Friday, June 08, 2007


Finally, The Truth


Embargoed for release to media outlets until June 9, 2007


ECLIPSE 500 CITED AS PROOF OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN


Albuquerque, New Mexico – Vern Raeburn, President & CEO of Eclipse Aviation, announced that the Eclipse 500 jet has been selected as singular proof of Intelligent Design. Intelligent design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


Previously, no scientific evidence had been published in peer-reviewed journals to support the concept. Intelligent design has been viewed by skeptics as a method of subverting the separation of church and state ordered by the United States Supreme Court, and a counter to the widely accepted science of evolution.


An independent panel of top theologians from the world’s leading religions and intelligent design researchers has completed a three-year study commissioned by Eclipse Aviation. The summary of the fifteen-hundred page report concludes, “It is inconceivable that an Aeroplane as timely, elegant and cost effective as the Eclipse 500 could appear on Planet Earth, or elsewhere in the Galaxy, without the intervention of The Divine Hand at Albuquerque, New Mexico.”


The panel compared the Eclipse 500 design to thousands of other aircraft, past and present. It concluded that, “Commonly accepted laws of gravity, engineering, aerodynamics, finance, sales and marketing could not have produced such a heavier-than-air flying machine. The highly integrated avionics system, on its own, illustrates the touch of Higher-Order Intelligence. In addition, the very phrase, Value Proposition, is not one that ordinary mortals would use in conjunction with a small jet aircraft. Natural selection could never have brought us to the State of Eternal Levitation and Near Constant Bliss represented by the Eclipse 500 Slightly Light Jet (SLJ).”


“Intelligent design is no longer junk science,” proclaimed Raeburn. “The dinosaurs did not go extinct by chance, but by Grand Design. The Eclipse Factory will be the Lourdes of the twenty-first century. We have set aside the wall in our largest hangar to be covered by crutches, discarded by Eclipse Pilgrims as no longer needed. For Blessed Depositors whose medical certification may have come into question during the period required for this Revelation, please come to see me in chambers so I might minister to your individual needs,” added Raeburn.


Raeburn continued, “Wait until you see the new lines of apparel we’re offering to recognize this event – full-length white robes embroidered with the Eclipse Logo, golden incense burners emanating the sweet essence of combusted jet fuel, and the gilded, illuminated, parchment Flight Manual (Limited Edition) of the Ethereal and Eternal Serial Number Thirty Nine.”


“Subject to divine approval we will soon be offering dispensations and annulments. If you have previously ordered a Cessna product, you will be forgiven soon. If Charles Darwin were with us today, he would be flying a Mustang, along with the other infidels, heretics, heathens and idolaters . We will accept a Mustang in trade for an Eclipse position and commit in writing that the Mustang taken in will only be used for a task worthy of its lowly station – hauling cancelled checks, auto parts or poultry products outside the United States.”


Black Tulip


The tulip mania peaked in the Netherlands during the 1630s. The black tulip was the most sought after, until found to be biologically impossible.

231 comments:

1 – 200 of 231   Newer›   Newest»
Metal Guy said...

Slightly Light Jet (SLJ) - I love it!

Ken Meyer said...

Oh Brother.

The anti-Eclipse gang has obviously run out of steam. This posting is pure postprandial methane.

Ken

FlightCenter said...

FAA numbers show one additional Eclipse and one additional Mustang delivered in the last week.

A total of 15 Eclipse 500s have been issued certificates of airworthiness and delivered to owners and a total of 5 Mustangs have been delivered and another 2 have been issued certificates of airworthiness but are not yet delivered. (According to FAA records.)

FlightCenter said...

Epic Aircraft has announced the first flight of its new Elite single-pilot, twin-engine VLJ. The company says the "flawless" first flight Thursday lasted more than 40 minutes, and gave company test pilots Dave Morss and Len Fox the chance to explore the aircraft's control surfaces and low level performance capabilities.


The carbon fiber Elite is powered by two Williams Jet FJ33-4 engines which deliver 3120 pounds of thrust. Epic states the new jet can reach FL410 in less than 17 minutes and boasts a top speed of 410 KTAS. The company expects range at economy cruise to be more than 1600 miles with reserves and 1330 lbs. of usable payload after fuel.

The cockpit features the all-glass Garmin G900X panels, and Epic says the Elite will be RVSM compliant. Like the company's other offerings, Epic notes the Elite will be able to take off with all the seats occupied, and at full fuel and luggage.

The Epic Elite is scheduled to fly into this year's AirVenture at Oshkosh, making its first formal public debut at 10:30 am Monday, July 23rd at AeroShell Square.

A 6-8 passenger version of the jet is expected to be certified in late 2009.

Epic Elite VLJ First Flight

airtaximan said...

one E-clips delivery this week...

hmm.. I thought they were SLOWING down production?

What gives?

airtaximan said...

I asked a question a while back, and received some simplified math as a reply... so I remain curious.

How can Dayjet project $25 million in fuel sales in their first year. The nath came back... "let's just say they have an average of 75 planes in service in their first year."

I imagine this is what they (and E-clips) want everyone to think is possible. It sounds so nice and simple.

In order for Dayjet to have an average of 75 planes over the first year, you need to impute a ramp rate. I expect given the current delivery rate, they will not be receiving 10 or more planes per month, every month for 12 months, to average 75 planes in service for the year.

Imagine Dayjet receives a few planes per month every month for the first few months and ramps up, they would need to receive in around 20 planes per month for the last few months, to average 75 planes in operation for the year.

Furthermore, they openly stated they will need spares... 10% or so, which add to the requirements.

Finally, if they begin in June...oops, restated recently to July... still 2007 though - E-clips will have to have some serious inventory ALREADY IN STOCK TODAY.

They would need a lot more inventory already ordered and on the way, as well.

and, given the production history, where there have been 50 or so planes in production for months and months already - the planes delivered in the last 3 months were started in the September timeframe - they would need to have a bunch more planes already IN PRODUCTION today.

Add the statement that Dayjet has 1/2 of the deliveries projected over the first 100 planes, and you get the picture. E-clips would have to produce 2 planes for every one delivered to Dayjet, or the depositors will be waiting a very, very, very, very long time.

I suspect the 400 deliveries projected for 2007 was calculated backwards, in order to make a certain story plausible, at least on paper. There are financing requirements to maintain, you know. For both Dayjet and the MotherShip - e-clips.

** something tells me EO387(24) figured this out some time ago, and decided if he wanted any chance of obtaining metal, he better get in on the current inventory.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Come on guys, take a stand. How many planes will deleiver by the end of the year?

I still say 39.

ColdWetMR, does a revision to the TC require a revised TCDS under the FARs?

Under the EASA system that is not an automatic connection. Any change is a change to the type design. Whether major or minor.

The TCDS is just a very high level summary of the type design. The detailed TC is defined my a master drawing the the thousands of documents in its tree.

You can change chapter 4 (with authority approval) change AFM limitations (with authority approval) etc, without the changes becoming visible to the general public through the TCDS.

Part 21 (in europe) does not specify the format of a Major change done by a TC holder, that is defined in the DOE (Design organisation exposition) of that company.

The design organisation procedures produce approved data (with a authorities approval on major changes). How that approved data is packaged for distribution (SB, SL, SEB, AFM, AMM, IPC, SRM, WDM, master changes, production change records etc) depends on the specifics of the DOA.

BigJim said...

Few type design changes, major or minor, result in TCDS revisions. Those are typically reserved for major block point changes where the high-level data in the TDCS is changed. Most design changes are FAA-approved by a company DER and are simply serialized in on the line and/or incorporated in the field by service bulletin. The engineering data substantiating the change is company confidential info, so unless there is a press release or service bulletin, there's no way to know what has been approved. Of course, if the change affects the MM or AFM, the updates are sent for the affected serials.

Back on the display OS question, from what I remember the Honeywell Epic system uses a version of Windows NT.

FlightCenter said...

Trying to use Windows NT as a real-time OS for avionics is funadmentally incompatible with achieving certification under DO-178B Level B standards.

DO-178B Level B software certification is a requirement for primary flight displays (and other aspects of an integrated flight deck) in a Part 23 Class III aircraft like the Eclipse 500.

Windows NT is not used in the AVIO or AVIO NG flight deck.

As for Honeywell, DEOS is the real-time OS used in the EPIC avionics suite.

".... in Honeywell’s Deos™ real-time operating system. Deos is a key element of the Primus Epic avionics suite ..."

That quote comes from the top of page 2 of this Honeywell document.
Honeywell DEOS & EPIC

You can also type - DEOS Honeywell & DO-178B into Google and you'll find numerous other links if you are interested.

Shane Price said...

FC,

Thanks for that. Makes sense that the avionics people do their own core software to a design that is risk averse.

Explains why the Eclipse has 8 (9?) systems cobbled together.

That way, the risks cancel each other out. One screen can be blank while something else is rebooting the middle screen and the guy in the right seat can look out the window for directions.

Since the Partial Eclipse won't be flying in clouds (or too far from the ground) this all begins to make sense.

And of course, the more suppliers there are for any given subsystem in the S(sorry, V)LJ, the more companies Vern can blame when the inevitable happens.

When the Chinese stock market finally crashes and cause the investors (mostly American companies looking for a quick buck) to retrench, the ABQ 'revolution' will hit the buffers.

IMO

Shane

Gunner said...

Hmmmm-
The March 7 Investor Conference Call with IS&S to announce the Eclipse deal makes for some interesting reading. It's available from Edgar Online

Here's an exchange between the CEO and one analyst toward the end. Note that Hedrick claims they've accomplished in a few months what Avidyne failed at after several years, that they really hadn't done much hands on work on the system at that point and that they would not be using any of Avidyne's work product. Ambitious, to say the least.

He also appears to be saying that AVIO would not have been Part 25 or Part 135 compliant even if it had been completed.

"Operator: Your next question comes from the line of James Reed.

James Reed: Hi Geoff, James Reed, how are you?

Geoffrey Hedrick: I'm fine. How are you?

James Reed: Fine, thank you. I'm wondering, will IS&S acting as the primary integrator for the other components, Honeywell, Garmin and Chelton as you said, or are you just providing displays ...

Geoffrey Hedrick: Oh, no, no. I mean, I was trying to be able to give an answer on this, so I'm only going to be able to give you a guess. You'll forgive me for that because I didn't do my homework and actually check into it, but I believe that the system that we provide consists of two - almost 15 computers in this system.

James Reed: Okay.

Geoffrey Hedrick: And these computers are probably 10 times more powerful that the ones that are on the shuttle right about now. I mean, obviously microprocessors are not expensive, but it's quite significant.

The software architecture, the whole system's architecture has really been a homerun in the development of what in normal terms would have probably been several years and in fact the previous supplier spent many, many years.

We were able to come up with this in a matter of months with our systems architecture.

We interface with the radios. We integrate the audio panel into our system. We integrate all the GPS signals and the transponders, all are controlled by our equipment and our interface to that equipment.

It's really a remarkable system. It is more advanced, I think, than anything I've seen around, maybe other than G550 and there's somewhat of a difference in size and price.

James Reed: So you won't lead integrating - I assume that Eclipse will be integrating things like engine callouts and the lights, is that correct?

Geoffrey Hedrick: We do all the engine display, but all of the data that controls the aircraft, landing gear, etc., is integrated and implemented by Eclipse. And that is the core of the Avio system.

James Reed: Okay. Second question: As you know, Avidyne was working on the Avio system for several years and there was just recently a split between them and Eclipse. Will all of the Avidyne work have to be scrapped? I mean, how is that going to work? Can you ducktail on what they've done before?

Geoffrey Hedrick: We will use none of the work that Avidyne did. As I mentioned, we are focused on a system that will be from the start will be capable of Part 25 operation, like air transport and Part 135 which is what DayJet is going to operate under.

And that's a higher level of performance and integrity.

James Reed: Okay, and ...

Geoffrey Hedrick: And we use nothing of the - the only thing that we get from - we get a system requirement from Eclipse. That's all we get.

James Reed: Okay. And last question, are you starting on this particular program right now from jump or have you guys been working on it for a bit?

Geoffrey Hedrick: We were - it's hard to answer that question. We didn't start Monday for sure. We did some - we have done some engineering evaluation and integration, assessment and that type of work, but we had not production contract or anything else.

James Reed: Okay. Thank you."


Gunner

airtaximan said...

I kinda wish he would have asked a question about certification, number of orders, pricing and delivery timing...

but what one can larn from your post/that call:

1- better pray it WAS all Avidyne's fault
2- better pray they were so incompetant that someone could do in a few months, what they took 8 year to fail at.

The comment about Avidyne never being able to be part 135 compliance reeks of fraud.

Once again, my ears perk up whenever I hear stories like this, because either e-clips has no clue what their suppliers are doing, even over 8 long years... or they are a bunch of liars. Especially since they are handling all the integration... somehow they must have known the garbage was where avidynio was going to end up, a very long time ago.

Gunner said...

AT-
Lest an Ankle Biter misconstrue, he did not specifically state that AVIO would not have been Part 135 compliant; he only inferred it by comparison to ISSC's scope of work. And he may have been misinformed, though that's real dangerous when making public statements in an SEC regulated environment.

Of greater interest, I think, is his basic admission that they really weren't very far along, yet the systems would be ready on Tuesday.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

.. everyone should read the entire conference...very interesting... some of ATMan's hghlights... (I just strung them together, not in this order in the conference necessarily...)

The company's agreement with Eclipse is for 60 months commencing with the delivery of the first production ship set to Eclipse expected this summer.

The shipments of the aircraft as announced by Vern Raburn, CEO
of Eclipse Aviation, are 402 jets in calendar year 2007,
approximately 1,000 jets in calendar year 2008 and market demand driven in 2009 and beyond.
They have and that type certification will either do an STC, a supplement to that type certificate or amended type certificate. We're not sure whatever is the fastest way to get through.

Right. Now there seemed to be some pretty big and lofty production numbers for Eclipse. How does that impact your manufacturing capacity there? Do you guys have the headcount you need and the operating footprint?

Geoffrey Hedrick: We have the operating footprint and obviously we're training people in anticipation. In addition, we are expanding the facility and by fall we'll have an expanded facility, but the existing facility is fully capable of supporting these programs and of programs we anticipate getting in the near future.

Paul Kaump: Okay. Do you know how many days it takes for Eclipse to manufacture one of these planes?
Geoffrey Hedrick: I can't comment on that. I don't know.

One of his last comments...
Look, only a fool would believe that everything is under
control. And believe me, I've been a fool too many times, but
hopefully not this time. It's going to be good challenging
work, but we anticipate no surprise.

SURPRISE... in March there were 400 in 2007 and 1,000 in 2008...and now..WHO KNOWS?

Enjoy your enterprise resource planning...

Gunner said...

And, of course, my favorite:
"Geoffrey Hedrick: (Sunshine Bakery) doesn't have an order book like Eclipse."

