Thursday, June 21, 2007

Guest Editorial - The DayJet Business Model

There’s no way a DayJet customer pays $3,200.00 for a round trip from Boca to Pensacola and then agrees to a 20 min. stop on the way to pick-up a stranger. I honestly believe the market for that type of service, with those conditions, is small.

My opinion is, the DayJet model is doomed to failure. The market is too small, the service area is too small, the number of DayPorts too small and the jet too small. Granted, the service area and number of DayPorts can be expanded, but the plane and Market (at the posted prices) are very limited and fixed. These early limitations will cause the market, and thus the number of DayPorts to remain small and the rapid demise of DayJet.

The premise of an air taxi is convenient point to point transportation. Just like an auto taxi or limo.

Traditional charter attempts to fill this market, but it is very costly due to the “dead leg”, the empty flight to pick up the customer, and the empty flight back to base. Traditional charter operators fly to and from the closest airport to your ultimate destination. Not, to potentially inconvenient ports. DayJet attempts to solve this problem with DayStops, but the rate will be higher that of traditional charter. …I’m very sure there will be a traditional charter market for the Eclipse, but the market will dictate an hourly rate for the E500 that is substantially below the cost to charter a Citation or a multitude of other larger aircraft. ...Less than $1,500 per hour. DayJet can not operate at a profit for $1,500 per hour. The reason? Most charter operators do not own the aircraft they operate. They are not responsible for the maintenance cost, overhead (for the aircraft), carrying cost (cost of capital) and depreciation. These aircraft are generally owned by another entity and are place in charter for multiple reasons including, tax benefits, or just to generate some income to defray cost for the owner. The purpose of owning the jet, is not to generate a profit from charter revenue, but for their own use. The fractional companies also do this to generate additional revenue.

The ticket costs on an airline are relatively cheap, but you must fly large airport to large airport on “their” schedule, not necessarily close to your ultimate destination, on a potentially inconvenient schedule, the travel is not private, and there are security and check in and arrival hassles.

DayJet is trying to bridge the gap between charter and airline. A noble and novel idea. But DayPorts may not be convenient to your destination (similar to airline). The price, in order to fit your schedule, is very costly and it is not private (similar to an airline). The Profitability of DayJet is base on seat occupancy, not hours flown (similar to an airline). So, this type of service comes down to cost per seat/mile. The Eclipse airplane is too small and too expensive per mile for a “seat per mile” type of service. DayJet’s basis for service is DayPort to DayPort, similar to an airline. DayJet is foolish not to use larger aircraft. I’m not talking 737, but at least 8-10 comfortable seats. The per mile cost will go up only 25% – 30%, but potential profit per trip goes up by 100% to 500%. Larger aircraft (more seat capacity) is the only way to get cost/seat mile down, unless you go to small pistons like Cirrus.

There is always a cost/benefit trade-off. But DayJets =

1. Not a private “exclusive” flight.

2. The customer waits for the aircraft, instead of the aircraft waiting for customer.

3. The cost for last minute is greater than private charter.

4. The “cost effective” service is limited to a party of one.

5. The market is limited to people originating at a DayPort city… or it's not cost effective.

6. The destination is limited to those destined for a DayPort city… same reason.

7. No potty… even if its not used, just knowing its there for emergency is reassuring.

8. The sheer tiny size of the airplane will “turn-off” some people.

9. No meaningful room for baggage, presentation items, samples, ect.. and then for 3 passengers?

10. 20 minute stop (unrealistic, more like 45 min ave.)

11. Exclusive charter to where you really wanted to go on DayJet, costs more that traditional charter, in a much smaller jet… and will they wait for you?

12. The aircraft is not “cabin class”… refreshments, hot coffee, catering, meaningful reclining seats, legroom, work table, lav. Airshow map, video, etc..

The only thing DayJet has going for it is the elusive $1 per mile flight….and I’m quite sure they won’t stay in business on those economics.

Eclipse depends on DayJet, or other similar “air-taxi” ventures, in order to produce in volume and be able to sell Twin-Jets for 1.8 million.

The DayJet model will fail and Eclipse will be forced to raise the price of the E500, or never give the investors back the $1 billion already spent, not to mention a return on investment.

Contributed by cj3driver.

326 comments:

1 – 200 of 326   Newer›   Newest»
AlexA said...

The Blog of Misinformation Strikes Again!

