors, would simply forgo that revenue because Vern is not ready. Not when he could do a one year lease for the necessary 10 FUNCTIONAL aircraft and be flying within a couple weeks. I don't believe it for a second.

Which begs the really BIG question: what's the real relationship between DayJet and Eclipse? Why is DayJet so willing to accept obvious lie after pitiful excuse and postpone their launch?

sparky said...

would really like to know what amount of money is really tied up in those 1,400+ orders. Wonder if he made pricing concessions in exchange for exclusivity.

Wouldn't Ken be pleased to know that not only were they recieving preferential treatment with regards to deliveries, but with pricing as well.

Gunner said...

I'll GUARANTEE they got some real deposit and price concessions; I'd consider both Eclipse AND DayJet foolish if that didn't happen.

But Ed could get significant concessions in purchase or lease of just 10 planes. It's a whole lot better than waiting until Eclipse has worked thru their version of "teething problems".

WhyTech said...

sparky said:

"One of the things I find interesting is the avionics suite in the ea50 is the lack of choices the owner/operator has."

This is true to a significant degree for any acft with an integrated avionics suite, such as Garmin G1000, Collins Pro Line 21, etc. These are usually so intertwined with the airframe that there is no PRACTICAL alternative for changing/adding equipment in the future unless offred as a compatible mod by the original manufacturer. You are pretty much committed for the life of the airframe, and had better have faith that the avionics manufacturer will a) be there, and b) provide some way to keep up with advancing technology. AvioNG is a bit of an unknown in this regard as several of the vendors are at best "second tier."

Integration brings some advantages, but at a cost.


sparky said...

I know that early in the program, as recent as '04-05, eclipse was trying to incorporate an Iridium data-link to monitor operating perameters on the aircraft. I was told that this would enable to eclipse to monitor all activity and notify you your plane was broke before you knew it was. Haven't heard anything in years about this in a while.

Ken, EO, any word on this?

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"boots can really get you into trouble if you blow 'em too early."

After extensively investigating that theory, NASA has rejected your view:

"Ice Bridging is a myth for modern equipment. The concern was that ice would form a sheath at the inflated extent of the boot, and remain there. Subsequent boot cycles would be unable to remove this ice. Bridging may have occurred with very early boot technology that had wide tubes and slow inflation/deflation rates. However, there is no evidence that modern pneumatic boots have ever had this problem."


WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"After extensively investigating that theory, NASA has rejected your view:"

NASA may have done so, but much of the rest of the worls has not. This is a topic I have pursued endlessly with experienced aviators, and the NASA view is accepted by no more than half of them. It would appear that the jury is still out on this topic.


Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"Those are REAL good points that I hadn't considered."

You haven't considered whether an integrated avionics suite locks you in to a particular avionics package?

I trust you realize that you will not be able to pull the G1000 out of the D-Jet and replace it with something else any more than an Eclipse pilot can pull his Avio NG and swap it for Garmin.

Even the Mustang's Garmin implementation prompted these words in the TCDS that are practically identical to those for the Avio implementation in the Eclipse:

"No significant changes may be made to the installed cockpit equipment or arrangement (EFIS, autopilot, avionics, etc.), except as permitted by the approved MMEL, without prior approval from the responsible Aircraft Certification Office."

As Whytech points out, modern integrated aircraft, whether from Eclipse, Cessna or Gulfstream, are a diffrent breed than your old Baron, where you could replace a radio or a steam gauge at your whim.


Gunner said...

Great info; I do thank you for that, Sir. Honestly.

My pneumatics were installed in 2004 and the supplement from June '04 still speaks of the issue of "bridging" due to inflation of ice that's less than 1/2"-1" thick. Is it that the deice system for this Baron dates back to the 90's or is the NASA report not accepted by the FAA?

Good, constructive topic. Thanks for the input.

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

"Old" Baron?
Kenneth, it's a '91 with Foxstar conversion in 2004. Old...well, let's just say "old" is 30 years old, especially after a crash in Year 1, OK? ;-)

Had hoped you might have stepped out of character. I see that's not possible except for a few seconds.

But, please DO "carry on".

WhyTech said...

gunner wrote:

"is the NASA report not accepted by the FAA?"

I think you are on to something here!


sparky said...

wrong answer Ken, I've personaly been involved in STC programs on Gulfstream aircraft.

Why do you think the aftermarket mod centers are a huge target for avionics manufacturers.

Gunner said...

I see now. Ken's response was evidently a knee-jerk to the assumption I was singling out the Eclipse. Adam is going boots; Mustang has gone boots; I have boots.