The only Sunshine Bakery I can locate is this one with such menu items as "Pick-a-Pocket", "Mini Sandwiches" and "The Daily Double".

Looks like Geoff knows his metaphors.
Gunner

FlightCenter said...

The CEO of IS&S said...

Geoffrey Hedrick: "...As I mentioned, we are focused on a system that will be from the start will be capable of Part 25 operation, like air transport... "

If I understand Hedrick's comment correctly, then IS&S is planning to develop their software to DO-178B Level A standards. That is a significant increase in the scope of work and certification risk above and beyond the certification requirements for a Part 23 Class III aircraft.

It seems surprising that both Eclipse and IS&S are both willing to add unnecessary schedule and certification risk to the program.

Second comment from Geoffrey Hedrick: "And we use nothing of the - the only thing that we get from - we get a system requirement from Eclipse. That's all we get."

If I understand that comment correctly, then Eclipse is providing the systems requirements to IS&S for the flight displays. And make no bones about it, developing the systems requirements is a very significant part of the work required to develop the flight displays. So when Eclipse provides IS&S with the final systems requirements that will provide a big head start for IS&S.

The implications of this statement are that IS&S's relationship with Eclipse is much more of a sub-contractor type relationship than a traditional avionics vendor / aircraft manufacturer relationship.

When Eclipse supplies the systems requirements, that means that the flight displays are essentially being designed by Eclipse and are only being produced by IS&S. Eclipse owns the requirements and IS&S is just saluting and implementing what the team in ABQ tell them to build.

And there is the rub...

Those original systems requirements were not written to interface to a Chelton FMS, a Garmin transponder, a Honeywell radio, etc...

It is likely that Eclipse will find themselves the long pole in the tent on the Avio NG development program with IS&S waiting for the final systems requirements from Eclipse which are "almost done".

I doubt the engineers in ABQ will be able to deliver a final systems requirement spec anytime soon with all the changes that are still in process. What IS&S is much more likely to be hearing from Eclipse is a daily litany of "just one minor change", "just one more change."

As the aero mods roll out, they will create flight display changes, as the air data fix is implemented, when they upgrade the autopilot, when they put a new AHRS in the aircraft, when they put a new GPS in the aircraft...they will all create changes in the flight display systems requirements.

Implementing all those changes is the real reason the production line isn't rolling at the predicted rates, and implementing all those changes is the reason that NG is slipping “single digit weeks” right now.

Jim said...

This post was unfortunate, but Gunner's IS&S comment was interesting.

gadfly said...

The IS&S phone interview was most interesting . . . not for what was “said”, but for the “questions” that the man didn’t seem to be able to answer, or did not wish to answer. He isn’t CEO for nothing! It seemed that “Eclipse” is not real high on the list of future business for IS&S . . . but, hey, what’s to lose in business that walks in off the street . . . especially from someone (Vern Raburn) who get’s nothing but positive reviews in the drive-by media.

A “Google” search, brought up the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovative_Solutions_and_Support

A company of 138 employees (IS&S), with a gross profit of $2.9 million (Revenues $16.7 million), suddenly gets a “20% boost” in stock price, simply by the public perception of Vern Raburn’s announcement. There’s got to be a pony in there, somewhere . . . and there is: For over “1,000,000 shares” that suddenly changed hands, at an increase of 20%.

A few people had a “quick” and effortless profit of about $6 million . . . not a bad day’s work, and all “legal”.

gadfly

(Here’s something to put away in your brain for future reference: Let’s say that IS&S is about “average” for a high tech company, . . . does not actually manufacture parts, but uses components manufactured by “vendors”. Most of these folks are “technicians”, or assembly line types . . . making up wiring harnesses, etc., for some excellent companies in aerospace . . . a list of secondary retrofits worth it’s weight in gold. And, of course, they have the usual complement of “engineers”, supervisors, managers, salesmen . . . whatever.

Remember: These are not manufacturing people . . . in which case the numbers would significantly go “up”, both for labor, CNC machines, tooling, inspection equipment, and the entire infrastructure.

You are not really interested in the numbers . . . you can do the math yourself, but the annual labor burden is about $62,000 per employee, and each employee must produce $121,000 in final product for a modest income.

Remember that these numbers are for a “non-manufacturing company”, such as “Eclipse” . . . that simply assembles parts made “elsewhere” (using Vern Raburn’s recent testimony . . . “stir fried welding” is an “anomaly” in the equation).

What you do with these numbers is strictly up to you. But, personally, I have come to some basic conclusions that would caution me to stay far clear from any investment in the company that will revolutionize general aviation.

IS&S is “smart” . . . their part in Eclipse is a minor thing, and they have already reaped the benefit of the “association” . . . and can walk away next year, squeaky clean. Beautiful!)

Bonanza Pilot said...

Eclipse is doing a tour of the midwest...were in St. Louis...they are heading to Chicago and I think Minnesota. Got to sit in the plane and take a bunch of pictures...found out a few things that have been bounced around here.

They say there have been about 20 deliveries so far (have been on the road so don't have exact number)

There is indeed a USB port...it is in the side armrest on both the passenger and pilot side where the backup microphone goes. It is how you update the system.

The displays will be changed out and the entire panel redone..the new diplays will be slightly larger than the current avidyne ones.

Jet complete will be going up in price..the guy guessed it would be around a 30% increase, but it is not yet determined.

I didn't realize that the recognition lights and many of the external lights are LED's...that is a great idea...no more changing bulbs!

There are yellow inop stencils on the autopilot..that is for the autothrottle (which will take longer then the rest of the system) the approach and the nav modes..and the altitude adjust....you can only use the autopilot in heading mode with altitude hold as it is now.

Played with the avio stuff a little...moving map is not working...empty weight of this aircraft was almost exactly as show in brochure...no balance info given.

gadfly said...

Yes, Banana Pilot, it is great that the "Eclipse" should catch up with the "eighteen-wheelers" and Lexus . . . to use LED's for signal and running lights . . . they have only been in use for six or seven years. That's no reflection on you . . . and I would be amazed if the "little jet" had any electical device in the entire system with a "heat producing filament" (aside from "landing lights"), short of the "bun warmers" in the seats . . . oh, sorry, "Tush Toasters". (They do have heated leather seats, standard, I would hope! . . . or is that the "Total Eclipse"?)

gadfly

(Oh shucks, I forgot, there's still that little minor item of de-icing boots for the wing leading edges . . . or do they still use the tried and proven inflatable type, so popular in the 1930's.)

gadfly said...

“Back then”, a friend gave me a “bootleg” copy of Microsoft flight simulator. On that one diskette (3 ½ inch 360 kb, single sided . . . as in “360,000 bytes”), I had a copy of “flight simulator, a word processor, and a couple other programs. I saw Chicago, from the “air”, taking off from “Meigs Field”, flew north along the Lake Michigan shoreline, banked left (west), over my “alma mater” (MBI), and my wife’s old neighborhood (and “Cub’s Wrigley Field”) follow Irving Park Blvd.(thinking about all the times I rode my "Schwinn twelve-speed those twenty-five miles to "date" my "wife-to-be". . . cross over Mannheim Road, run south of “Wolff Road” . . . past ORD, and Moody-Wood Dale Airport (where I got my licenses . . . pilot’s and A&P) . . . and continued “west” . . . on to the Quad Cities, etc. I was in heaven . . . in the “comfort” of my own home. (Of course, the “mixture” on the engine sounded “too rich”, but I couldn’t bring it back to normal.)

It took “forever”, simulating a Cessna 172 (I learned in a 150 and a J3), but it was extremely “fun’ . . . while looking at an “orange” plasma screen on my Toshiba 3100, (“second generation”) laptop computer. I could set the “auto-pilot”, the throttle, etc., and maintain a safe altitude at a couple thousand (what's Chicago, about 600 feet above sea level?) . . . and go on forever (if I could stay up that late) . . . and with my simple mind, I could fly without leaving home. Well, that was a long, long time ago. (Frankly, the imitation sound of a Continental engine has a tendency to induce sleep . . . so it was most important to have some automatic direction and altitude control . . . to keep from “crashing” into the towers of WGN and WBBM . . . yet keep at the minimums until well west of ORD, then climb to "altitude".)

Now, I read all the benefits of the electronic’s systems that come with the newest thing that converts O2 to CO2 in the upper atmosphere, and I am totally amazed at the advances. The “orange” plasma screen is now in full living “RGB” color . . . and the memory requirements (RAM) of the computer have expanded from about 3MB, to maybe, what, a couple Gigabytes? (My personal computer is at 4GB of RAM.) And that “screamer” of a CPU “back then” (9 or 16MHz, selectable, to extend "battery") is up to . . . something with “hyper threading double processor, quad something, 3.something GigaHertz . . . and storage measured in terabytes.

Now, with all this new technology, I can take off from Meigs Field, set power, and altitude, etc., and . . . do the same thing, but in full “3D” simulation. Amazing! . . . and I am told that the VLJ (some of us would call it the “PPJ” . . . “Pleasingly Plump Jet”) can do everything that my first “bootleg” copy of “Flight Simulator” can do. Did I forget? . . . the “running lights” are LED’s. What will you guys think of next!?

(Oh yes, when I found out the “fun” of using the flight simulator, I “Purchased” a legal copy. I’m a firm believer in paying for the use of software.)

But my “desk chair”, an “antique”, solid walnut, with swivel and tilt, that my wife picked up for thirty bucks at a yard sale doesn’t have built-in “Tush Toaster” . . . and that’s a bummer. I assume that that is “standard” equipment . . . right?

But just look at how far we have come in technology in the past twenty five years. We can now do it in “color”.

“Eclipse” . . . Lead on!

gadfly

(But, sorry Eclipse, just now I'm going to use the "head" . . . ah, the advantages of my "office" over the Eclipse!)

gadfly said...

Regardless of your view, this is worthy of your time . . . to take a look at a "real eclipse":

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

gadfly

Gunner said...

bonanza pilot said:
"Jet complete will be going up in price..the guy guessed it would be around a 30% increase, but it is not yet determined."

Wow, that's hefty. Looks like some of The Faithful may have to redo the oft bandied calculations of Le Petit's "value proposition". Thirty Percent, huh?
Gunner

hummer said...

Was the 30% price increase stated as sales pitch (get it before the price goes up). Did it come from the kid or the old man? If you want a current Eclipse 500, N15ND (number 16) is for sale at $1,875,000 with a few IOU's. Wouldn't want to offer him 16.5 for it; he might take it.

airtaximan said...

JetComplete going up around 30%..

one would ask: "why?"

Vern just said that Aviong (I like this as one word now) was going to be easier to maintain and have better reliability...

It's the only coincidental issue driving the increase in Aviong, if I remember correctly.

You don't think they just needed to revise their unrealistically low marketing numberf for maintenance, do you?

Welcome to E-clips where reliability and integrity are just marketing terms.

hummer said...

Everything is going to be controlled by Eclipse regardless of owners likes or dislikes. Software, training, maintenance, Everything. The price into the club is low initial investment and after that. . . .grab hold of your wallet. To draw an analogy. . .Look at Vista and Microsoft. . . .things have changed.
Get ready for the 21st century.

Bonanza Pilot said...

Hummer it was the younger guy..and no it wasn't stated as a sales pitch...he explained that they had always said that jet complete was subject to price adjustments. Honestly even if they do raise it by 30% it would still be a pretty decent deal. The thing that you have to think about is how much will it go up next year? As they have more experience with the fleet they will have a better idea.

As for the LED recognition lights..I agree that they are not a big deal in the automotive or real world (I have several LED flashlights) but I haven't seen them on any aircraft...for a guy flying behind a 1950s tech engine that has these really cool magnetos it was a good change.

Overall that was really what hit me about the eclipse...it is built by young tech guys that are really trying to break the mold and build something different. The downside of that was I felt for me that AVIO was just too integrated...there are no fuses even....you have to hit two buttons and move three levers to get to the fuse page on the AVIO system and see a visual representation of the electronic fuses. It takes the same button pushes and knob turning to change the air conditioning...it reminded me a lot of BMW's Idrive system.

Gunner said...

BP-
ASSUMING this employee's comment is accurate, I don't think the issue is whether a 30% price hike remains a good deal or not.

The issue is, How could they have missed the numbers by such a wide margin....AGAIN? Currently we have owners taking delivery of partially finished jets with promised aero-mods and avionics that have yet to be certified. Documented NBAA performance and range has yet to be released, even on the Beta Model currently in "slowed" production.

Despite all this, you have to pay for and take delivery on your jet with a promise of "We'll get back to you" in answer to the question, "How much will maintenance cost?"

Depositors really do need to start demanding answers to some simple questions, like the price of JetIncomplete. There simply is no excuse for these numbers not to have been locked down by now; unless the aircraft is still in development.

If you look at the time line of this whole thing, it doesn't bode well for people who are in line:
- CoA. "We'll produce 1,000 jets this year"
- 300+ Progress Payments demanded
- Jet Incomplete pricing shredded. "We're working on it"
- AVIO scrapped. "But we have a whole new AVIO"
- "We'll produce 400 jets this year"
- PC received. "Now we can finally SLOW DOWN production"
- "We'll produce 200 jets this year"
- "We're not gonna predict how many jets we'll produce this year"


And now it looks like JetIncomplete may rise by as much as 30%? One really has to wonder why they haven't firmed up a program today that had "firm" prices two full years ago.
Gunner

hummer said...

Gunner
Performance is objectively shown on
May 21st at FlightAware Track Log N508JA. Ten minutes to probably as high as it can legally go (2,700 ft/mn) and plus or minus 400 kt/hr.
I would like to know the fuel burn of this flight. Any guesses?

Gunner said...

Hummer-
They quietly performed a flight from ABQ to GNV earlier in the year, with tail winds and, as expected, later stated that this flight conformed to and demonstrated NBAA range per their specs.

However, even Ken Meyer took exception to their conclusions on the Owners Board and demanded the actual data necessary to convert their NewSpeak term "Flight Miles" to Zero Wind Nautical. To my knowledge that info will be provided along with W&B, CG Envelope and JetIncomplete pricing on "Tuesday".

Just one of the many things that make you go "Hmmmm".

Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"However, even Ken Meyer took exception to their conclusions on the Owners Board and demanded the actual data"

Rich, the version you have just relayed to us is incorrect. I did not at any time demand actual data from Eclipse.

You have harped onto this like a drowning man grasping at a piece of flotsam in the hope it will save his life. The analogy is not unresonable; I think you're demonstrating increasingly neurotic behavior as Eclipse moves from dream to reality.

The company released the results of the aeromod-equipped Eclipse flight from Albuquerque to Gainesville on 2/1/07. Due to questions about the presence of a tailwind, I communicated with Eclipse Vice President Ken McNamara, who explained that the final range projection was derived from actual measurements adjusted to standard, no-wind conditions.