Wrong- DayJet will provide the entire aircraft from any Dayport to any Dayport for $2500. No stops, no picking up passengers. It’s your aircraft, fill the other seats or fly by yourself.

Instead of passing on misinformation a simple call to DayJet would suffice.

Black Dog said...

If thats the only error in a very good post then thank the Lord I'm not a Dayjet investor.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

With the current round looking for about $400M, on top of the $800-900M already spent, the return now has to be for $1.2-1.3B - yes, Billion, with a B.

BTW, former Eclipse Board Member Brian Barents has surfaced over at Aerion, the would be manufacturer of a supersonic business jet (SSBJ). They report a need for some $80M for basic development of the SSBJ, and a total of nearly $2B to bring it to market.

As to the DayJet business model, all of we airplane folks need to remember that the fundamentals of business are different because of this new game-chaning jet, the old rules don't apply here.

Just like P\E didn't apply to the DotCom darlings during the irrational exuberance stage.

But when the honeymoon is over and you realize you paid $243\share for a company that loses money every time it produces its' widget, suddenly P\E makes sense, and your investment doesn't.

I keep saying it, we need to remember that Vern and Ed both come from the tech-bubble and they are seeking to recreate that here, using the NAS, over $1B in investment capital, and the lives of your children and neighbors and anyone else who falls under the impending aluminum overcast (unless of course it is really overcast, because the WonderJet can't fly then).

How much for this can of beans?

cj3driver said...

Alexa said:

“The Blog of Misinformation Strikes Again!

…Wrong- DayJet will provide the entire aircraft from any Dayport to any Dayport for $2500. No stops, no picking up passengers. It’s your aircraft, fill the other seats or fly by yourself.”

Alexa,

My point precisely, They will not only fly you DayPort to DayPort , but selected DayStops to DayStops as well for the higher fee (hourly). If going DayPort to DayPort it would probably be cheaper to purchase 3, $1 per mile seats, than charter the whole jet.

But, why would anyone pay $2,500.00 per hour for an Eclipse, when there are so many traditional charters in “cabin-class” aircraft are available, that will wait for you, instead of the reverse?

Dont forget the $2,500 is per occupied hour... the Boca to Pensacola example will cost at least $7,500.00 rt.

Any takers?

redtail said...

ColdFish said: BTW, former Eclipse Board Member Brian Barents has surfaced over at Aerion

As usual, you are just plain uninformed. Brian was one of the founding members of Aerion, he didn't just surface, he's been quite busy and has had no time to be on the Board.

Shane Price said...

Scarlet posterior,

'Surfaced' means just that.

As in, underwater (invisible) to floating.

You are in serious danger. The Fish has clearly dangled some bait and the bird will be eaten.

Hang on, that a regular event around here. No worries for the rest of us.

DAYjet rules. No RVSM, VFR only, check out the window for the traffic lights.

Shane

cj3driver said...

Alexa...

Just did a quick search on the internet and one can charter a Lear to do the BCT-PNS (DayPort to DayPort) trip for less than $6,000.00! and...I'm sure it can be done cheaper.

I certainly hope DayJet isn't counting on a lot of direct charters.

cj3driver said...

Alexa,

My local charter operator quotes $4,590.00 for the same distance on the west coast in a CJ!.. less in a C500 or B200. Discounts off that available to regualar customers.

Ouch

airtaximan said...

funny thing is, Dayjet was included in an article in some Florida newspaper today, about high speed train.

This subject apparently is being resurrected, and Dayjets inconvenience and high cost are being used to make a case FOR the train!

Vive la Dayjet revolution - where the competition is a train!

a37pilot said...

CJ3

Your editorial was right on target. The only way that Dayjet makes money with the Eclipse is if it has the same operating cost as a 172.

a37pilot said...

Just got a quote round trip BCT - PNS-BCT with 8 hour layover.

B90 $5480.00

Citation $7308

AlexA said...

CJ3,

If you read my earlier comments on DayJet I’m one of the naysayer. But the information presented by you is wrong. DayJet will charter the entire aircraft for a one way trip from any of their DayPorts for $2500 (not $2500 per hour).

FlightCenter said...