I don't prefer boots, nor was I knocking Eclipse for having 'em. There are so many more substantial shortfalls to notice.

Thanks for the info. I'll continue to use the boots as I always have. Sorry, Ken.

Ken Meyer said...

whytech wrote,

"NASA may have done so, but much of the rest of the worls has not. This is a topic I have pursued endlessly with experienced aviators, and the NASA view is accepted by no more than half of them."

The NTSB has the same view as NASA and faults several crashes on inadequate dissemination of the newer view.

In the aftermath of Comair 3272, the NTSB concluded, in the context of turboprops (but similar logic has been and is applied to piston props):

"Further, because ice bridging is not a concern in modern turbopropeller-driven airplanes and because thin amounts of rough ice can be extremely hazardous, the Safety Board believes that the FAA should require manufacturers and operators of modern turbopropeller-driven airplanes in which ice bridging is not a concern to review and revise the guidance contained in their manuals and training programs to include updated icing information and to emphasize that leading edge deicing boots should be activated as soon as the airplane enters icing conditions.

It is important to note that although leading edge deicing boots are useful in minimizing the adverse affects of ice accumulation on an airplane’s protected surfaces, activation of deicing boots does not result in a completely clean boot surface; some residual ice remains on the deicing boot after it cycles, and intercycle ice accumulates between deicing boot cycles (on the EMB-120, during the 54-second or 174-second intervals, depending on the mode of boot operation selected). Icing tunnel tests indicate that when the deicing boots are activated early, the initial
deicing boot cycle leaves a higher percentage of residual ice than it would with delayed deicing boot activation. However, when the deicing boots remained operating during the remainder of the ice encounter, subsequent deicing boot cycles resulted in a wing leading edge about as clean as would occur with delayed boot activation."

Interest stuff.


Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"Ken's response was evidently a knee-jerk to the assumption I was singling out the Eclipse. Adam is going boots; Mustang has gone boots; I have boots."

Not at all. My knee-jerk reaction was to you offering as fact another piece of information that is decidedly not a fact (i.e. that early use of boots is improper and dangerous).

BTW, I don't know what Adam is doing. Last time I talked to them, they were leaning toward TKS. copy of the D-Jet contract promises only that the plane will have icing certification; it does not specify either boots or TKS as the mode of achieving that certification.

TKS and boots each have their own set of drawbacks. I don't see one as a clear winner over the other. TANSTAAFL.


WhyTech said...

saprky said:

"Why do you think the aftermarket mod centers are a huge target for avionics manufacturers. "

In the end, its a matter of money. It is technically possible to develop STC's to make all manner of changes to an integrated avionics suite. The STC developer will need to have some confidence that he can make it a paying proposition - in other words, that enough acft owners will "see the beauty of it" and put their (large pile of) cash on the table.


Ken Meyer said...

whytech wrote,

" I've personaly been involved in STC programs on Gulfstream aircraft."

No doubt requiring the application of a lot of money :)

I'm not suggesting it is impossible to make any changes to an integrated panel. I'm suggesting that a panel change in any aircraft with integrated avionics will be an entirely different proposition than pulling a KNS-80 in favor of a GNS-530.

I think most GA pilots are of a mindset that they should be able to drop their plane off at their local avionics shop for panel work any time the whim hits them. That's a mindset that, IMHO, won't work with the Mustang, the Eclipse or other planes with highly integrated panels.


Gunner said...

Jan D'Angelo, of Adam, told me two months ago that they will go with whatever FIKI system they could get certified first; just after he told me their wet wing supplier couldn't get the job done. I read between the lines. Hardy fact; just a pretty good assumption.

As to my providing non-factual info on the issue of icing, I've been told a whole bunch of things by pilots, as concerns how I should operate MY plane. I always seem to fall back on the AFM, which I've referenced in this case; if you know of a bunch of AFM's that argue for inflation immediately upon encountering ice, please tell us.

Otherwise, I believe I was providing "best available data" from a number of manufacturers, over a period of decades; Dr. Dan Bower's relatively lone voice objections notwithstanding.

Now, how 'bout that upcoming DayJet Delay Announcement?

WhyTech said...

gunner said:

"if you know of a bunch of AFM's that argue for inflation immediately upon encountering ice, please tell us."

I dont know of a bunch, I know of one- Pilatus. AFM says start the boots at the first sign of icing and leave them on. On the other hand, I am told by some Pilatus savvy instructors to do it the "old way." I do it by the book even though I am not sure that there is a conclusive body of technical data for one way or the other.


gadfly said...