It would be impossible to conduct an NBAA IFR range flight that occurs entirely in zero wind conditions and at standard temperature. So, raw measurements are obtained and adjusted to obtain the range figure under standard conditions in zero wind.

The flight demonstrated to my satisfaction that the Eclipse exceeds the promised NBAA IFR range of 1125 nm.

Why is that? Blind faith? No. The company produced good evidence that the specific range of the aircraft at LRC at FL410 exceeded 1 nm per pound of fuel burned during cruise. All you or anybody else has to do to verify the NBAA IFR range is combine that key cruise fuel efficiency figure with the published figures for climb, descent, and hold, and you can reproduced the NBAA IFR range figure fairly easily.

I think it is time for you to stop perpetuating this particular inaccuracy.

Ken

airtaximan said...

Ken...trying so hard to get his 1XXX deposit turned into metal...

If they proved anything, it was they were afraid to PROVE anything with that flight. It was pretty quiet...

...and no one really knows the weights related to that flight, now do we?

I'm glas you are convinced, Ken.

I seem to remember how keen you were to compare the operating costs of the Mustang and E-clips based on JetIncomplete1.0. Hows you wallet at +30% or so.

I'd ask them why the promoted a complete owner-care package at a price they could never honor? I'd also ask what drove the cost up? Aviong? Vern recently said it would be cheaper, not more expensive to maintain...what was the driver? Greed? I think you have a right to know... especially since when (if) you ever get any metal for your deposit, jetincomplete could be 4x the current cost - who knows?

Ken Meyer said...

We're starting to get a pretty good picture of aircraft performance now from the pre-mod aircraft that have been regularly flying IFR flights visible on Flightaware.

What it shows is that the pre-mod Eclipse routinely meets or exceeds AFM performance specs.

Here is the technique:

1. Identify a flight that passed nearby an atmospheric sounding station (see this website) at a time relatively close to 1200Z or 2400Z.

2. Read the recorded groundspeed near the station off Flightaware.

3. Correct the magnetic course to true course.

4. Convert the altitude from feet to meters.

5. Consult the sounding and note the wind and temperature.

6. Perform a standard TAS-required calculation using known true course, winds, and groundspeed.

7. Compare calculated TAS with published AFM figures.

8. You may need to find out from the pilot what the power setting was. At least one Eclipse pilot I know regularly sets HSC minus about 10%. That kind of thing is important to know :)

Do all that, and it becomes clear that the plane is doing what the AFM says it does, indeed beating it much of the time.

Ken

hummer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hummer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shane Price said...

Ken Meyer has confused the hell out of me.

Why does a PURCHASER of one of these S(or V)LJ's need to 'calculate' the performance using an 8 step 'guesstimate' when all I would do in the same position was ask the company who had my money:-

'What will the equipment you are selling me actually do?'

Is this rigmarole (that Ken is suggesting) his way to avoid asking that simple question?

Or...

Is he afraid to ask, suspecting that the answer may not be to his liking?

Please enlighten a simple European.

Shane

hummer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken Meyer said...

Shane wrote,

"Is this rigmarole (that Ken is suggesting) his way to avoid asking that simple question?

Or...

Is he afraid to ask, suspecting that the answer may not be to his liking?

Please enlighten a simple European."


Sure thing, Shane.

Anybody with a few bucks in his pocket can buy an Eclipse AFM with aircraft performance. However it has been widely speculated by those with, shall we say, a negative outlook on Eclipse, that the airplane will not meet its performance numbers.

The methodology I outlined allows anyone so inclined to independently verify that the aircraft does in fact meet, indeed exceed, published performance figures.

I think verifying performance is not a bad idea for any aircraft you may be thinking of purchasing. Plenty of airplanes do not meet book numbers.

Ken

airtaximan said...

shane:

all I can say is...

exactly.

You hit the point dead on...

What the fu_k?

Sad aint it?

airtaximan said...

"I think verifying performance"

Ken what was the take off weight and empty wieght of your "proving" run aircraft, you so certainly represent satisfied your requirements, for proof?

Why can you not get a simple straight 100% answer from e-clips on all this?

Keep fudging...ant trying to perpetuate the myth that these panes are as the say (restated, and restated, and restated, and restated...) they are...

perhaps you can perpetuate this until you get a plane...1XXX deposit number is a lONG LONG LONG way off, though.

Keep up the BS, for e-clips and for you...

Ken Meyer said...

AT parroted,

"You hit the point dead on...

What the fu_k?

Sad aint it?"


I'm sorry; you lost me. You think it is sad that I verified Eclipse performance?

Or you think it is sad that Eclipse beats book performance?

I just know that's breaking your heart :)

Ken

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

Ken-
Last we heard from you on this subject were your complaints on the Eclipse Owners' Board that the company had not revealed key information necessary to prove out the NBAA performance of the fabled ABQ/GNV flight.

You now state that you are satisfied. Fine, provide us the information or tell us it's somehow "classified" and allow us the same level of skepticism as you showed. Simply saying "it's been proven to my satisfaction" is actually saying quite little, given your track record with the Eclipse.

How about filling in some missing variables, like we'd see for real aircraft? You know, stuff like weight, power and airspeeds at that weight and power. Otherwise it may well be true that Le Petit made range, made speed and made altitude but could not possibly make any two of the three simultaneously.

Why the continued secrecy and anger over us asking the exact questions that had you in such a dither?
Gunner

airtaximan said...

airtaximan said...
Ken:
Re-read my post, and for everyone except those like YOU who wish for something that just isn't there...you see what they see.

I can’t help but look at your posts and all your online photos of you and your wife at e-clips, and in the mustang and wonder "really, what's your problem?"


You see all the yellow tags at e-clips, and you see how cool the Mustang is. Geez, your wife looks so happy in the Mustang, it truly wonderful.

My post is simple, except you say it isn’t. You seem to stretch everything in order to desperately try to get some metal for your e-deposit. That's it. Any other conclusion regarding all the effort you have placed here with NO BALLS whatsoever to back up your "stated" position, is well, sad. You bet $150k or so, and you are simply afraid your wife is right – the e-clipse is a crappy plane, you’ll never really see it, and the mustang is real.

You Try as you will to maintain face, and maintain a position which mimics the faithful, for a plane which has created a mythical "proving" run with no public data, whatsoever. NO PUPUBLIC DATA WHTASOEVER. And you buy this BS as a proving run. That’s your prerogative.

- come back when the company publishes anything regarding this "proving run”. Something they can stand behind. Difficult, as it may be, given the recasting of every performance, schedule, delivery, and operating cost numbers over the recent past. All these have gone into the garbage along with their "disruptive" technology Avio and EJ22, plus FSW...

So there you have a remedial explanation ad museum 101 - Ken, believe all you want, but don't offer anything as proof. It’s your BLIND faith. Sad as it may still be.

Proof comes from verifiable data provided by honest companies with reputation behind them. Perhaps impossible in your favorite companies situation. You need a reputation for integrity and honesty…no longer available from e-dlips.

You have nothing but your own opinion, and that's been a parrot of Vern for a long time, so it’s worth very little.

Please review the MTOW and empty weight of the plane that flew the “proving run” for your range performance numbers, and provide details. Otherwise, you have ZERO.

Your feeble attempt to recast my post is as feeble as your attempt to defend your little e-jet. I can sense your wife’s opinion, that you blew $150k on a myth - your deposit is gone, and the plane you bought is, well, gone, too. Its been recast as something less. NO matter what you lose, Ken. That would be anyone’s honest opinion, because you defend your plane with numbers and promises that are well, GOINE. THEY NO LKONGER EXIST. You can hope to save face by accepting what they give you, but that does not mean we all need to forget their BS. Its been 8 years, almost 9 now, and a $billion and a bunch of broken promises.

Perhaps instead of trying to discredit or revise my posts, you can revisit what you bought, and what you will receive, one day, if you are very very lucky. Its sad. Sader still how you defend it.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW, KEN?

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"Why the continued secrecy and anger over us asking the exact questions that had you in such a dither?"

Dither? Secrecy? Anger? There you go again. A dither is an "agitated or indecisive state: a state of nervous agitation or indecisiveness." There was no dither. Nor is there secrecy or anger involved here.

Your statements, regrettably, are quite consistent with your unfortunate tendency toward exaggeration and inaccuracy.

I prefer to make my point with facts rather than inaccuracies. For example, here is a graph of the specific range vs air distance (nm) for the NBAA range flight. The unprecedented efficiency (exceeding 1 nm per pound of fuel) is crystal clear from the graph.

It is obvious on inspection that an aircraft that gets 1 nm per pound of fuel and carries 1686 pounds of fuel is going to get a range figure about what the company reported. You can do the exact math with a copy of the AFM. It's not that hard; a 6th grader could do it.

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken-
Ummm, just wondering.
Is that graph your "proof" that the performance guarantees were met? If so, did you think to ask weight or winds for that particular flight? Or do you think we can find those in the AFM?
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"did you think to ask weight or winds for that particular flight?"

Why would you want to know the winds when the y-axis of the graph is reported in air miles, not ground miles?

As for "proof," I would ask you to please provide the detailed data for the NBAA profile flight for the Mustang. Cessna has been very accommodating in providing me with detailed data for the Mustang, a fact for which I am very grateful, however I certainly haven't seen anything approaching the detail you are demanding from Eclipse. Cessna announced the NBAA range of the plane, and that was that. Eclipse provided additional documentation, but of course it still didn't satisfy the naysayers. Ho hum.

Ken

Gunner said...

Ummm, Ken-
What's your definition of an "Air Mile" and how does it compute into NBAA performance calculations?

Also, didn't I just hear you say (on March 28th):
"Therefore, it was galactically stupid for them not to release the information that would back their claim. But that's not the first really stupid thing they've done, and it's unlikely to be the last."

What have they released between that date and now that gives you cause to call people liars when they are expressing your very sentiments at the time? The claims remain just that: Undemonstrated Claims, Ken. I was simply pointing that out.

As for Cessna. Cessna gets a pass when they announce performance numbers. Cessna has a couple dozen PROVEN AFM's in their history. Eclipse would get the same pass, if they didn't have such a rich history for exaggerated claims and outright lies.
Gunner

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BD5 Believer said...

Freedom Jammer..

I have the over / under on deliveries set at 40 for the year, and am taking the under..so you and I are in the same ball park.

Of course, an aircraft has to actually leave ABQ in my book to be delivered. The last I saw on this blog, only three had left by this definition - and two of those are Dayjets.

If we exclude Dayjets, I see them never making 40 for the year.

However, actualy getting 20 or 30 into the hands of private owners would be a heck of an accomplishment, and one that most companies ( and Critics) would be proud of.

But when the Vern, makes promises of thousands, then hundreds, it is hard not to take shots from the cheap seats.

Gunner said...

Niner-
That calls for a new Eclipsism (Definition: A term found only in the Eclipse Lexicon, bandied about in an effort to browbeat all those unfamiliar with ALL of the Eclipsisms).

Our latest Eclipism:
Disgrunt: Any person, company or Agency who fails to publicly praise Eclipse. Disgrunts are born as the result of never attempting to contract, no longer having a contract, not having a Depositor position or expecting their Agency to allow them to do their jobs.

Your relative's "contact" is a Disgrunt, I'm sorry to say.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

I'm sure you'll all be vitally interested in hearing the latest update from Vern Raburn, just in.

The Gainesville Service Center has received its Part 145 certificate. Van Nuys, and Albany, NY are slated to be operational in the 3rd and 4th quarter this year.

The first Flight Training Device is now FAA-certified. The new 42,000 sq foot training facility at Double Eagle is on track for opening in late July.

Vern Raburn points out that Cessna was delivering the Citation for 4 years before they had 3 service centers to support it, a milestone that Eclipse will pass in its first year of deliveries.

The pitot/static problem has been reproduced and a modified design submitted for FAA approval, expected later this month.

The new windshield design has been extensively tested. Pending further testing on the full-scale fatigue test airframe, the new design will increase inspection intervals from once every 50 flights to once every 300 flights. Inspection will be performed with prism (not removal). Replacement of the windshield will now be every 1500 flights.

Go ahead; tear into it. But at the end of the day, they're making really good progress on many fronts.

Ken

Niner Zulu said...

Oops I guess I should have looked at the last few posts because I'm off topic. The topic appears to be, once again, KEN.

I'd sure like to see the pics of Ken & his wife sitting in the Mustang. Can anyone post the pics or links? I want to see if she looks as happy as has been stated here, because if so Ken may have a dilemma on his hands.

Ken, my friend, if your wife likes the Mustang more than the Eclipse then do yourself a huge favor and BUY THE MUSTANG. I'm married....I know. If you buy the Eclipse, you'll end up taking a hit on it and the where are the savings? Face it...our wives pick the planes, we just get to fly them.

;-)

Gunner said...

Ken-
How many times can you report that the windshield problem has been fixed before we can finally take your word for it? According to you this was a non-issue months ago?

Now you tell us "The Fix" is still not in?

Credibility, Ken. It goes to credibility.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"What's your definition of an "Air Mile" and how does it compute into NBAA performance calculations?"

The FAA uses the phrase "air miles" to indicate nautical miles flown in air eliminating the effect of winds. An aircraft flying 60 KTAS covers 60 nautical air miles in one hour regardless of winds. It is a very useful tool when calculating specific range for an aircraft.

By definition, NBAA range is in still air. Since it is impossible to fly an entire flight in still air, you can calculate the figures in air miles instead because it provides exactly the same information. This, it turns out, is what Eclipse did in the range flight you questioned.

Ken

gadfly said...

Wouldn’t it be nice to have at least ten “round trips” to compare, and include in the data, actual fuel load, actual “take-off” weight, was there more than two humans aboard? (and their weights) . . . the kind* that would move around, changing CG from time to time, barometric pressure, weather conditions, air-temp, . . . and the same “ten” round trips during mid-day in the summer-time (not just a one-time midnight flight re: January 25-26). It’s the kind of thing that a true scientist would demand, to “prove” a claim.

But then, Eclipse has little to do with “science”, and much to do with “emotions”.

gadfly

*Years ago, we would load certain passengers aboard various aircraft that didn’t move around . . . they were extremely quiet, and never demanded service . . . they were classified “P13" (Perishable 13) . . . usually on their way to Arlington. So I’m not concerned that Eclipse would use “them” in their “proof” flights . . . the box wouldn’t fit aboard.

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"How many times can you report that the windshield problem has been fixed before we can finally take your word for it? According to you this was a non-issue months ago."

You're a weird guy, Rich. I told you they had identified the problem and that they told me they had a fix. Now the company is reporting it publicly.

Since you are obviously unhappy I reported the information to you before it became definitive and public, I will refrain from doing that in the future. A thousand apologies for telling you what I knew before it became public knowledge. From now on, you can wait until you read it in the NY Times :)

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken Said:
"The FAA uses the phrase "air miles" to indicate nautical miles flown in air eliminating the effect of winds."