Top 10 reasons a DayJet pilot will tell you they need to stop for more than 20 minutes:

1. One of those */!% electronic circuit breakers won’t reset.
2. We’re number 4 for the fuel truck. They are taking care of that CJ3 right now. I guess we don’t have priority at these DayStop airports.
3. We have a warning light. We’re calling dispatch to figure out what to do.
4. We’re waiting for clearance from ATC.
5. Our DayJet computers are down. Bear with us while we take care of the paperwork manually.
6. We’re number 3 for departure, right behind that CJ3.
7. The field just went below departure minimums. Do you see that storm cell at the end of the runway?
8. Our $4 a mile passenger is running a bit late. He should be here any minute.
9. One of the other passengers decided he/she needed to make a last minute bathroom stop before departure.
10. Looks like we need to replace a part. We blew a tire, hit a bird, overheated the brakes on landing. The door won’t close, the radar isn’t working, we lost a radio…, Not to worry, Ed is flying another DayJet here, it should be here in an hour and we should have you back on your way 20 minutes after that.

airtaximan said...

alexa:

I'm in... you claim:

"DayJet will charter the entire aircraft for a one way trip from any of their DayPorts for $2500 (not $2500 per hour)"

Wonderful.

I'm going from Gainsville to Washington DC. Perfect!

You been taking lessons from Vern?

AlexA said...

CJ3,

1. Not a private “exclusive” flight
If you are willing to pay for the entire aircraft ($2500 one way)it’s exclusive.

2. The customer waits for the aircraft, instead of the aircraft waiting for customer.
Wrong. You can schedule the aircraft at your convenience. If you need to leave now there will a premium. If you are more flexible then you will save.

3. The cost for last minute is greater than private charter.
Wrong. If you look at the numbers you will find the cost to be comparable (somewhere between a turbo prop and a CJ1).

4. The “cost effective” service is limited to a party of one.
Wrong. The plan is that Astro will be able to schedule 3 pass to same destination within a 30 minute window. (I find this one hard to believe).

5. The market is limited to people originating at a DayPort city… or it's not cost effective.
Wrong. They are working with many FBOs to expand service area. They are not limiting flights to DayPorts. The aircraft will be based at DayPorts but service available to non-Dayport airports (part of the issue is the ramp fees which some FBOs are charging)

6. The destination is limited to those destined for a DayPort city… same reason.
Wrong. See 5.

7. No potty… even if its not used, just knowing its there for emergency is reassuring.
OK. You got that one.

8. The sheer tiny size of the airplane will “turn-off” some people.
Interesting, the media is describing it as a “mini-van.” I’m unsure the correlation.

9. No meaningful room for baggage, presentation items, samples, ect.. and then for 3 passengers?
Forget the baggage what happens when you have 3 350lbs lawyers.

10. 20 minute stop (unrealistic, more like 45 min ave.)
Astro is predicting less than 5% will require stops once the fleet is at 12 aircrafts.

11. Exclusive charter to where you really wanted to go on DayJet, costs more that traditional charter, in a much smaller jet… and will they wait for you?
Wrong. See 5.

12. The aircraft is not “cabin class”… refreshments, hot coffee, catering, meaningful reclining seats, legroom, work table, lav. Airshow map, video, etc..
Most trips will be less than 1 hour. Between time praying and looking out the window probably not a factor.

No need to flame me. Trust me I cant see the model working. The Boca to Tallahassee and the Boca to Gainesville route might make some sense. Lobbyist/legislators and well off parents seeing their kids in school. Dump one pilot to allow for the weight watcher clan and who knows?

AlexA said...

ATM,

I’m sure no one here is surprised but once again you off target. The stated cost to charter the entire aircraft from one DayPort to another DayPort is $2500 one way. Maybe it would make more sense to you if I t y p e d a l i t t l e s l o w e r.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

So $2500 one way, would be $5000 round trip, or about the same as a larger, more comfortable machine, with a potty.

Astro predicts......laughable

"Ruh roh Rorge, roo rany rat rasses ror re rittle ronderjet rand a rop in Rarrahassee."

Redtail,

Barents conspicuous absence from the BOD at Eclipse corresponds roughly to his formation of Aerion, for a company that lives so much in the public eye, I found it strange that his departure was so uncharacterstically mum.

airtaximan said...

alexa:

type a little more c o r r e c t l y - you didn't say this, now did you?

- is it any dayport to any dayport?
Seems like the shorter Dayport trips would be expensive at $2500, the longer ones might be a bargoon.

Think this is what's going on?

- gotta pray they don't add a Dayport anywhere too far away, now, right?

Are you feeling a little silly?

AlexA said...