Here's a study worth reading:

It will not give comfort to those who put their trust in "boots". The summary on pages 108-109 reveals that even with proper cycling of the boots,losses of lift of 25 to 27% at maneuvering speeds, and much greater approaching stall. Much of the study was conducted at 170 knots.

You read it. And take some good hard looks at the photos and charts at the end of the report.

(And notice the comments about "lift" at speeds approaching 100 knots.)

It would seem that aircraft with minimal power, that cannot afford the "luxury" of "blead air" to de-ice the wings, better be very careful how they use their boots. And carry an extra pair of "boots", to walk back from where-ever you had to put down the plane.


WhyTech said...

Ken wrote:

"whytech wrote,

" I've personaly been involved in STC programs on Gulfstream aircraft." "

Whytech didnt write this. I have never been involved in any STC programs for any acft.I think it was Sparky.


sparky said...

What's relaly hard to believe is that the company know about the problem and pushed through with certification anyhow.

Does this not bother anyone but me?

WhyTech said...

gadfly said:

"It would seem that aircraft with minimal power, that cannot afford the "luxury" of "blead air" to de-ice the wings, better be very careful how they use their boots."

Right on. I have consistently been told that FIKI capability based on boots or TKS is to be used to get you out of the ice asap, and that even bleed air based deice/anti ice cant fool Mother Nature everytime.


Gunner said...

I never saw the study, but you now understand why, for me only, TKS seems a better system and, even that, a far cry from bleed air.

As I just said in an email response to a fellow blogger here:
"In any case, IMHO, ant-ice or deice on anything but a twin jet requires immediate action to get out of it. Higher, lower, left, right, forward, back or land. I do NOT like icing."


gadfly said...

Every airplane driver that reads this blog should download that 160 page “pdf” report, and at least look at the pictures, and read Pages 108-109.

Just because you have deicing equipment (boots, “weeping wing”, . . . Teflon coated feathers, whatever) doesn’t mean you can ignore what ice can, and will do to your aircraft, the first time you “ain’t lookin’ ”.

It this suggestion helps prevent just one air tragedy, then Stan’s blogsite will be worth more than it’s weight in gold.


Gunner said...

I've now browsed much of it and read the pages you reference and the image explanations. Great stuff.

Also noteworthy is their disclaimer that what works at 170+ knots will not necessarily work at 120 kts or at higher altitudes: "The ice shedding shear force at 170 kts is 290 percent higher than at 100 kts."

Also noteworthy was the deference they showed to AFM's: "Information developed by airframe manufacturers for their aircraft is typically proprietary and not available for public guidance. Therefore, a collaborative research program was proposed to respond to these issues."

So, I guess Ken's info was observation in a vacuum, from a practical guidance standpoint. Trust your AFM.

In any case, the study underscores that casual, Continued FIKI requires a pilot that REALLY knows his aircraft, and an aircraft with a whole lot of spare power to be applied, PRN. Piston twins generally don't have it. Nor, I believe, do certain VLJ's.


gadfly said...

Good show!, Gunner.

You done yourself a great favor . . . as well as your passengers.


Gunner said...

Yes, I learned something. Unfortunately, it won't benefit me or my passengers. I learned that, NASA scientists notwithstanding, I should continue to do exactly what the manufacturer recommends. 'Cuz that's probably based on the Best Available Data.

Which brings us full circle, no?... the importance of aircraft manufacturer integrity. Aircraft companies tended not to sell Beta Models with a wish for blue skies and a promise of a Mentor Pilot (to be trained) and systems, to be delivered on Tuesday.

It's a New Day, for sure.

gadfly said...


It was not intentional (that it be shown), I’m sure, but when the vertical fin snapped off that “Airbus” coming out of Boston, the news footage showed a fleeting view of the eight-attach points (two rows of “four”), and the remarkable strait lines of carbon fiber running uninterrupted straight through the holes.

Well, I’ll not get into a discussion about the proper methods of “fiber reenforced composite construction”, but this is not the first time I have seen a major “goof”. When the reports were finally made public, the “blame” was placed on the “pilot(s)”, that they used too sudden and too extreme rudder movements . . . and therefore it was “their” fault, that the fin parted company.

So, I’m not “too thrilled” to hear the soothing words of the “airframe manufacturer”, nor the forensic reports. There was a time when a “walk-around pre-flight” by the pilot was more than adequate. But any more, a pilot had better do a “crawl through” while the plane is being built, to have full knowledge of the airworthiness and structural intregrity of the beast.