I'm not disputing your word here, Ken. Honestly. I may well learn a new term. Can you provide a cite where the FAA claims that an "Air Mile" is defined as a nautical mile adjusted for wind?
Gunner

gadfly said...

“they're making really good progress on many fronts”*
‘Reminds me of a dog we once owned . . . a great “mouser”, etc. I took the four kids (little guys back then) for a walk, down an old road . . . the dog was along. We found a big flat rock . . . decided to turn it over to see what was under it. The instant the rock was turned over, a nest of about twenty mice ran in all directions. The reaction of the dog should have been captured on film . . . twenty mice, twenty directions . . . decisions, decisions . . . absolute and total frustration. The dog was never the same after that.
And again, somewhere a story tells of the man that jumped on his horse, and rode off in all directions.
Me thinks the “statement*” is the most accurate description of the activities at Eclipse to date.
This blogsite is worth reading for the unintentional humor. (‘Sorry . . . it’s not polite to laugh at the “satirically impaired”, but sometimes . . . !)

gadfly

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

I thought we had been assured, multiple times, by his Vern-ness AND the faithful, that the windshield issue was purely an installation error, no doubt cuased by those pathetic 9-to-5'ers Vern lambasted last week.

Now, we learn there is a design change in the works, that results in an inspection every 300 hrs instead of 50 hours (a genuine improvement, even if it still sucks) AND they get to be replaced every 1500 hours, now THAT is a value proposition.

Reminds me of the wing bushing which we were also repeatedly told, was 'just' an installation error. Then it leaked out later there was a design change for that too.

Seems to me that we were also told repeatedly that Avidyne was just 'a little behind schedule', until we were informed that Avidyne was a total failure and a design change was needed.

I also recall there being something about the plane not meeting the performance guarantee's, and that that too would result in some design changes.

Anyone sensing a pattern here?

gadfly said...

ColdMac

The “pattern” was obvious a few years back. But as the old saying clearly says:

“A man convinced against his will,

Is of the same opinion, still!”

If it only involved the “inmates” of this institution, it wouldn’t matter. But it affects all of us who manufacture the things that keep the aircraft industry going, and those who use the services . . . as in, just about everyone that ‘boards an airplane.

So carry on, and keep up the pressure. “Folks” with power in high places . . . and “not-so-high-places” are reading these comments. And maybe someone will listen, and bring this farce to an end.

If it only affected the “rich kids” that need their toys, we could all walk away and let happen, whatever will happen. Unfortunately, this “tempest in a tea-pot” has taken on a momentum that impacts an otherwise ethical and important industry.

gadfly

(The other day, I spoke personally to an editor, and suggested he do a little deeper investigation on his own . . . go deep enough to understand what is going on, rather than “parrot” the “PR” that is put out for public consumption. I think he “got the picture”. The next week or so may reveal whether or not he is thinking on his own. That is asking a lot of an “editor”, but who knows . . . !)

Gunner said...

Gad said:
"the dog should have been captured on film . . . twenty mice, twenty directions . . . decisions, decisions

Gad-
There's a term for that. I've seen seasoned hunters taken out for their first hog hunt, only to jump an entire herd of hogs by happenstance. The action is so quick, the targets so numerous....often not a single shot is fired.

I refer to it as "The Pee-Pee Dance". And, yes, your description of the events in ABQ is spot on. It's The Pee-Pee Dance all over again; complete with the after action embarrassment, mumbling, excuses and, ultimately, aggression at all who witnessed the event.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"Can you provide a cite where the FAA claims that an "Air Mile" is defined as a nautical mile adjusted for wind?"

FAA-P-8740-27

Ken

airtaximan said...

Ken:

you must be joking, right?

"The new windshield design has been extensively tested. Pending further testing on the full-scale fatigue test airframe..."

many time we've said, where's the fatigue test?
- you said, no problem...its all been covered...

mamy times we've said, the widshields must be a poor design...
-you said, nope, its not a problem...in fact you said its already been fixed..

- now you call this progress.

have you been lied to, or are you just lying, here?

My personal opinion is that no informed purchaser can act the way you have, unless they are just trying to preserve some chance of converting a deposit into a plane...any plane...

like I said, sad...

Ken Meyer said...

Air Taxi Man--

Let me ask you something. It's been bothering me a while when I read your posts. Are you actually a pilot? If so, what do you fly? Microsoft Flight Simulator?

Honestly, I don't mean that as a cut. I'm genuinely confused about you 'cause:

1. You seem to have an awful lot of free time for a guy supposedly being paid to fly airplanes. I'm thinking maybe you don't actually fly anything but a desk.

2. Your temperament and comments genuinely seem incongruous with those of a real pilot.

I'm thinking maybe you're one of those Flightsim guys who seem to take an amazing amount of delight in masquerading as real pilots. Did I guess right?

Ken

gadfly said...

Gunner

You is truly a funny man . . . now to figure out how to use your "terms" in "polite coversation". (You can be sure, it is now "catalogued" for future use.)

(Whoops . . . what was that? . . . some interference . . . something about "adjusted wind" (a golden opportunity for a joke, but not just now) . . . probably something to do with "sun-spots" or extra-terrestrial interference . . . we're not far from Roswell you know, probably a minor hiccup, maybe the F1 and F2 layers* coming together at sundown . . . that sort of thing . . . where were we? . . . Oh yeh, "Pee Pee Dance". Maybe the "interference" was due to the suggestion . . . some folks have trouble with bladder control . . . by the way, Is Eclipse ever going to offer an onboard "potty"?, in the back? . . . or is that totally outside the CG limits?)

gadfly

*Check out D, E, F1, F2, layers in the ionosphere . . . great subject for "geeks", we, who grew up listening to shortwave at night.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

Commercial pilots are restricted by law to a rather limited number of hours worked, typically on the order of 900-1200 hours per year, or about 20 hours per 'week'.

Most airline pilots actually have second businesses or other pursuits due to the limited number of hours they are allowed to fly.

Some have a great golf game, some moonlight as ski instructors, and some are good bloggers.

Dee dee dee.

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"Commercial pilots are restricted by law to a rather limited number of hours worked, typically on the order of 900-1200 hours per year"

If he's 135, it's in FAR 135.265--

34 hours in 7 consecutive days
120 hours per calendar month.

I think he spends more than that right here.

AT is not a commercial pilot; he's a commercial blogger :)

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

If ATM is a commercial blogger, what pray tell are you?

Dee dee dee

Gunner said...

Ken responded to my request for the FAA definition of "Air Miles" as being (somehow) a Distance Measurement corrected for a Speed Vector. His answer:
"FAA-P-8740-27"

That's wrong, Ken. Again, I'd understand a definition of SPEED adjusted for wind. But adjusting a Nautical Mile for wind is like adjusting your shoe laces by lowering the air pressure in your car tires.

Wanna try again? Or do you just like wearing that clown nose? ;-)
Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Speaking of BS FAR interpretation by the faithful, Ken deliberately skipped the very first flight time limitation in FAR 135.265, which is 1200 hours. With rest requirements and duty time limitations, there are many pilots who do not hit the full 1200 hours, hence my window of 900-1200 hours.

I'd wait for an apology, but I have this thing about avoiding hypoxia.

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"Ken responded to my request for the FAA definition of "Air Miles" as being (somehow) a Distance Measurement corrected for a Speed Vector. His answer:
"FAA-P-8740-27"

That's wrong, Ken."



I didn't say "air miles" are a "distance measurement corrected for a speed vector," gunner. That's moronic. Air miles are miles traveled in air without regard to wind effect. Ground miles are air miles plus wind effect. Easy stuff really, Rich.

In any event, "air Miles" are what they are. When you find and read the document I pointed you to, if you understand it, you'll agree.

Ken

FlightCenter said...

Ken said...

"Replacement of the windshield will now be every 1500 flights."

Sounds like DayJet is going to have to plan on annual windshield replacements.

Assumptions:

DayJet is planning 6 flight hours per day.

Average flight time about an hour.

Aircraft flying 300 days per year.

That math looks like 5 to 6 flights per day x 300 days per year = 1,500 to 1,800 flights per year.

Of course these numbers assume DayJet gets enough passengers to keep the doors open. If not, both Eclipse and DayJet will have bigger problems than worrying about windshield replacements.

I wonder how much it will cost to replace the windshield? Any estimates? $10K? $20K? I haven't had to replace a windshield on a jet.

gadfly said...

Ken

Whoever you are, you like to put down everyone who has a comment. Airtaximan, Gunner, ‘Mackerel, and the others are attempting to express their views. I, too, express my views. You find a way to find the others wrong, and as both you and I know, that takes absolutely no talent, nor intelligence, and scarce little skill: Welcome to the first-year college course “English Rhetoric 101".

If you have something to say, that contributes to the success of Eclipse, you should be able to do that in a polite, but firm, manner. People with “facts” never, . . . I repeat, NEVER need to downgrade the “person”, the “character” of the opposition.

If you wish for my own personal credentials, I’ll be more than willing to share them with you . . . and I will not pull any punches. Confidentiality will be fully observed. But you may not like my response. In fact, I’ll guarantee it! I absolutely hate liars, and will not play games with anyone. Lie just once, and we start going for the jugular.

It’s time for you to face your own problems and get whatever help you need . . . and then you “might”, in time, be able to step into the real world of honest debate. Whether you realize it or not, your problems have become “public knowledge”, as if published “front page”. So, without revealing your “true” identity, it’s time for you to seek professional counsel. Hopefully, the members of your family (who no doubt love you very much) will assist you to find good help.

gadfly

(And, sometime in the future, you may offer good information that will contribute to the overall debate in a positive manner . . . and actually “support” the efforts of Eclipse. Frankly, I hope that you are able to come to that point. It is always a pleasure to debate with someone of intelligence, who has no agenda to defame another person, just to make a point.)

highfloat said...

One and all,

Have enjoyed following the blog for the last few weeks and have come to a simple conclusion: you are all clowns. You debate that which exists only fleetingly by its very definition: the eclipse.

It is not an airplane yet. It is not an airplane yet.

I am now convinced that the eclipse will not be fully functional for several more years. It is a load. You all are a load. I will now end my pursuit of the truth - I have it. This is a load a joke a trifle a snicker amoungst men amoungst aviators amoungst professionals. It is an ugly gnat with tits on its wings because no one told it it was a boy. It is a flying hermaphrodite (sic). It is gay marriage trying to get through the senate. A joke and a load.

No one will ever fly this can of rat sh*t part 135. It is Sanford and Son with wings.

Move on. I am going to fly a Lear 60 tomorrow that will do everything it is supposed to do. I am flying with the owner. He is a nice guy and very wealthy. THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES TO FLY PRIVATELY. Broke-ass fools are not welcome. Stay away. If you dont have 3 million take the flying bus like everyone else and stay the fu*k out of my and my fellow pro pilot's ways. We dont want your poor ass up here. Go check your mags and get a burger with your wifes. Piss off.

You are all too poor to belong - Im sick of your pathetic little debates.

EXCEPT CJDRIVER - YOU ARE CLEARLY THE STANDOUT. Enjoy your JET - you worked for it you deserve it.

Ken please dont buy any jet. you cant afford it and your wife will divorce you. also you might end up with a smoking hole somewhere.

best of luck guys - over and OUT.

ciao bella
adios

grizzled old jet jock

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken, your parsing has confused you, AGAIN.

The legal limit is NO MORE THAN 1200 hours of duty time per year, PERIOD.

You focused on 120 hrs per month (the largest apparent limitation). It appears to allow 1440 hours, but it DOES NOT. It is not legal to work that much continuously for 12 months but it made it appear you were right and I was wrong when I was in fact correct.

Duty time and rest time requirements, which include dead-heads, time not-flying but on station and the like, make the actual flight time allowed even less. In practice it is 900-1200 based on duty, travel and rest restrictions.

You have a Commercial rating Ken?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Sanford and Sons with Wings - that is funny.

"It's the big one dummy!"

Enjoy the -60!

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"Ken, your parsing has confused you, AGAIN."

Not me; I know the reg:

"(1) 1,200 hours in any calendar year.
(2) 120 hours in any calendar month.
(3) 34 hours in any 7 consecutive days.
(4) 8 hours during any 24 consecutive hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot.
(5) 8 hours between required rest periods for a flight crew consisting of two pilots qualified under this part for the operation being conducted."

But that's only for scheduled operations. In unscheduled ops, it is:

"(1) 500 hours in any calendar quarter.
(2) 800 hours in any two consecutive calendar quarters.
(3) 1,400 hours in any calendar year."

It is, in any event, not 900-1200 as you contended.

So what? What's the point? That AT works a full schedule and still has plenty of time to participate here? Could be. But I doubt it. My hunch is that he's not at all what his moniker suggests.

Ken

highfloat said...

yeah and when this thing finally goes tango uniform old vern will run out onto the tarmac at abq, grab his chest, and shout:

OH LORD....THIS IS THE BIG ONE!!!

Then for irony's sake the remaining three eclipse 500's will do a fly by, a wing tank will fall off, and his ass will be cremated on the spot. Bill Richardson will lay a flag on the spot, and a great theme park 'Eclipse Land' will be constructed in VR's honor.

Within two days of opening the gate sales will 'eclipse' eclipse lifetime revenue by a factor of 10.

Good night and good luck.

gadfly said...

“highfloat” just said it all . . . although in crude words, yet with an accurate picture of the entire farce.

Unfortunately, some of us are permanently married to the aircraft industry . . . and it is a “lifetime” relationship, . . . being passed on to yet another generation. Maybe, “highfloat” will re-consider, and realize that he, too, has an obligation to stay in the fray . . . that what happens in Albuquerque “doesn’t stay in Albuquerque”, but will infect aviation as we know it.

Frankly, I want my #2 son, my “partner”, to be able to go on supplying tooling for the engines that will keep the next generations safe, as they fly around the world. So, as much as I hate being “up to my armpits” in this muck, I will continue to speak out, to help protect “General/Civil”, “Commercial”, and “Military” aviation from the damage that is being inflicted by this little “pimple”, that threatens to become a cancer.

But “highfloat” has given an accurate candid picture of the “Eclipse” . . . and although he may, or may not be a genius, he had the courage to be “honest” in his observations.

gadfly

(Thanks, highfloat!)

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

Since it appears the only logical assumptions and jumps you are able to comprehend come from the corner 2nd floor office on Clark Carr Loop, I'll spell it out for you.

Part 121, 135 scheduled or unscheduled macht's nicht.

The point I have been obviously making, and the point you are, I believe, deliberately missing, is that if the reg's allow 1200 hours, NOT ALL OF THEM are flight hours, therefor most REAL commercial pilots have a rather significant amount of time available for other pursuits.

Your bogus ad-hominem attack on ATM was as baseless as it was tasteless. A good pilot working 135 (scheduled OR unscheduled) will have a significantly greater amount of time for their own interests than someone in a more conventional work arrangement.

Many of my airline and 135 pilot friends either own a business on the side or are great tennis, racquetball or golf players.