ATM,

I do feel silly trying to correct you every time you make a baseless and incorrect comment. Instead of throwing out bad "information" and hoping something sticks you can do yourself a favor, pickup the phone and call DayJet (like I did). You will find that they are very helpful and informative.

BigJim said...

Been away for a while. Stan, put me down for an even 70 "deliveries" by the end of the year. Since the definition of delivery depends on how far behind Vern is, I'll call it 70 Vern deliveries (Maybe 35 real aircraft to real customers in the field). The 70 does not include FIKI or Avio NfG which are mid-08 at the earliest.

Pop the popcorn and get ready for the Dayjet show. The next few months are when the rubber hits the road. If Dayjet manages to go live in the next month or two (yeah, right), we will finally get to see the business model at work. Eclipse has to show deliveries, and Dayjet is supposed to get a bunch of them. So Dayjet won't have any excuses by early Fall since Eclipse will have delivered enough to start service whether the aircraft are functional or not.

Since we're predicting deliveries, I'm going to expand my prediction to include Dayjet. I predict something like this: Eclipse delivers another 10 aircraft or so in July and Dayjet meets their magic number required to start service, maybe in August. However, the buzz doesn't translate into ticket sales and the service is crippled by aircraft performance limitations in the short term. Dayjet cannot fill enough seats and is losing money out the wazoo by the end of the year. The positive spin will wear off by Christmas and Dayjet will blame their woes on the aircraft limitations. Vern and Ed are tied at the hip and Ed's the first one overboard.

How long can Dayjet operate at a loss while spinning it as part of their business model? Either folks use the service or they don't. Dayjet's success or demise will be a fact soon enough. Hell, I predict that Dayjet fails before Eclipse gets TC for FIKI and Avio NfG.

airtaximan said...

Alexa,

you didn't address the issue..which is silly.

You claim that Dayjet claims that you can fly from any Dayport to any Dayport, for $2500 for the whole plane.

I'm trying to make sure you are being specific, and its not just the "nearest Dayport" or the "next Dayport on the route" so to speak.

You see, they are planning many Dayports, and I just think its silly to have the following pricing model:

the whole plane for trips between any 2 Dayports, for $2500.

- perhaps the 40 Dayports coming on line in the next 18 months are going to all be within a few hundred miles of each other... but somehow, this seems a little silly, too.

- so, if I called Dayjet last April (2006), and asked "when is service beginning?" They would have said "by YE 2006".
-if I asked them in January 2007, the answer was "By June 2007"
- if I ask them today, they would Say, july or August 2007.
- If I asked them the price: they would have said $1-$3 per mile, until a little while ago...
- now the price is stated as $1-$4 per mile
- heck, until this week, the price of the trip was based on customer flexibility - now, they are saying " between $1-$4 per mile based on customer flexibility AND aircraft availability"... it took 5 years for this detail to come out? Sounds like good 'ol airline yeild management pricing tactics to me.

Alexa: perhaps its time to stop being silly and use common sense? Calling Dayjet or asking E-clips for info is "silly" at this point. There's so much published and on their website, that if they WANTED to be clear, it would be very easy.

- if you put on your thinking cap, you'll find $2500 for the plane, between any 2 Dayports is silly. They plan Dayports in other states besides Florida... there is no way your idea of what they are doing, (or what they have told you) hold water. THINK.

** I heard a rumor today, that Dayjet is trying to lease as many customer e-clipses as possible to augment their fleet so they can actually begin... just a rumor. Perhaps they are trying to get started afterall.

Where's the 135 for the plane? Anyone know?

redtail said...

Fish said: Barents conspicuous absence from the BOD at Eclipse corresponds roughly to his formation of Aerion, for a company that lives so much in the public eye, I found it strange that his departure was so uncharacterstically mum.

Next time I'll be sure to send you the memo. That way maybe you be up to date on at least something.

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

Silly ATM,

Make up your mind. On one posting you exhort the fact that DayJet will be shortly out of business. Their plan can’t work. Now you want to know how much it will cost between any of the 40 DayPorts. Which is it?

cj3driver said...

Alexa,

You missed the entire point of the original post, which was to illustrate the difference between DayJet /DayPort/per seat service model, and the existing Traditional charter service, and a comparison with the airlines alternative.

But since you brought it up, according to the DayJet website, the per seat service is only available at DayPort locations. There are currently only 5 DayPorts. Boca Raton, Lakeland, Pensacola, Gainesville and Tallahassee. The $1-$4 per seat mile is available at these airports ONLY. This aspect of the DayJet service is comparable to the airline (price per seat). And thus the comparison to existing airline service.