(It’s comforting to know that when my “laptop” or “desktop” poops out, I can call up Dell, and within a few days have the latest and greatest “screamer” in my hands. A three-year-old computer is four generations past due, and is a throwaway. When a jet is designed by a person whose experience is in computers and software . . . I watch and wonder.)

Ken Meyer said...

"I should continue to do exactly what the manufacturer recommends. 'Cuz that's probably based on the Best Available Data."

You're the PIC; it's your call. But do you have any idea when the manufacturer did the testing for the Baron icing certification?

Yours is known ice even though you added it aftermarket, right?

I think you've brought up a very interesting point. When new data surfaces that shows something in the AFM is outdated, is it appropriate for pilots to follow the new recommendations even though the AFM contains the old recommendations? In the case of operating deicing equipment, the NTSB is recommending exactly that ("The Safety Board believes that the FAA should require manufacturers and operators of
modern turbopropeller-driven airplanes in which ice bridging is not a concern to review and revise the guidance contained in their manuals and training programs to include updated icing information and to emphasize that leading edge deicing boots should be activated as soon as the airplane enters icing conditions..."

The LOP gang has been facing this issue for years--LOP could be the best thing since sliced bread, but most AFMs contain operating instructions that do not permit its use. You fly LOP? Probably your AFM says not to.


Gunner said...

Hey, CWMoR-
Your were wrong this time. You said the memo would instruct to focus on yawning and unrelated "progress"; you missed the strategy of parse, niggle and redirect.

Oh, Hi Ken. So what DO you think of Eclipse's "progress" from Jan 1 to today. Full Certification and AVIO one step away. 1,000 aircraft in 2007.


VFR only flight, AVIO trashed, interiors dropping parts in front of reporters and an already produced fleet to be rebuilt. They won't even hazard a guess on number of aircraft to 2007 anymore.

What's that do to your "Value Proposition", Ken?

EclipseBlogger said...

sparky said... I know that early in the program, as recent as '04-05, eclipse was trying to incorporate an Iridium data-link to monitor operating perameters on the aircraft. I was told that this would enable to eclipse to monitor all activity and notify you your plane was broke before you knew it was. Haven't heard anything in years about this in a while.

A recent article entitled "Iridium Reports Strong Growth for Mobile Satellite Services in Aeronautical Sector: Aero Subscriber Base Is Up 60 Percent Over Past 12 Months" reports:

Eclipse Aviation is offering Iridium satellite communications as a standard option for the new Eclipse 500 very light jet. The system will transmit operational data, including timing of departures and arrivals, as well as maintenance status of the aircraft and its subsystems. Eclipse has been appointed an Iridium VAM and VAR.

The complete story can be found here

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Parse, niggle and redirect should go without saying Gunner - standard fare for the faithful. ;^)

See Iridium post. A 'standard' option - will be ready 'Tuesday', just behind Part 135, refreshment center, 6th seat, potty, oh and that whole new avionics suite thing.

BTW, operating in a way at odds with the explicit, certified procedures of the AFM\POH may result in revocation of your certificate Ken. Just tell the nice man you read a NASA report somewhere and THAT is why you were not following procedure and see how well the ASI reacts.

Ken Meyer said...

cold and all wet wrote,

"Parse, niggle and redirect should go without saying"

Perhaps you prefer "prevaricate, exaggerate, and fabricate." There's plenty of that on this blog to please you.

And, I do not agree that failure to follow the AFM to the letter is grounds for revocation. I think in most cases that's wrong. It depends on what you failed to follow in the AFM. My AFM, for instance, says I should operate my aircraft at 50 ROP. I'd be most interested if you can identify a single pilot violated for failing to follow that procedure.


Gunner said...

Not to niggle or parse....but, my, you are the wizard of disconnected aviation trivia.

So, back on track. Tell us what you think of DayJet, holding operations 'till Fall or Winter....just to accommodate First Flight of the EA-50X. Dontcha think they have other options?

You wouldn't be holding a list of DayJet "investors" in your Magic Trivia Bag, wouldya?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Sorry Ken, forgot I have to be extra special clear for the short bus brigade.

If there is an incident or accident, and you are explaining to the Aviation Safety Inspector or other representative of the Adminstrator that you were doing anything other than what is in the AFM\POH it will come up and WILL result in enforcement action - when you take it upon yourself to deviate from ATC instructions or standart operating procedure, the buck stops with you and that may well result in enforcement action up to and including revocation.

Try reading some enforcement action reports or NTSB accident\incident reports and you will see exactly what I mean.