As with most of your weak attack posts, you latch onto some seeming inconsistency, no matter how minor, and then try to blow it into something it is not, to try and weaken the arguments that are clearly showing the massive and continued failures of your favorite OEnM (Original Equipment non-Manufacturer). Failing the test of dealing with the facts from the critics, you resort to
name-calling and other playground tactics.

mouse said...

Book figures, AFM, any other data... Don't for is based on fresh engines running at nearly 100% of their power. When these engines get a few hundred hours on them they will begin to degrade, and thanks to thier minimal flat-rating there will be no margins to recover lost performance.

a37pilot said...

Flight time is not the limiting factor. 1200 hours (scheduled) or 1400 (unscheduled) you'll very rarely if ever run into somebody flying those kind of hours. Duty time is where you're limited, especially if your making alot of short legs, you'll burn through your duty time limitation before you ever use up your flight time. 14 hours duty in a 24 hour period seems like alot but it is almost always the limiting factor unless your always making long legs.

Gunner said...

Ken-
Chill. What's it matter who, what, when, why or how AT flies? It matters not who he is; just as it matters not whether you're really in a position to trade up from a 30 year old Cessna 340 to one Eclipse for you AND one Mustang for your wife, as you have repeatedly claimed.

All that matters here is substance and comportment. Speaking of which, tell us again how Eclipse demonstrated its performance claims with a chart of "Air Miles" flown vs Lbs/Mile? You did say it could be found in FAA-P-8740-7. Yes?

And that would be:
"The Safe Pilot's 12 Golden Rules"

You get a third try, Ken. Go for it.
Gunner

mouse said...

What the hell!?

Ken said, Vern said: "The new windshield design has been extensively tested. Pending further testing on the full-scale fatigue test airframe, the new design will increase inspection intervals from once every 50 flights to once every 300 flights. Inspection will be performed with prism (not removal). Replacement of the windshield will now be every 1500 flights."

Ken, what sort of idiot would want to purchase an airplane that needs to have it's windshield/pressure vessel checked every 300 flights, and replace the same every 1500 flights? Are you insane?

No wonder JetInCOmplete h=is going up 30% so far. And what happened to the story Ken, that the windshield issue was an installation problem.

Ken, your credibility is so below 0 it's not measurable. If you or anyone is happy with these kinds of answer and issues than you deserve every single pile of crap being slung your direction.

What a dope! Keep defending Vern, he'll stick it to you without taking a breath.

mouse said...

Cold/Wet,

1500 flights, not hours... It's a fatigue cycle problem. Poor DayJet, their business plan sucks, and it's dependant on a plane that delivers none of the promises they need to fly a reliable airframe. Care to be the poor sap who has to calculate the maintenance intervals for all of these cycle, flight, hourly maintenance events. Dispatch will take a few more of those russian cosmonauts to plot!

Gunner said...

Alexa-
I think you've just been called up by "Tag-Out".

Mirage-
Time for a DriveBy.

Execlipser-
Time to rise from the ashes, like Lazarus.

Lloyd-
Where are you when Ken needs you?

More things that make you go "Hmmmm".
Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Right you are Mouse, for DayJet, cycles will be about the same as hours based on what has been said.

For an individual, 1500 cycles could be maybe 3000-5000 hours.

What, with no IMC, no FIKI, and the other well-known failures that limit actual utility of the Wunderjet, it might take quite a few years before this ends up a problem for the faithful.

Mx planners at DayJet will have their hands full for sure - at least they will if their projections hold more water than Eclipse's.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

I'll post for Mirage00 Gunner -

"Yawn, the haters have run out of ammo again - Thanks Ken for keeping it real"

WhyTech said...

a37pilot said:

"Flight time is not the limiting factor:

Bullseye! My pilot friends at a very busy 91K operation tell me that around 500 flight hours per year is typical.

WT

Redtail said...

Professor Gadfly said: Ken, Whoever you are, you like to put down everyone who has a comment. Airtaximan, Gunner, ‘Mackerel, and the others are attempting to express their views... People with “facts” never, . . . I repeat, NEVER need to downgrade the “person”, the “character” of the opposition.

Oh, please. Gadfly, the amount of sarcasm, personal attacks, and rhetoric that flies around here is enough to fill your father's and your grandfather's hip-waders - although they probably invented a device to make them self-bailing. As has been said before, this blog is not so much about finding and discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of Eclipse as it is about debunking the claims. From one side of the table you have the critics stating speculation without facts, while at the same time on the other side of the table you have supporters stating facts without support. It's a great environment for heated debate, rant, and attacks. It comes from both sides. You mention Airtaximan, Gunner, Mackerel. Have you even read their posts? Are you wearing blinders, or are your hip-waders pulled up too high? Ken receives just as much in the way of attacks, as he shells out - and you've named three of the bigger offenders.

Redtail said...

mouse said... Book figures, AFM, any other data... Don't for is based on fresh engines running at nearly 100% of their power. When these engines get a few hundred hours on them they will begin to degrade...

What makes you think that these were fresh engines? I believe that the test run was made in N505EA, which has the highest flight hours of the fleet. Where's Gadfly's dog when you need him? Run mouse, run.

WhyTech said...

The Truth About Ken?

I have been lurking and occasionally posting on this blog for about 8 weeks. I am a bit slow on the uptake, but it has finally become clear that Ken cannot be who he says he is. No mere Eclipse Depositor would have the resiliency to keep the faith when so overwhelmingly outnumbered by both facts and so many less than Faithful bloggers. So, Ken is either:

1. A senior Eclipse exec who HAS to put a positive spin on everything, or
2. Stan, trying to create some controversy to keep this blog entertaining and elicit further responses to keep the momentum going.

I am probably the only participant who doesn’t know for sure who Ken really is. Will someone enlighten me?

WT

airtaximan said...

Ken:
I think I now have a better understanding of how you can listen to all the smoke from E-clips and still believe. Here's how the logic goes:

I said:

"The new windshield design has been extensively tested. Pending further testing on the full-scale fatigue test airframe..."

many time we've said, where's the fatigue test?
- you said, no problem...its all been covered...

mamy times we've said, the widshields must be a poor design...
-you said, nope, its not a problem...in fact you said its already been fixed..

- now you call this progress.

have you been lied to, or are you just lying, here?"

AND YOU COCLUDED...
ATMan is not a pilot.

Keep the faith.

Ken Meyer said...

mouse wrote,

"thanks to thier minimal flat-rating there will be no margins to recover lost performance."

I've heard this argument before, but it doesn't make complete sense to me; perhaps you can elaborate?

The PW610F engine has a thermo thrust of 1116 lbs, flat-rated down to a takeoff thrust of 900.

The PW615F has a thermo thrust of 1568 lbs, flat-rated to a takeoff thrust of 1350 lbs.

A JT15D-5 has a thermo thrust of 3190 lbs, flat-rated to a takeoff thrust of 2965 lbs.

You're saying the 610 has a lot less flat rating than the others? I don't really follow that.

Ken

Stan Blankenship said...

WT,

Even my creative mind could not invent Ken. He is another product of Intelligent Design (well sort of).

Stan Blankenship said...

The blog appears to have lost its feed for 'letters from Vern' and reports from the 'E5C'.

If any of you would care to share this information, e-mail it to me or post it as a comment.

EclipseBlogger said...

Why feed the fire?

airtaximan said...

EB,

you mean there's stuff that would feed the fire?

Kidding, its good to hear from you.

gadfly said...

Never say "Fire!", in a crowded blogsite.

mirage00 said...

"Yawn, the haters have run out of ammo again - Thanks Ken for keeping it real"

Thanks ColdWetMackarelofReality, that was perfect except I would have BOLDED the "Yawn" and possibly added "Solace".

JetA1 said...

Gunner said:
I'm not disputing your word here, Ken. Honestly. I may well learn a new term. Can you provide a cite where the FAA claims that an "Air Mile" is defined as a nautical mile adjusted for wind?

I hate to sound like I'm sticking up for Ken (or Vern), but while watching the miles tick by the other day about every 6 sec, looking down at FL410 for any LePetits that might have their RVSM LOA, I made note that the FMS on my dino-jet lists "AIR" and "GROUND" miles. I can't help you with a specific FAA reference to the definition, but based on the operation of our equipment, I think Ken's description is accurate.

JetA1

Gunner said...

Thanks JetA.
It was the specific document that was cited that called into question the terminology, in context of NBAA flight profiles.

In your FMS is an Air Mile an adjusted "no wind" nautical mile?
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

Gunner's reluctance notwithstanding, specific range is what it is. In the context of an NBAA profile that requires still air, you use nautical air miles.

And indeed the methodology for determining specific range for an aircraft is discussed in the obscure FAA publication I cited. Here are the appropriate words for gunner, who I guess didn't bother to look it up himself:

"In addition to determining your fuel reserves, that is, the "time in your tanks," (see publication FAA-P-8740-3), it's essential, once in the air and cleaned up, to think in terms of distance traveled per unit of fuel used - specific range as it's otherwise known. Specific range is the aeronautical equivalent to automobile miles per gallon.

If, for instance, you cover 600 nautical miles while consuming 40 gallons of fuel, your specific range is 15 nautical miles per gallon. Specific range can be expressed either in terms of nautical miles per gallon or nautical miles per pound of fuel used. Specific range is calculated by dividing the miles flown by the amount of fuel used, or dividing the airspeed by the fuel flow per hour.

In either case, the answer will be in miles per gallon. Remember, if you use true airspeed, the answer will be in nautical air miles per unit of fuel. This figure is useful for comparison purposes with other aircraft or in reviewing the POH. If you use your ground speed, you will have nautical ground miles per unit of fuel, a more useful value on which to base actual enroute decisions.

In summary, the formula for calculating specific range looks like this..."


Ken

JetA1 said...

Gunner,

Yes, that's what it appears to be. I noted the FMS wind and did a rough calculation and came up with a number pretty close.

Gunner said...

OK-
I've learned something and I thank you, Ken.

Now back to the graph you posted regarding the ABG/GNV flight, can you fill in the other parameters such as airspeed, weight and power level? Otherwise all we know is that Eclipse claims the Jet saw 1NM/LB at FL410. That's like trying to compute an automobile's acceleration curve by knowing the engine displacement.
Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

You do know Ken, that you are not quoting a regulatory document, right?

You do know that you are quoting a document that is also not currently in the active FAA Database, right?

Gunner asked for where the FAA 'defines' air mile in support of the claims from Eclipse that one flight, one way, shows they meet their range guarantee (which you yourself disputed on the owner site while simultaneously crowing about it here) - and the best you can come up with is an obscure, non-regulatory document that is not even on the FAA website.

WhyTech said...

Eclipse RVSM Status

Up to 5 June 2007, no EA5xx acft listed as approved for RVSM on the FAA NAARMO website.

WT

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"You do know Ken, that you are not quoting a regulatory document, right?"

I'm sorry. You're saying you don't know what "air mile" means? It seems pretty self-explanatory to me. You won't find "wing" in the the pilot's glossary either, but most pilots seem to know what that one means.

Aren't you just being a little too obstinate?

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

...Did you know "air miles" appears on the ATP written exam? The FAA expects an ATP to know what "air miles" means:

20. (Refer to appendix 2, figures 119, 120, 121, and 122.) What is the specific range in nautical air miles per 1,000 pounds of fuel from level-off to start of descent using .78 Mach?
A) 55.9 NAM/1000.
B) 52.5 NAM/1000.
C) 48.9 NAM/1000.


:)

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

No Ken, obstinate is playing both sides of the fence and misleading one or both sides; whether deliberately as a shill or coincidentally as a naive and trusting rube for a sheister.

Obstinate is demanding info from others while declining to provide it yourself.

Obstinate is aggressively towing the company line in the clear face of facts to the contrary and attacking the other side personally instead of focusing on the issues.

Back to the matter at hand - the method Eclipse used on their single demonstration, one-way flight with favorable tailwinds does NOT meet NBAA standards so they made up a new VERNacular, which they do whenever the current terminology simply does not reflect well on das Wunderjet (funny thing is, that seems to happen a lot).

You know, like they have done by redefining 'vague' terminology like 'OEM', 'certified', 'delivered', 'high-rate' or 'reliability', or when they try to obfuscate their failures by wooing their unsuspecting customer base with the ever popular 'LRU', 'MSG-3' and 'Next Generation'.

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"Back to the matter at hand - the method Eclipse used on their single demonstration, one-way flight with favorable tailwinds does NOT meet NBAA standards so they made up a new VERNacular, which they do whenever the current terminology simply does not reflect well on das Wunderjet"

I think that's a completely false and unfair criticism.

I am right now looking at the "NBAA JET AIRCRAFT RANGE FORMAT" datasheet. Have you seen it? You ought to look at it before saying what you said.

The NBAA range profile doesn't actually require that data be verified by flight at all! That Eclipse chose to verify their data rather than just submit an estimate goes beyond the requirements.

The datasheet calls for destination and alternate airports to be at sea level, and the entire datasheet must be at ISA and zero wind condition.

It is crystal clear that nobody can fly an NBAA profile flight exactly as specified. Everybody has to collect data and then extrapolate the data to zero wind, ISA, sea level airport conditions.

That's exactly what Eclipse did, and it looks to me like it was a lot more than most manufacturers do.

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken said:
"That Eclipse chose to verify their data rather than just submit an estimate goes beyond the requirements."

That's the point, Ken. You keep claiming that Eclipse "verified" their data, but keep dancing away from providing the very information necessary to perform that verification. Instead, you provide a graph which tells one tiny piece of the story and call it "proof". That graph is hardly a data point, let alone "proof".

C'mon, this shouldn't be that difficult if Eclipse verified all this and you have the verification data. What were the temperatures, altitudes, power settings, winds, speeds, times landing fuel on board. The necessary variables.

This is a wonderful chance for you to demonstrate that Vern has, at last, provided REAL information to SIMPLE skepticism. Seriously.
Gunner

HiFlyer said...

As far as the issue of air miles vs. ground miles, I am under the impression that all aircraft range data is in air miles. The airplane doesn't know anything about ground miles(that's why they are called airplanes instead of groundplanes.) The problem with us ground creatures is that we look at the distance between two ground points and try to compare that to air miles. Can't be done without knowing the actual wind conditions on a continuous basis during the flight.

I don't know whether Eclipse's flight verified their claims or not, but there is no way of knowing without having wind condition also. It's much more accurate to use true airspeed times flight time to establish distance.

gadfly said...

A man approached the old blacksmith and asked him to make two horseshoes, exactly alike. The old blacksmith scratched his head for a moment, “I can make one horseshoe exactly alike . . . but “two” exactly alike is a problem!”

It could be that “Eclipse” cannot repeat the now famous/notorious flight a second time, let alone do it “East to West” . . . and confirm it by about ten round trips. If they did, that would end the debate once and for all.

gadfly

(One “datum” does not “data” make!)

mirage00 said...

I feel a drive-by coming on...

Ken THANK YOU for keeping it real and yes the the haters have run out of ammo again!!!!!!

Stan, when exactly did Eclipse approach you to do work for them?

double 00

gadfly said...

No, double ought, those nice people are not the “drive by”, but EMT’s. When you started to stutter and drool, some concerned and caring blogger dialed “911".

gadfly

(Someone hand the man a towel, or a Kleenex, please!)

Gunner said...

Timing's right.
School just let out.
Gunner

Redtail said...

Godfly said: It could be that “Eclipse” cannot repeat the now famous/notorious flight a second time, let alone do it “East to West” . . . and confirm it by about ten round trips.

East to west, west to east, headwind, tailwind.... You guys just don't get it. It makes no differnece if the data is normalized to ISA zero wind conditions. How dense can we get?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

The concern over the claim of 'proving' the range guarantee, on a single, one-way flight, was that the weight and CG, for that single, one-way flight, were not released - and the reserves, for that single, one-way flight, were not correctly addressed per NBAA standards.

In fact, previously Eclipse was mixing and matching GAMA and NBAA formats within the same documents (depending on which method gave the best answer) and THAT is precisely what led many to question this single, one-way flight - if they can't use a single method to present an accurate picture of the performance of the airplane, how can a single, one-way PR stunt flight be taken seriously as 'demonstrating' that they have met the guarantee.

Now go do your homework before your mom gets home.

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"What were the temperatures, altitudes, power settings, winds, speeds, times landing fuel on board. The necessary variables."

Make your request to:

info@eclipseaviation.com

After that, how about getting the same information for the Mustang and the CJ1+? I'd be interested in comparing them, and I don't think the raw data for the proving flights have been published for either of those aircraft.

Ken

gadfly said...

Redsails (in the sunset): We all get it, and so do you. Have “Eclipse” go in circles if you wish . . . Clockwise, Counter-Clockwise . . . your choice. But go at “airspeed” and “pressure altitude” for the required distance . . . at least “ten times”. AND provide information about “air-temp”, “payload”, as in “warm bodies present”, and all other prevailing conditions. That shouldn’t be too difficult! . . . Especially using a computer with at least “Windows 3.1", or newer. (Shucks, you can even do it with a “Mac”, or CP-U, or a hand-held HP RPN calculator. For that matter, use a “slide rule” and write it all out on a “legal pad”.)

You remind me of the guy that set a new world’s record for coming down from the observation deck on the Empire State Building to Broadway. A reporter asked him to repeat the achievement for a “photo finish”, the man did not respond.

Helloooooooo! Anyone home?

‘Guess not!

gadfly

(And Ken, you could save us all a lot of trouble if you just nudge Vern with your elbow, and ask him to respond to Gunner's requests. It would save a lot of time.)

JetProp Jockey said...

All of this bantering about air speed / air miles and ground speed is a waste of time. No one knows exactly, within a couple knots, what the winds aloft are at FL410. If you don't know the exact winds aloft, you cannot determine an exact airspeed and range.

The only way to get accurate airspeed over a course it to fly from a starting point to the same point.

This can be most accurately done by flying a big equallateral triangle over an area of high pressure with little difference in the isobarric pressure.

Something like 200 mile legs, the exact length of which can be determined by GPS, can provide quite exact fuel consumption per mile and the wind factor is eliminated. Tha amount of fuel consumed is accurately can measured. The time and fuel for climb and descent can be determined and added.

At this point, the only adjustment needed is for standard temp and pressure. Once the pounds per hour and mile are determined, range and reserve are a simple calculation.

Several round trips can also work, but if you are traveling 600 to 800 miles in one direction, the winds can change from the time you depart to the time you return.

Gunner said...

Ken-
There you go again. You make these wild claims, pretend to back them up with meaningless references and then fold when called.

You've done this with a number of issues, most notoriously your insistence that the window and wing failures were an install problem that had been fixed months ago. Now, months later, you admit it was a DESIGN problem and that the "fix" is still in the testing phase. Guess what? So's the Moller Skycar.

Ever wonder why your credibility is questioned with a frequency second only to Vern's? It's not because we don't like you, Ken. It's because you continue to grandstand from the top of a manure pile and actually believe some are buying it.

This is simply a repeat performance of your reaction to the wing and window failures. And once again, in the end, we hear those famous words, "No mas".

As I've said, first to fight, first to the pavement. That's unfortunate. You could be an asset to Eclipse and this Board both.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

I guess that means I'm not getting invited to your birthday bash this year, eh Rich? Aw shucks.

Look at it like this--I gave you the starting point. I even reprinted the FAA publication you were too lazy or too incompetent to look up for yourself. I told you where to go for the details you demand about the flight, but no dice, you want to be spoon fed everything and get mad when you're not.

Well, tough luck, kid.

If all you've ever going to do is bitch that I didn't give you enough details, you can do your own legwork from now on.

Ken

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

Wrong, Ken.
You made the assertions that the performance had NOT been properly demonstrated. You made those loud and clear to the Owners' Group (while telling a completely different "tale" here).

Now you smugly call anyone who agrees with you a liar; then you go to ground when asked for the data that caused YOU to change YOUR position.

It's not my laziness that's at issue. My position is that Eclipse has never demonstrated performance guarantees. My proof: No Data has been released to depositors, press or public to support such demonstration.

It's hardly up to me to start digging. I'm not the one in the hole.
Gunner

gadfly said...

JPJ

Your proposal is quite valid. So, let Eclipse start flying in equilateral triangles. Do it “summer” and “winter” . . . OK, let’s settle for “summer” . . . whatever. But include all the data, whatever it is, and do it a few times, to prove it isn’t just a “one time fluke”.

It’s easy to shoot first, then “paint the target on the side of the barn”.

gadfly

(Good News, Ken . . . and Vern: There is hope! The medical community is having great success separating Siamese twins . . . even those joined at the brain, or other major parts of the anatomy.)

cj3driver said...

Ken Said:

....how about getting the same information for the Mustang and the CJ1+? I'd be interested in comparing them...

Ken,

Ask your Cessna salesmen for the Mustang and CJ1+ Flight Planning Guide. I can tell you the CJ3 Guide is super conservative. I get much better performance than the published guide. I'll bet the Mustang is the same.

Does Eclipse publish a similar guide? I will check with them and see.

gadfly said...

“Spring has sprung,

The grass has riz . . .

I wonder where,

The “Birdy” is?

gadfly

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3 wrote,

"Ask your Cessna salesmen for the Mustang and CJ1+ Flight Planning Guide."

I have the Mustang Flightplanning Guide. It's a good document that has several of the performance pages from the AFM. It is indeed very useful, and I've consulted it many times. However, it doesn't have any "proof" (of the sort gunner demands) that their aircraft has the NBAA range they say it has.

Oh, you can figure it out. They tell you the fuel flow and the speed at different altitudes, the time/distance/fuel to altitude, time/distance/fuel for descent, and holding performance. That's all anybody needs to construct their own NBAA profile. Eclipse provides all that same information, too, for both the first 38 aircraft and the aeromod planes.

But when you go to construct the profile, you'll find that the key piece of data that drives the bottom line figure is the specific range at cruise. Eclipse proved their plane averages just over 1 nm per pound (which is really quite amazing; the best the Mustang gets is .69 at light weight, LRC, FL 410). As to weight--it's an NBAA profile--it's done at MGTOW; it's right there on the form. Power--it was LRC; the company has said that many times. There's no issue here.

Anyway, the Flightplanning Guide is a good document, but it's not what gunner is asking for. If Eclipse provided that (and actually they did plus more!), he'd be unhappy (and sure enough, he is). Maybe gunner is just unhappy when it comes to the Eclipse :)

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

On Economy -

1988 Yugo GV, 1.3L I-4
24 MPG combined City\Highway
80 cubic feet passenger volume
6 cubic feet cargo space
Cost $4K new

2007 BMW 550i, 4.8L V-8
16 MPG combined City\Highway
99 cubic feet passenger volume
14 cubic feet cargo space
Annual fuel bill exceeds cost of Yugo

Both will carry a few adults on the same roads, one clearly costs less to both acquire AND to operate.

Comparing the Eclipse to the Mustang, or in fact ANY aircraft, of ANY stripe (prop, turboprop, or jet) manufactured by ANY real OEM is as farcical as the above.

Yugo could have said they were just like a BMW only cheaper, but they had enough integrity to not try that, would that the nekkid emperor in ABQ had as much integrity.

Making the jump from a Yugo to a 550i is about like going from a 30 year-old piston twin to a twin-jet though in terms of performance AND economics, I am sure that happens all the time in the real-world.

I wonder what the faithful drive?

gadfly said...

You’ve tried so hard . . . and I hate to tell you, but your “maskera” is beginning to run. I think the jig is up (in the words of the WWII German aeronautical genius, “Hermann Wilhelm Göring”). Please don’t put too much in the comparison . . . he already had an impressive record.

The blogsite is attempting to figure out “Eclipse” . . . not Cessna. Actually, we have “figured out” Eclipse, but there is a need to make it public, for the benefit of all those who do not seem to understand what is at stake. And I told you before, “Ken”, whoever you are, or “claim to be”, be extremely careful. The temptation to “go for the jugular” is very strong. Last night, “high float” offered some thoughts that reflected the general tone of much of this blogsite. It’s time you paid close attention.

Nice try, “Ken”.

(For some of us who come here, it seems to be a “lark”. For others of us, it is our livelihood . . . and the humor is “dead serious” . . . make no mistake!)

Ken Meyer said...

gadfly wrote,

"For others of us, it is our livelihood . . . and the humor is “dead serious” . . . make no mistake!"

Now that's the most honest thing anybody has ever said here. I think you're exactly right.

It's your livelihood, and the Eclipse has threatened it. Thanks for being so honest. It explains a lot.

Ken

gadfly said...

Yes, Ken,

Eclipse is making a farce of an industry with a hard won reputation for safety and integrity. And those of us who have spent our very lifetimes attempting to protect that reputation, are not amused at a person, . . . a company, that would destroy our efforts, just to protect an "ego". We are sick of this fiasco. And, in a "parody" of the words in "My Fair Lady", "I think (you've) got it".

gadfly

(Should you and I meet, eyeball to eyeball, I think we could be friends, but I do not for an instant approve of your efforts, nor methods. To constantly avoid facing facts, or direct questions, is counter productive, both for "Eclipse" and for all of the aviation industry as a whole. The history of aviation has always been at "odds" with the understanding of the general public, fighting "politics" and every other possible obstactle. We do not need a psychopathic egotist to add to our problems . . . and, if you are not "Vern", I am not referring to you, personally.)

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Can anyone say Cognitive Dissonance?

The only people threatened directly by Eclipse are all the unsecured investors in this uncontained Ponzi scheme, oops I mean 'position holders' with 'deposits' in place with the OEnM (Original Equipment non-Manufacturer) in the 505.

In other words, people like you Ken.

The indirect threat is that truly promising endeavors will find it harder to raise needed capital and get understanding from a twice bitten thrice shy investor and customer community as well as the media, who will all be damaged in untold ways when Eclipse finally craters.

Pilots will still be piloting, machinists will still be machining, and writers will still be writing when Eclipse joins other such scams on the ash-heap of history, to paraphrase Ronaldus Magnus.

The BD-5 is statistically more succesful than this program to-date and they share a lot in common. Both were nearly done in by their original engines, both have a loyal following and a loyal opposition, and both have claimed a significant number of airframes 'under construction' for a rather long time now.

The difference is that Jim Bede is actually a likable guy and there are plenty of BD-5's FLYING as originally intended.

airtaximan said...

Ken:
"Eclipse provides all that same information, too, for both the first 38 aircraft and the aeromod planes."

Listen to yourself for a brief moment...and TRY not to laugh (or vry) at how rediculous this sounds...

The "aeromod" aircraft after number 38 - what a rediculous thing to even say.

Remember, Ken - this aeromod is coming after $1 billion and almost 9 years. WHY? Why? Why have you been relegated to refering to the "revolutionary-$1 billion-9 year-wonderjet" as "the first 38 and then the aeeromod aircraft?

Ask yourself how far from knowing what they are doing, or how far from even caring at all about the customer, or the product this has strayed, do that the plane is obsolete after number 38 and they need to be "aeromoded"?

This is really quite silly.

airtaximan said...

Ken:

"The NBAA range profile doesn't actually require that data be verified by flight at all"

when you say this, it makes me ask the following questions:
1-why did they do a proving run?
2-why did Vern refer to it in the press, as if it actually proved something?

I just want to know the weight of the plane... one simple verifiable (maybe) detail. Something tells me, this "proving run" plane was "modified".

I also think the "proving run" was demanded...

I remember a story of Trump moving dirt around the Atlantic City Casino site, to prove to the bankers work was underway. He needed more financing, and they agreed based on this "proving run".

If the Vern proving run was designed to prove something, why not just publish all the data?

Some things are very simple. This has been a well guarded secret. Why?

EJ-22 scrapped...
Avion in the garbage...
JetIncomplete...
Recast all the performance guarantees...
Increase the price...
Provisional-TC...
Safety grievance prior to TC...
Dayjet revelas it orders/optioned 1400 not 300 planes...
United gone...
Windows cracking design flaw...
Bushing design flaw...
No airframe fatigue test...
Production to be 200 in 2006, moved to 400 in 2007, to "I dunno" in 2007...

I'm certain I forgot a bunch - but ALL of these items were known to e-clips and NOT DISCLOSED until it was somehow more convenient or lucrative for e-clips... much later on.

I suspect we shall see the same with this "proving run"...

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Eclipse Replaces Brian Barents on Board of Directors

Albuquerque, NM -- Aircraft non-Manufacturer Eclipse Aviation Corporation today announced the addition of a new member to the Board of Directors.

Joining Harold Poling, Vern Raburn, Al Mann, Kent Kresa and Brandon Jones, and taking the place of the mysteriously absent Brian Barents, will be none other than former OSI headman Oscar Goldman.

When asked about what he thought should happen at Eclipse after the myriad failures, missed schedules and blown Billion dollar development budget, reminiscent of the wipeout at the beginning of the Wide World of Sports newscasts from back in the day Goldman said:

"Eclipse Aviation Corporation, aircraft non-manufacturer. A project barely alive. Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic plane. The Eclipse 500 Super Hyperforce Integrated Technology-NG (E-500 SHIT-NG) will be that plane. Better than it was before. Better, stronger, faster."

;^)

mouse said...

Ken,

P&WC list he 610F as a 1050 LB/Thrust engine. The TDCS allows for 950 Lb/Thrust at takeoff, and 850 at continous cruise. The internal temperatures are the critical determination of the engine limitations.

The smaller the engine the more critical the internal temperatures and wear/abrasion become due to the minimal amout of metal. A load of grit in the air has much larger effects on the smaller blades. Another reason why I would not be so happy to be training in ABQ.