And may God help you if you are in a jury trial and admit you did anything other than what the book says unless it saved the people and the plane, and the sheep in the field and the little old lady sitting on her porch.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

And Ken, while we are on the subject, you throw around accusations of 'fabrication' an afwul lot, care to provide a single example of a real honest to goodness fabrication on the part of the critics on this blog?

What specifically has anyone made-up re: the WonderJet?

Wing Bushings?
Thin skins?
Wing Bonding Issues?
Lightning Issues?
Wing Twist?
Schedule Delays?
Looking for additional money?
Absence at AOPA?
Avidyne Divorce?
United Divorce?
Williams Divorce?
BAe Divorce?
DeVore Divorce?
Paul Marino Gage Divorce?
Dotty Hall Divorce?
Now Day\VFR only?
/A and below FL280 on FlightAware almost all the time?
Forthcoming Airworthiness Directive?

Only asked you to back-up this accusation of making things up a half-dozen or so times, each time met with deafening silence - so the ball is, once again, in your court.....

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"So, back on track. Tell us what you think of DayJet, holding operations 'till Fall or Winter....just to accommodate First Flight of the EA-50X."

There is nothing in the current knowledgebase to support the timeframe you wrote. Therefore, what I think is that you've just provided for ColdWet an illustration of the type of fabrication I was alluding to.


sparky said...

eclipseblogger said

"eclipEclipse Aviation is offering Iridium satellite communications as a standard option for the new Eclipse 500 very light jet. The system will transmit operational data, including timing of departures and arrivals, as well as maintenance status of the aircraft and its subsystems. Eclipse has been appointed an Iridium VAM and VAR."

That's why eclipse is listed on the Iridium webpage as a VAR/VAM, tight. Wait a minute, their not listed on that website as a VAR/VAM, guess Iridium lags just as badly as the FAA.

Also, your link is inop, like the jet.

gadfly said...

This blogsite sure has taught me much. For instance, if a “blogger” can find fault with every person with whom he disagrees, by default, that proves him correct, right? . . . even though he rarely has anything to say of substance.

Name rank and serial number . . . no serial number? . . . OK, name and rank . . . what? . . . just the name? . . . OK, we’ll go with that! At least, having told us his name, it’s easy to skip on to the next person.

If the man is on final approach, in a fog, and needs help from ATC, will he tell them they’re wrong? Interesting problem . . . maybe!


(Pleasant dreams!)

fred said...

@ gladfly :

ok some of the stuff may be over the top ....

but let me reminder of something ....

Paine Watter , do you remenber that name ?

you better !

he was a bloke working at UBS buisness branch linked with wall street ....

what has to do with flying non-sens or eclipse ?? well a lot !

that guy was fired from his job , an extremely well paid job of finance and economic analyst (in the 6+ digits) and really thrown in the street from his office ....

what was his mistake ?

he was the first one to release a "sell advice" (with stocks)on a firm ranked as being one the best of USA by goldmann & sachs and allmost all bizz banking system in wall street ...

what was the name of the firm ?


all of that said : even if some critics may sound harsh to hear ...

critics works like legends , fairy tales and so on , even if you have to sort out some weeds , THERE IS ALWAYS SOME TRUTH IN IT !

your job is to find out what quantity is "some" ....!

if you risk more than one dollar into something , better know ALL the story ...

information work in a funny way : best is to know all , rank second : to know nothing , the worst = to know only a fraction of the story !!

so even if you disagree , it's better to know what other have to say , NO?

Shane Price said...

I suppose this is a little strange, an Irishman offering Americans climate definitions, but here goes.

Ken M has a problem with 'unsupported' information that the E499.5 will delay DayJet ops until the 'fall'

Well, from where I'm sitting, 'The Fall' starts in September. I checked with a few online sources and they agree.

Gunner offers the opnion that DayJet will start in 'Fall or winter'

He bases this on the latest information from ABQ about the AD, which in turn MUST delay 135 ops. Nothing from ABQ says WHEN the process of a) getting the Pitot mods certified and b) getting 135 will be completed. I assume they neglected to do this because they are unable to make an estimate.

In the absence of a timeline from Eclipse, it is resasonable to assume a 12 week cycle to get the necessary approval from the vaious bodies involved. Put it another way, can anyone support a shorter timeframe, based on historical facts?

So, 12 weeks from today is the 9th of September 2007.

The Fall, in your terms.

Soooo, it looks like 'ol smoothbore has a better than evens chance of being right again.

And yes, I know he prefers rifled guns, but I used a little poetic license.


Ken Meyer said...

shane wrote,

"So, 12 weeks from today is the 9th of September 2007.

The Fall, in your terms."

Shane, in this country we refer to "the Fall" as a synonym for "Autumn." September 9th is not in "The Fall."


Gunner said...

That's a senseless niggle. Does your wife read what you post?

As to your claim that I was "prevaricating" the DayJet launch, lemme ask you this-

June 17th:
- No RVSM Allowed
- No FIKI Allowed
- No IFR Flight Allowed
- No Avionics
- No 135 Ops Allowed
- Interior parts falling off
- Window inspects
- Wing inspects

So, if I'm lying by projecting a DayJet start of Fall or Winter (which requires enormous benefit of doubt to Le Petit), why don't you set us straight with the Meyer Truth. When do you expect DayJet will be able to start Air Taxi runs? The operative term there, Ken, is "Air"....ground ops don't count.


hummer said...

I think there is no doubt that Part 135 AirTaxi Operations will begin in Florida. . . not if, but when. There is way too much at stake for this certification not to occur. Everyone is concentrating fully for this to happen and there are a lot of resources now on location. Anyone have any guess as to when?

airtaximan said...

estimates, projections, track record, culture, safety...competance?

- Dayjet based their business on the EJ22 powered e-clips 500... with service date around 2004

- the re-engined 500 pushed this to 3rd/4th Quarter 2006.

- delayed until Q2 2007.

- NOW, "DayJet plans to launch its five-city operation later this summer with about a dozen planes"
.. and according to Ken this gives them until September 23 - another, Delay, of approximately up to 3 months.

- I think this timeline accounts for planes without fully-functioning avionics.

** I do not think its a good idea offer air taxi service with a bunch of yellow tags. I'm surprised the insurance companies would ever agree to this. I'm surprised Ed would bet his company and reputation on a plane without fully functioning avionics, just to BEGIN.

- if you thought the recent reporters comments from the diverted PR flight in Florida were hurtfull, just wait.

** the launch is a year and a half late, from the PR projections after the re-engine fiansco. If they launch with the plane in its "yellow" state, it will be based on the same bad jusdgement that led to the missed estimates and projections, poor track record, and the apparent culture that led to the false starts. This brings safety and overall competance into question.

After all, according to the Company, "they are really in the computer business, and just happen to be flying passengers".

Makes sense to me given their lack of understanding regarding the plane.

On second thought, why don't they just launch their computer system. I'm sure the plane will eventually be ready, finished and available to fly a passenger or two a few hundred miles. The plane, is afterall, not really that important - they just happen to need one.

Gunner said...

"When" is the point. Ed was ready to go in 2006. And he COULD be in the air by August 1 with substitute leased planes. So why does Ed allow Vern Raburn to dictate the timing of his business launch as though he were the CEO of DayJet?

I said, several months ago, that Ed Iacobucci is the most important player at Eclipse Aviation. That's even more true today. Think about it: Ed doesn't "need" Eclipse, if he truly believes in the powers of Astro's modeling. He could tank Eclipse overnight with one press conference stating that he's going with another supplier. One 5 minute Press Conference and suddenly no order book, no interest in the EA-50X for Air Taxi, no 5th round financing, No Eclipse. Ken looses his silly deposit.

Ed can write his own ticket today with Eclipse. And, unless Vern is now giving him the first 12 or 30 jets free, one has to ask the question "Why wait to launch?". Which inevitably leads to speculation as to who his investors are.

Let's face it: the lion's share of a $50MM Air Taxi investment is pocket change to investors facing the loss of One Billion in the company that requires that Air Taxi order just to make a business case.


hummer said...

My bet is Thanksgiving Day. What could be more appropriate? Give thanks for all the joint efforts:
Eclipse, suppliers, Day Jet, FAA,
pilot trainers, Insurance Carriers,
and last but not least. . . Eclipse Aviation Critic. Without the combined effort of all concerned it could not have been accomplished.
And pray to God that not one bad thing happens!

EclipseBlogger said...

For Sparky boy...


airtaximan said...

EB... glad to see you again.

I think this Dayjet tidbit is intersting..

I'm not sure the exact timeframe, from The Weekly of Business Aviation

Dayjet Plans to Launch in Fourth Quarter in Southeast U.S.
by Kerry Lynch

"Financial Questions Remain"

While DayJet ramps up to launch service, financing remains a question. The company has raised about $22 million so far, up from a little more than $18 million a year ago, and is financed adequately to get to launch,
Iacobucci says. But that money does not cover the cost of the airplanes, he said, adding that the company is still securing financing for the aircraft. While Iacobucci declined to give further details, he told BA affiliate Aviation Week & Space Technology earlier this month that DayJet was in the process of raising $135 million, including an equity placement that he hoped to have finalized this summer."