The PW610F TCDS notes list the following which you need to be mindful of: NOTE 1. The engine ratings for PW610F-A engine model are based on dry sea level static ICAO
standard atmospheric conditions. No accessory loads or air bleed.
The quoted ratings are obtainable on a test stand with specified fuel and oil, and using the
exhaust duct and intake bell mouth specified in the Installation Manual.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Anyone notice the new guy on the BOD, Brandon Jones, is from an investor group (Polygon Investment Partners) and that he apparently specializes in Mergers & Acquisitions from both a banking AND lawyering background?

Where is Barents?

Hmmmmmmm.

Methinks I see an exit strategy, hope this can of beans holds up just a little while longer.

Gunner said...

Ken-
One more question for you, and it doesn't relate to the jet's lack of verifiable performance:

While you hawk the early Depositors to send their Progress Payments in; while you regale THEM with these same tales of quasi and pseudo-technical paper performance; have you ever, even once, informed them that you and Sherri invariably fly to destinations that are LESS than 600NM from home base? (In fact, I can't find a single flight, back to February, where you flew THAT far, even with multiple legs).

Little wonder the continued secrecy and sleight of hand regarding the ACTUAL performance of Le Petit troubles you not at all. In fact, it's obvious why you'd like to keep a lid on that one. It's quite necessary for those in front of you to fund the continued development before the day comes for you to play or pass on your own Purchase Decision.

Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

More on the improved Eclipse E-500 Super Hyperforce Integrated Technology - Next Genegeration (or E-500 SHIT-NG)

The new model Eclipse will be delivered fully functioning, at the time of original delivery, no strings or tethers attached. The new model will be cut-in to the production line immediately (on Tuesday), and 'delivery' of the current Partial Eclipse will be suspended so that all aircraft on the line or parked behind the Circle K by the airport can have the mods installed as well, at absolutely no cost for only $1.1M US in 'gratuity'.

When informed of this apparent change of heart re: delivering half-completed aircraft one surprised customer said "Are you SHIT-NG me? You have got to be SHIT-NG me."

An Eclipse representative shook the man's hand and said, "Oh no, we are SHIT-NG all over you."

Ken Meyer said...

mouse wrote,

"P&WC list he 610F as a 1050 LB/Thrust engine. The TDCS allows for 950 Lb/Thrust at takeoff, and 850 at continous cruise."

Maybe we're talking different terms here, mouse. This PWC page lists the thermo takeoff thrust for the PW610 as 1112 lbs. Did you find a different number somewhere at PWC?

The Eclipse derates it to 900 lbs for takeoff (950 for APR).

The Mustang's PW615F engine, according to the PWC website, has a thermo thrust of 1568 lbs, and Cessna is using 1460 of that during takeoff.

It looks to me like the Mustang engines are flat-rated less than the Eclipse's and therefore there is more cushion for the Eclipse than the Mustang. That may be why the PW615F delivers rated takeoff thrust only through 77F, while the Eclipse engines deliver it through 86F.

Am I missing something here? It's pretty far afield from my area of expertise, so I'm all ears.

Ken

gadfly said...

Can anyone say: “Three Ring Circus”?

To keep up with all this requires more than a “program”. But anyone with an ounce of common sense realizes that Eclipse is on “life support”. The poor thing is “brain dead”, but the “family members” are having serious problems facing reality.

Ah yes! A few may keep the appearance of life going on for a few more months . . . no doubt far beyond “Oshkosh 2007” (now THAT will be an act worth recording on your “camcorder” . . . and in time will have historical value). Their “co-host” is Ford, who has been boasting that “Ford” will manufacture billions of dollars of their products in China by 2010 . . . who knows, maybe there will be a “Beijing Fly-In” by then.

My intentions? . . . to see to it that the coffin is nailed shut, as soon as possible. This thing has gone on far too long. The longer it lingers, the more people are going to be hurt . . . one way or another. The longer it lingers, the more “general aviation” will suffer, financially and in integrity. Even those who have bought in to the “claims” of the VLJ, will ultimately suffer the aftermath of this fiasco. It is too late to make it all “nice and smooth” . . . that is asking too much. But the sooner it comes to an end, the better . . . even for the ones that bought their positions with the little bird. (“Little Bird” . . . like the ones that fall out of the nest, lying there on the sidewalk, under the palm trees, along the side-walks in Southern California . . . sad!)

Another jet? Yes! . . . most definitely. It will be good for Cessna, and every other manufacturer out there. Competition is good . . . no, it is much more than that. It is absolutely necessary, to maintain the high integrity of any worthwhile enterprise. In our own business, we benefit from the competition . . . to hone our skills, and to improve our own products. We are “friends” with our “legitimate” competition. We all benefit. Sure it’s work. But whoever said that work is bad. In fact, work is a gift from God, Himself. But there always seems to be the “illegitimate” . . . “case in point”.

A good competitor is very slow to “bad mouth” their competition. That should have been a clue to anyone listening to the PR of Eclipse. The competition didn’t get where they are by being stupid. A healthy respect for the competition is absolutely necessary. But to treat the competition with contempt? . . . “un-good, big time”.

gadfly

Ken Meyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...

Fantastic:

"Ken and Rich" are on friendly terms . . . it's a start!

gadfly

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"you and Sherri invariably fly to destinations that are LESS than 600NM from home base?"

Actually, Rich, we've been to Florida more times in the last year than you've taken your Baron, N1RV, from Florida to anywhere west of Texas. Long range capability is important to us as we frequently fly across the country.

That said, it is true that many of our flights are 600 nm or less. That also fits the niche of DayJet and many other charter operators. That the Eclipse can fly a 600 nm profile flight using less fuel than my 340 is simultaneously the underlying reason why the air taxi industry is embracing the aircraft and why I am too.

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken-
I wasn't talking about flight as an issue of machismo. Flying is flying.

But you make my point. You and DayJet would be more than satisfied with a reduced range jet. Your legs are short and, no matter what you fly in the class we're talking, an AZ/FL trip will require a fuel stop, so that's not pertinent.

But that 1,100 or so mile range seems to be pretty much a magic baseline for many, if not most, of the Owner-Pilots in this class; otherwise a 900 mile range would be no big issue. I already know it wouldn't be for you or DayJet; but how about we give the other Depositors and potential Depositors their due also?

Glad you've come down here to Florida so often this year. But, unless you filed VFR, under your "call sign" or you did it before Feb 2X, it doesn't show on FlightAware. Then again, you did say only that you've "been here"; you omitted the "how". So, I'll let that go, rather than make an assumption that you're staying on topic.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

Albuquerque Tribune

Jet-maker Announces New Deposit Program
By Erik Swimmer
Monday, June 11, 2007.

ABQ. NM, Eclipse Aviation, the worlds first Very Light Jet manufacturer today announced a new program for its revolutionary 6-place Eclipse 500 jet airplane.

Amidst skepticism regarding performance guarantees, avionics supplier changes and backing off lofty production goals for 2007, Eclipse has developed an exciting new deposit program.

Andrew Broom, Eclipse spokesman said; “everyone seems to be very worried about our ability to deliver. Despite beating the pants off Cessna so far this year, there is concern Eclipse cannot deliver aircraft. Our CEO, Vern Raburn recently tried to quell the rumor mill and hostility emanating from a certain old-guard industry blog, which repeatedly states we are in trouble, and we have broken our promises. Mr. Raburn assured everyone publicly that our recent production slowdown is planned. I am here to reassure the world this production slowdown is planned. I remind everyone we have delivered 15 planes while Cessna has delivered only 5 in 2007. Even with this major win there remains a lack of optimism regarding Eclipse's production capability. So, we are going to capitalize on the heartfelt support for our company together with the timely anxiety expressed by our best and earliest customers regarding the ability of Eclipse to deliver planes. We are going to make them an exciting new offer - another industry first for Eclipse.”

Eclipse Aviation today announces a new deposit program, aimed at providing the first 38 Eclipse 500 owners the opportunity to buy a priority position to have their aircraft modified so it meets the performance guarantees we set some time ago.

The first 38 owners have been promised “aero-mods” which will be done entirely at Eclipse Aviation’s expense, as promised.

Today, these early owners will be able to purchase a priority position to actually schedule these Aero-Mods which we will do at our ABQ manufacturing facility.

Eclipse will be taking non-refundable deposits in the order in which they are received. This will be a first-come-first-served program with a twist. The higher deposit amounts will get their aircraft modified first, while the lower deposit amounts will be scheduled later on.

Eclipse expects this (the Aero-Mod Deposit Program) deposit program will be as successful as our last deposit program, the one for the E-500 plane itself, where Eclipse received over 2700 orders, all backed by non-refundable deposits. Except, under the new Aero-Mod Deposit Program, there will only be a limited number of positions offered, despite the high demand - only 38 Aero-Mod Delivery Positions will be available, so all will be Platinum Level.

Finally, everyone with one of the first 38 E500 planes will have to offer some deposit in this program – it is only fair that all the aircraft owners participate, the company concluded.

WhyTech said...

coldfish said:

"Where is Barents?"

This is a great question. He is no longer a director of Eclipse. Often when a director "disappears" with no acknowledgement from the Company (especially a company so attached to announcements), something is up. I'd sure like to know the story of his departure.

WT

airtaximan said...

WT,
apparently this occured a few months ago... its already come up on this blog. His picture disappeared...around March, if I remember.

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"But that 1,100 or so mile range seems to be pretty much a magic baseline for many, if not most, of the Owner-Pilots in this class"

You know (or should know anyway) that the Mustang has an NBAA IFR range that is 5 nm less than demonstrated by the Eclipse.

Do you have any idea what the range of a CE500 is? Look it up; I think you'll be surprised.

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken-
No, the Mustang has a FAR longer BELIEVABLE range than the Eclipse. This is fact.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"No, the Mustang has a FAR longer BELIEVABLE range than the Eclipse. This is fact."

How the heck would you know? Have you flown either of them?? I've flown them both.

The Eclipse demonstrated an NBAA IFR range of 1156 nm. The Mustang only claims an NBAA IFR range of 1150 nm. I noticed you were unable to provide the details I requested for the Mustang flight.

I'm not faulting Mustang. Not at all. It's my favorite airplane in the $3 mil bracket. I'm telling you that both the Mustang and the Eclipse have 1100+ nm NBAA IFR range. Both have 45 min reserve ranges of about 1300 nm. Both can do the 1100 nm flight you mentioned.

Ken

Gunner said...

Wrong again, Ken. We're not talking paper, here; we're talking "demonstrated". The Mustang has a far better DEMONSTRATED range than the EA-500. That's a fact.

Just compare the national AND INTERNATIONAL legs flown by N245MU to those little bunny hops made by three jets with a DJ suffix as they limped their way home to BCT from ABQ.

"Proving runs" my butt! They needed FUEL, Ken. N245MU has been flying rings around Le Petit for weeks.

Enjoy your jet, Ken. I mean that. But give an even break to the earlier Depositors that are paying for the development of your SN 110X, okay?
Gunner

Gunner said...

BTW, any intel on the whereabouts on N126DJ?
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"The Mustang has a far better DEMONSTRATED range than the EA-500. That's a fact."

It is not.

It is your supposition. I challenge you to prove it.

Ken

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

Challenge accepted, met and vanquished. I just DID prove it.

But, I'll tell you what: I'll prove it again. Only you first for once, especially since you brought up the Eclipse Range "proof" before you ever sank your teeth into Cessna's ankle on the subject. Prove your claim of Eclipse range performance based on the ABQ/GNV flight, Ken.

Depositors are watching. Don't let them down. ;-)
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"Depositors are watching."

No, they're really not, Rich. I can assure you that they don't give a sh*t about the moronic wails of a few leftists who got run over by the Eclipse machine.

Can you, or can you not support the claim you made?

Ken

gadfly said...

“Leftist?” “run over by Eclipse . . .” ? . . . isn’t that called “suicide”?

gadfly

gadfly said...

"Finally, everyone with one of the first 38 E500 planes will have to offer some deposit in this program – it is only fair that all the aircraft owners participate, the company concluded."

Beautiful! For shear audacity it cannot be exceeded.

How does one look at one's self in the mirror, after making this sort of statement? . . . I think there are medical/psychological terms to describe this sort of thing.

gadfly

(It would be impossible for someone to make up this sort of thing.)

Gunner said...

"I can assure you that they don't give a sh*t about the moronic wails of a few leftists who got run over by the Eclipse machine."

That borders on Godwin's Law, Ken. But no matter. It's expected, especially as no one knows who the "Eclipse Machine" will run over next.
Clump, Clump.

The Depositors and certainly the Potential Depositors most certainly DO care what's written on this Blog Ken. You can't do a cursory search about Le Petit without tagging it. And EVERYBODY does their internet research.

So, yes, Depositors DO read your words and see your style. They see you Cheer Lead and challenged. They see you waffle, fold, change subjects and weakly counter-challenge. They see your debate style and your 110X Non-Serial Number. They see your claims and your refutation of your claims months later. And they see your positions and your position reversals, also months later.

Does your wife read this Blog? Don't answer that. I'm frightened of the ramifications.

So, once again, you wanna "challenge" me, Ken? I think you're out of your league. Men who challenge me don't generally start by raising the bet, only to check the call and then try to raise a DIFFERENT bet.

Tell us about the ABQ/GNV "proving run" again, Ken. Your friends are watching.
Gunner

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

NinerZulu

“Illegitimi non carborundum” . . . they’re not worth your emotional energy.

“Dr. Ken” is no longer relevant. Somebody named “Broom” will now sweep the remnants of Eclipse from the tarmac (until he’s replaced). ‘Just sit back and watch the show. These folks seem to have the final act well in hand . . . never before have I observed such skilled self destruction in action. (Of course, we’ll need to give them a “nudge” here and there . . . every few hours, so they don’t feel neglected, and forget to “stay focused”.)

Hopefully, they’ll keep the entertainment going past “Oshkosh” . . . so many are counting on watching the final moments “up close”. (Oh to have a franchise of miniDV cassette tapes about then.) Maybe someone like “Bill Gates” will give them a “boost”, and we’ll see “Eclipse II”, “Eclipse, the Sequel”, “Eclipse, the Prequel”, “Eclipse Meets Godzilla”, (with Japanese subtitles) . . . but frankly I would rather watch “Shrek”.

gadfly

(Thanks, Al Gore, for inventing the internet, global warming, and methane emissions.)

gadfly said...

‘Just for Ken’s benefit . . . so I don’t get corrected on my Latin:

“Noli nothis permittere te terere.”

gadfly

(With apologies for the "mis-quote" to WWII General Joseph “Vinegar Joe” Warren Stilwell.)

mouse said...

Watch for a new posting confirming the following.

An associate of mine while on Wall Street in the last 2 weeks ran into Elcipse. They (Eclipse) are looking for another $400M.

H'mmm, looks like the "machine" is going to be bordering on $1.2B before too long when they are successful.

Ken, please odn't make Vern continue to grovel for dollar$. Give him your deposit now. Why wait, you already made up your mind. Now you are just teasing him...

Redtail said...

Gadfly said: (It would be impossible for someone to make up this sort of thing.)

GullibleFly, you lunk, it was a made up story. But, you SO WANT to believe it. As Airtaximan says, "Sad, really sad".

You really do belong here.

Redtail said...

Mouse said: An associate of mine while on Wall Street in the last 2 weeks ran into Elcipse. They (Eclipse) are looking for another $400M.

I think that just shows the legitimacy of Eclipse. With "all this blog has uncovered" and brought to the world, there are still very high powered Wall Street types out there willing to see the venture through to a successful completion, and make some money, while they're at it.

I guess this little blog really has no relevance in the REAL world.

flightguy said...

Redtail,

If what mouse says is true, it does not show legitimacy it shows desperation.

Redtail said...

I guess it all depends on ones point of view. You see it one way, those investing the REAL dollars see it another.

JetProp Jockey said...

Redtail

I don't know any details relative to the Eclipse guys visiting Wall Street, but I can assure you that not everyone who goes looking for venture capital finds what they are looking for. There was not mention that they found investors to write the checks.

If you go back a couple weeks you will find some interesting details from WyTech and myself reltive to what price early investors pay if the plan is not working and late investors come in to clean up the mess.

Again Seeking does not equal Finding!

Gunner said...

What was it one of The Faithful said? Something about this being the "perfect time" to slow down production? Vern's shopping for money again, huh?

"Welcome to the Eclipse Drive-Up Window. May I take your order?"

"Yes, I'll have the Jet, please. Not the Partial Eclipse; I'd like the Total Package; Avionics on the side and hold the FIKI."

"OK, one Stir Fry and a Box-O-Parts, comin' right up. That'll be $1.6 million. Thank you. Your order will be ready at the next window on Tuesday. We should have the next window put in by then."

Gunner

airtaximan said...

Vern's beating the bushes again for money...

What a surprise! Deliver 15 planes in a year, cut back on photocopies, take out full page color ads in the financial magazines, slow down production... do you think there were signs this was coming? How do you pay for inventory for hundreds of planes and pay your 1,000 employees when there's no money coming in?

- I'm sure if anyone CAN get this money, Vern can. I love a track record. He's been, to coin an Embraer phrase - phenominal.

..Do you think they are pitching the new model as part of the rationale for the $400,000,000? I'm sure there's a projected HUGE market for this new, revolutionary smaller, lighter, cheaper plane.

Wall Street probably already knows the 500 is a bust. Gotta have a new reason for attracting investors - and after all, they ALWAY SADI they were an aircraft company...not a one trick pony.

The dream lives on...

WhyTech said...

redtail said:

"there are still very high powered Wall Street types out there willing to see the venture through to a successful completion"

Surely you are joking. Wall Street types generall dont give a rip about success as long as their commissions are paid (up front of success). They have almost no skin in the game. "Show me the money!"

WT

Gunner said...

AT-
I don't think Wall Street necessarily knows at all that there's real trouble at Eclipse. Few of these Investment Banks have analysts interested in REALLY comprehending the Eclipse/Day-Jet Models. And, as WT said, unless it's "case money", they couldn't care about anything but the story and the sizzle.

However, IF Vern is out there asking for this kind of money, the "story" probably isn't to ramp up and deliver aircraft that have already been mostly paid for.

Enter Oshkosh and your prediction of a new model. Enter Gilbert Gottfried and the line from Beverly Hills Cop II:

"Is there something I could put in this hand that would make you forget about this other thing? Like you're so interested by what's in this hand that you think 'What was this, I don't even remember"..."

Gunner

JetProp Jockey said...

Gunner

Assuming that Vern is out trying to raise 400MM in additional capital, he has a new level of accountabillity that he has not heretofore needed to provide.

Up to now, he only provided proforma projections of where the company was going, along with the big backlog to support the marketability of the project.

Now Eclipse is an operating company and must show the history to date along with revenue vs expneses since TC was issued. That history is not long, but I would guess it looks pretty ugly.

I really think that anyone providing new money at this juncture will want a pound of flesh of the current investors - Including Vern's.

You can sell a vision to venture capital guys, but when the last vision didn't measure up (my opinion) the new vision becomes a tough sell.

When WT says the the investment bankers who are trying to sell this package don't care if it works, it doesn't mean that the guys who will ultimately write the checks to buy in don't care.

If it doesn't sell, the house of cards could be getting shakey

sparky said...

Ken,

You talk about released Data from eclipse as if it is coming from a reliable source.

If vern told me the sun would rise tomorrow, i wouldn't bet on it. The man has no credibility left. It's been documented numerous times that he has lied to the press and deposit holders. Is this what your paying for? Don't you demand a little more for your hard earned money?

Or do you just tow the party line blindly?

I would really like to know if you think vern has been honest in his dealings? If not, then why continue parroting his garbage?

gadfly said...

Yes, Redtail,

You got me that time. Now and then, I believe what people say. Most of the time it works well, but not always.

Should I believe what you say?

gadfly

hummer said...

Vern should do what a lot of US companies are now doing:
Go Global
Global Sales. . & more sales next to India & China
Do an IPO in England
Move manufacturing to China
Technical goes to India
ABQ offshore for tax purposes
(Use IBM as an example for loopholes)
Use illegals in ABQ to clean up
the final mess.
Move into the 21st Century.
And keep smiling all the way to the bank.

Gunner said...

JPJ said:
"I really think that anyone providing new money at this juncture will want a pound of flesh of the current investors - Including Vern's."

Actually the term is called "taking your lungs" and that IS what'll happen if he's begging for working capital. Don't sell Vern short, however; he apparently can't build an aircraft to save his life, but the man certainly CAN raise money.

Gunner

sparky said...

redtail said:

"I think that just shows the legitimacy of Eclipse."

would you mind explaining the logic behind that statement? Seriously... A man blows through a BILLION dollars and has what we have here to show for it, and is searching for $400M more....And somehow, to you, this makes it legitimate. This needs explaining.

Adam Aircraft is producing 2 airframes for less than a third of what eclipse has spent.

Spectrum Aeronautical is also producing two aircraft. They seat nine and have a lower cost of operation than the eclipse. they've spent nowhere near a billion dollars.

Embraer...$250M

Diamond...$175M

I would really like to know how you came to the conclusion that anything coming out of ABQ is legit. Other than the Gadfly of course.

Gunner said...

Sparky-
By their standards Enron was one of the most legitimate companies ever to grace Wall Street. Just look at all the money they "raised".

Gunner

cj3driver said...

RE: venture capital $400 million more!

To the general public (including wall street), travel by private jet is sexy and luxurious. A lot more exciting than investing in widgets or software. The bottom line is return on investment. But as most EAC bloggers know, (even the faithful), Eclipse’s success relies on Air Taxi’s. The problem is… even though the concept of air taxis is sound (there is a market for them), I believe the DayJet program using the E500 will fail.

There are people willing to pay the bump for first class, and maybe a bit more, to travel by private jet, but, the image of private jet does not an Eclipse 500 make. For the money, I believe the business jet traveler will expect some leg room and cabin amenities. After all, what’s first class on an airline but a few inches of seat width, wide armrests, 8” more leg room, and keep the food, drinks and snacks flowing. Double or triple the price of coach. There is a market for this service, albeit less than 5% of a cabin. Now, move those passengers to an Eclipse. Smaller seat, less legroom, no cabin service, no potty. In addition, the general public does not generally see the cockpit in full, nor do they hear pilot communications (for the most part). It is unnerving to a passenger to hear the “1000 ft altitude call-out, tcas calls or calling for the emergency checklist for an annunciator light. They want to sit back, relax enjoy the luxury and speed of jet travel, without the technicalities. Besides, if the population ends up loving DayJet, an Adam, Mustang, Phenom competitor will not be far behind, not to mention legacy charters. The Eclipse based DayJet is doomed

To keep “wall street’s” interest peaked, Vern must raise the money before the DayJet failure. $1.2 billion is still a lot of capital to amortize over one product, if your market is 6,000 units over the next 10 years. The problem is (without the taxis), there is only a 1,500 unit market over the next ten years…. at best.

If Vern has collected 60% deposits on 250 aircraft they should be sitting on over $150,000,000. Yet they have produced only 20 jets, and in production of only 40 more? Where’s the money? Does it go into an escrow? If I was a depositor, and I heard the rumbling of needing more capital, I would be very nervous right now. It may be that Eclipse is having trouble demanding more 60% deposits, in light of slow production. It may be that some of the later depositors are refusing to put up the 60%.

...Or, maybe the $400mil is for the development of a new product.

WhyTech said...

JPJ said:
"I really think that anyone providing new money at this juncture will want a pound of flesh of the current investors - Including Vern's."

About 100 lbs of flesh. And yes, I was refering to investment bankers in my previous post, not new investors. For a company at this stage, bankers usually go after "dumb money." Its too late for the VC's and they are too savvy (usually) to bite on a can of worms like this.

There are two times in the evolution of a new company when it is relatively easy to raise money: 1) when it is at the concept stage, with no negative history, 2) when profitable operations have been established. In between, it can be very difficult, especially if ther is a pattern of bad news. And $400 million wont be enough.

WT

sparky said...

If i were Vern, I'd earmark at least 2 mil for antacids and aspirin.....oh yeah, bandaids also.

on more serious note, go take a look at Spectrum Aeronautical's website. If these guys get the bird in the air and it's even close to book.....damn impressive. The fuselage and wings for the -33 weigh 700 pounds. That's less than the yugo we compare eclipse to.

Ken, is your e-posite refundable?

twinpilot said...

Spectrum's founder and CEO Linden Blue. Wasn't he also the one at the helm when LearFan went Tango Uniform. I think they burned through 300 million back in the 1980's when that was still a lot of money. Depositors and investors lost everything. IMHO this guy makes the Vernster look like an amateur.

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

I believe he was at raytheon and headed up the starship program.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Sparky is correct.

I heard Linden exceeded an 'unlimited' budget on Starship, something like $500M for 53 or so deliveries as I recall.

If Vern can actually deliver 106 airframes he will have beaten the Starship in terms of dollars spent per delivery ($9.4M each), unless he closes on an additional $400M, in which case he needs to deliver more like 150.

Factually, part of the challenge for both Learfan and Starship was their design AND manufacture was decidedly unconventional and the FAA had no real experience with their method of manufacture (hmmm, new way to build planes, sound familiar?).

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

gadfly said...

Dead Snail Hawk . . . and some others:

Yes, I was “snookered” into believing a farcical news item . . . and I made statements based on wrong assumptions . . . no excuse. I was dead wrong.

Unfortunately, many people have invested their money, and may even trust their lives, to far more than just a passing joke, a “make believe news item”, and a funny story.

Many things were promised . . . and much commotion has been stirred up, to “prove” the genius of a man, and his new enterprise.

Real genius doesn’t need “PR”. Others have said, you cannot hide a beautiful woman. You also cannot hide true genius . . . somehow it will reveal itself.

There is far too much “PR” for this enterprise. And maybe there’s no such thing as an ugly woman at 2AM, when the bar closes (I personally would not know). But in the scenario of the little jet, it appears to be coming up on 2AM.

It might be far better to wake up in the morning with a “dinosaur” . . . hair curlers and all . . . than to wonder what was so great the night before . . . while sharing a glass or two of “Jet A”.

gadfly

(The grass on the other side of the fence is always greener, but you still have to mow it.)

Gunner said...

CWMoR-
The EA-50X holds nothing near the promise to aviation that the Starship did. The Starship really WAS a revolutionary vision in many ways. Had it met its performance promise, it would have truly defined the term "disruptive technology". Even if the Eclipse does meet ITS performance promise, it'll hardly make the wake that the Starship might have, I think.

I've heard conflicting reports that the Starship was doomed by the heavy hand of the FAA, by the over-reaching hand of Burt Rutan or by the fact that insiders knew early on the plane would never perform to its promise. But it was produced; it was completed and delivered. It was, to my eye, absolutely gorgeous.

There's a huge gulf between trying something radical and failing vs simply calling something radical that's failing.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

Gad,

sorry about the farcical post on the deposit schemen for the aero-mods.

the fact that the story was believable makes you wonder...

cj3driver said...

Its kind of interesting that Mike Press blocked his aircraft (N229BW)on Flightaware. Guess he must read this blog. Think he's embarassed, or has something to hide?

Too funny. Especially for a salesman who advertizes in every major GA pub.

airtaximan said...

CJ3,

"If Vern has collected 60% deposits on 250 aircraft they should be sitting on over $150,000,000."

One WOULD think this is correct, right. Simple (almost "Kensian") math. Except...

The Dayjet factor... how many planes on order of the first few hundred...and how many deposits?

I suspect the number is closer to around $75 million.

...so the Ken's of the world are paying for the Ed's of the world... and taking their risk, too. Not a bad deal, especially for a "priority" customer.

Their June launch (Dayjet) is being pushed until July...and takers ona bet whether they launch anythoing except another contest, website of PR in July?

- Where's the Part135 for the plane? Anyone wish to estimate the timeframe for this, then the required updates to any certificate they have?
6 weeks is NOT a long time, especially with a Vern confirmed production slowdown.

I bet EO387(24) is the last indiovidual buyer to get some metal for his money for a long, long time... any takers?

airtaximan said...

CJ3,

CORRECTION

"I suspect the number WAS closer to around $75 million"

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Gunner,

The FAA's inexperience, and therefor discomfort, with the composite construction of both aircraft (Starship and LearFan) led to significant delays and redesigns and ever-increasing weights from what I am given to understand.

In my experience, the FAA is very big on precedent, not setting it, but using existing precedent to make them comfortable enough to sign-off on new ideas.

They apparently had a really hard time accepting that plastic airplanes could bend, and bend, and bend (relative to metal structures), without breaking in the conventional sense. Changes were 'required' to allow the planes to 'break' in a more conventional way, then when the broke, beef-up was necessary - lather, rinse, repeat - oops, heavier than expected.

I agree that the Beech 2000 was a sight to behold and they made a great, unique noise when overflying.

As previously stated, I think the Avanti II from Piaggio is just about the ultimate turbine business aircraft on the planet right now, it has looks, amazing efficiency, and it is smokin' fast (for a turboprop) - would that it still had the Starship to kick around with, made a great stablemate for the 'other' wierd airplane.

Rutan is a very creative designer, I really like many of his experimental designs, but he does not really design for production or certification (see Starship and Vantage for two examples, or the positively porpoise-looking V-Jet and the very very early Eclipse, code name Pronto I believe).

Composites are great materials but they are not the panacea that 'the Burt' would have us believe. Messy and complicated to manufacture. They are fantastic though for rapid prototyping and that is important for a guy who designs more planes by lunch time on the average day than most Chief Engineers will be responsible for in an entire career.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 231   Newer› Newest»