Months later, the news reports of the $50 million raise came out.

- begs the question, how does $135 million requirement become satisfied with $50 million? Perhaps I am reading it wrong, and the total Ed needed was $135 and the $20 + $50 are just the first 2 parts? In any case, these amounts are not including aircraft financing.

Another big hole prior to positive cash?

here's the link:

airtaximan said...

same timeframe, from AIN:

"Meanwhile, he said DayJet is working with Raymond James Financial to secure its last round of funding–approximately $135 million. Iacobucci said this capital should be enough to take the company to profitability, which he estimates should occur late next year."

- and they got $50M???

hummer said...

Look. . .you're just being reasonable and logical about the situation with DayJet.
That has nothing to do with problem of getting Part 135 operation up and going. That will be factored in AFTER. . by the gurus . . . they can determine the merits of these two variables and how they affect the day to day operations.
Anyway Ed appears not to just want an Airtaxi Operation. . . .but THE AIRTAXI OPERATION. . and he has commited to the Eclipse. Can he now go back to his company and investors and say that he was wrong?

airtaximan said...

In the April 2006 timeframe...

airtaximan said...


You have a good point. Unless he just says, "the thing is falling apart - we were told it was durable."

Vern had a chance to substantially change the aircraft design when he trashed Williams (for the reasons cited above), BUT he refused to admit he didn't have a clue what he was doing.

The airplane was designed around the engine, and the engine was in the trash. He could not tell his friends, "sorry, now we'll design the right plane". He said he had the perfect plane from the start.

It has failed to attract enough "real" demand for any sane person to continue this story - but they try.

So, wait for OshKosh, and you'll see a new offering.

Gunner said...

The "new jet" offering for Oshkosh would now appear to be a poor play. No longer can Vern claim last minute "teething pains" on the EA-50X; it's clear to the world that he started delivering when he should have been developing. But the guy does have Chutzpah, if nothing else; he just might announce still.

Hummer asked (regarding Ed Iacobucci):
"Can he now go back to his company and investors and say that he was wrong?"

Why not? Arms length investors couldn't care less about the equipment, only about the cash flow. Besides, just look to Williams, BAE, Avidyne and a host of others for proof that it's relatively easy to con your investors and customers. All you need is a chorus of voices chanting the same talking points in three part harmony.

Shane Price said...


I thought someone would go for the bait. I just didn't think you were so, well, unclear on the facts.

It says....

"Autumn (also known as fall in North American English) is one of the four temperate seasons. Autumn marks the transition from summer into winter. In the northern hemisphere, the onset of autumn is generally considered to be around September"

Paddy (general slang for Irish men) might be thick, but he's not stupid.

But of course you avoided the main point.

WHEN will DayJet start 135 ops?

Any comment?

On the substantial issue, I mean, now that we're clear about the timing of the seasons....


hummer said...

the problem with this forum is that there are engineering, scientific and aviation types that care about "exact" things.
In the arena of the "Vern and Ed" types, Perception is Reality. The definition of a sale is: A Sale is aways an emotional response later justified by a summation of fact. We buy nothing logically. In a sales situation, a presentation only has enough fact in it to retain the sale after it is made.
The sale can be made to the 2,500 so called "faithful", investors, suppliers, news media, etc.
So the point is that if you say something long enough, pretty soon you come to believe it. And if after a while you believe it, it then follows that you act upon it.
This appears to be the fallacy of the situation.

airtaximan said...


"poor play"... maybe.

Also, maybe "only play".

How do you get volume pricing on parts and systems for a plane that does not have sufficient demand?

Build another plane with the same/similar parts and systems, so you can try to develop higher rate production.

Right now, E-clips IS out of business. They have a product that costs MORE TO MAKE by far than what they sold the product for. Anyone looking to invest will ask: "when do you reach profitability?" The answer today is "500 planes a year provides volume discounts on systems and parts, and THEN we can see some profit per plane".

How do you reach 500 planes per year for any appreciable period of time that is not just a joke.. like a year or two?

Ed, or BUST.

Or, another plane for common parts, systems, etc... I think Vern know more sales (a lot of them) for the 500 is pure fantasy. They have around 1,000 deposits from individuals, and the rest are, well... Ed or Ed-NG in Luxembourg.

What else can he do?

EclipseBlogger said...

Airtaximan said... I'm not sure the exact timeframe, from The Weekly of Business Aviation

That article was from April 2006.

Black Tulip said...

Dateline: April, 2019

Publisher: Albuquerque Journal

Subject: Where Are They Now?

On the twentieth anniversary of the launch of the Eclipse 500 Jet, the aviation writer of this newspaper has conducted a retrospective in this interesting aircraft and the company that ‘produced’ it. Few of the participants could be located and even fewer would comment for publication. An extraordinary resource developed however. Using a powerful computer tool, the writer has conducted a thorough search of the old Internet and located the ‘website’ called Eclipse Aviation Critic. A sole ‘poster’ remains active and through him we found the whereabouts of some of the players.

Vern Raeburn, former president of the company, now plays piano in the lounge of the Holiday Inn in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Reached by phone he said, “Yeah, I miss the old days at Eclipse Aircraft. We had a good run. I like the creative uses that some of the aircraft have found. The Eclipse low-riders up in Espanola are really neat.

Vern sighed and then said, “Many of us had to find jobs outside the aviation industry and I like it here at the Lamplighter Lounge. Jim Bede stops by occasionally and we talk about old times. He’s got a great singing voice.”

Peg Bilson, former chief operating officer, is hostess at the International House of Pancakes in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. After repeated tries she returned our call, “Yes, it’s the same Peg Bilson. You know I had a bright future in aviation but I always knew that my Embry-Riddle education would also prepare me for a career in the food services industry. You know we have the best blueberry pancakes in northeastern Rhode Island.”

Ken Meyer, a former depositor, was introspective. “It was a real education to see the Very Light Jet fad buildup and then diminish. Through it all, I’ve kept my now-forty-year-old Cessna piston twin. And now I’ve put a deposit on a really exciting new development – The RAM XXVI Conversion. My liquid cooled engines are being replaced by motors incorporating a heavy water cooling jacket and palladium pistons. You know Pons and Fleischmann had it right with Cold Fusion in 1989. My Cessna 340 is really gonna go now.”

Few of the other ‘bloggers’ could be located. Only one appeared to have done well with new aviation concepts. A man using the handle, ‘gadfly’, has operated his Moeller Skycar for five years now. Reached by email, he said that he was working on a new ‘STC’, which stands for Submarine Type Certificate. “It’s going to be the first truly multimode vehicle on the planet,” he wrote.

The most notable of those involved in the Eclipse story is former President Bill Richardson. He operated the sole flying example of the type. “I wanted it to be called Air Force One when I was using it,” President Richardson said. “But the best radio call I could get was Air Force Zero Point One. We took all the seats out except two – one in front and one in back for my, well… rotund figure.”

The whereabouts of Stan Blankenship, the founder of the website, is unknown. He was in a work release program while incarcerated at a minimum security facility. While picking up trash along the Interstate, he inexplicably fell back behind the van, took off his orange vest, dropped it and slipped into the woods.

Another 'blogger', the Black Tulip, was recently released based on new DNA evidence. He is thought to be living in a cheap motel near Cleveland, much like a character in the Willy Nelson song, “Pancho and Lefty.”

WhyTech said...

BT said:

"the Black Tulip, was recently released based on new DNA evidence. He is thought to be living in a cheap motel near Cleveland,"

Being from Cleveland, I can assure you of a wide range of choices when the time comes.

Well done!


a37pilot said...


Great story, though kind of inslulting to piano players. What did they ever do to you?

Gunner said...

Springsteen once quipped, "America, Land of Peace, Love, Justice and No Mercy".


sparky said...

My apologies EB, I had outdated info.

Any news on the third AI? and no, I don't mean photo's of one duct taped to the glareshield.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

BT, my hat is off to you - absolutely fantastic!!

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken, the best you can come up with, when asked to provide a specific example of someone fabricating a fact about the WonderJet is a 2 week disagreement over when Summer and Fall start?

If 2 weeks is such a big deal re: the seasons, how must you feel about 4 years late into service, NO FMS, NO FIKI, limited Autopilot, Day\VFR only with a pending AD.

I wonder why Vern gets a pass when he lies, verifiably. straight to your face but Gunner gets an earful for a difference of opinion on which week marks the beginning or end of a season.

Stan Blankenship said...

What's remarkable about BT's newest masterpiece is that the guy is on vacation...that's an understatement...he is on a grande aviation adventure to an exotic location. Am surprised he takes time to read the blog, let alone take the time to entertain us.

So as not to disappoint Alexa and Double zero (as in nothing of substance), will move BT's comment over to a main post, yeah we know, yawn!

But to further not disappoint the two anti-fans of the blog, will try to get up another post and answer a long standing question that has been bugging Alexa.