An airport that is not a DayPort, is called a DayStop, You must reserve the entire aircraft at $2500 per hour in order to travel to a DayStop. Per seat service is NOT available to a DayStop ($1-$4 per mile). This aspect of the DayJet service is very similar to Traditional charter (price per hour), and thus the comparison to existing Charter service

If you don’t live/work at a DayPort location, and also need to arrive at a DayPort location, then you must, DayStop. (thus, the limited per seat market)

I’m quite sure that DayJet would be more than happy to sell you a 250 mile trip for $2500. Why not book 3 seats a $1 per mile (at DayPorts only)… same trip costs $750. I’m also quite sure they will not sell you a 1,000 mile trip for $2500.

Sorry for boring the rest of you, I hope Alexa gets it this time.

cj3driver said...

Here you go alexa, direct from Dayjet...

"DayJet operates per-seat, on-demand jet service out of DayPorts™

No DayPort where you want to travel? DayStop and go.
When you need to extend the reach of DayJet™ travel beyond our DayPort™ Network, you can pay a premium fee instead of our standard per-seat fare and gain exclusive use of all three seats for travel to many more qualified airports, called DayStops. DayStop locations meet DayJet minimum requirements but are not staffed by DayJet personnel. "

cj3driver said...

Alexa,

Regarding; The DayJet customer waiting for the aircraft or the aircraft waiting for the customer at a DayPort.

With the $1-4 per mile per seat DayPort option, the customer MUST be at the airport prior the the arrival of the aircraft. Think about it… Since DayJet is relying on multiple seat sales to make the trip profitable (you obviously cant make a profit at $1 per mile with one passenger), there is a greater than a 50/50 chance that when your aircraft arrives there will already be a passenger on it. With a 20 min "guaranteed' turn-around at the DayPort, there is no way DayJet can wait for a passenger that hasn’t arrived at the airport yet. I’m quite sure this is why all the DayPorts will have staff onsite. They will have a minimum time you must arrive before the scheduled departure, or their whole system will fall apart. They must have the passenger or passengers (3 max), checked-in and ready to go when the plane arrives or the schedule down the line will be shot. Just ask the Russian programmers.

...The customer waits for DayJet, not the other way around.
... Otherwise they would call themselves “DelayJet”.... Hmmm

fred said...

hi hi hi ....!

laughable !!

just one point : to make any kind of sens for Djet = first E500 has to be made within the range of 1.8MUS$ ,if not ? what are they going to say if not ? i remenber : Mayday . Mayday . Mayday !we are going down ;-))

how funny ! well i don't really know about florida , but i can say for europ ! (which accounts for 180 E500 ) the answer is simple = NO WAY !

why fly a thing as expensive as a big one ? (the big one being the comfort one )

why flying a 3 or 4 peoples(without lugages , then!) when , for about the same price you can fly 6 to 8 with some laguages ??

how are you going to look flashy in a midget-jet ?

why are you going to take the pain of flying (in europ , flying is not something in the mood of time ! so lots of taxes,controls, regulations etc.... putting the prices higher , so less profits ....) and not having the comfort of a bigger jet ? (sounds like a bad deal = the price is high , the public opinion is as bad and the comfort is non-existent ....!)

on top of everything , the flying company has to be owner of planes ??? it's just an other breach in bizz-plan... just making even more virtual ....!!!

fred said...

at the end point , for who is E500 ?

for peoples having enough cash to run a private jet , but whom would prefer a midget one ??!!!

for buisness peoples always in a hurry ? but how travel at cruise speed from airport to airport , since you can take train from center to center at 200Kts/hour ??? (ok , it's not ready yet for the whole of europ , but E500 is not flying , so where is the difference ?)

for wouldbe-rockstar ? does anyone think madonna or jennifer lopez would go in small car ?? then you have the answer ...!!

E500 may be flying one day , but not at 1.8 M US $ ....!

making it missing his target-customers of nowaday ...!

AlexA said...

CJ3,

You are extrapolating information that is incorrect.
DayPorts and DayStops:
1- No Dayjet personnel at DayStops
2- You are purchasing the entire aircraft at DayStops
3- No difference in cost when renting the entire aircraft-the cost between DS-DP, DP-DP, DS-DS will be the same in Florida ($2500 per trip).

Here is a little bit of breaking news:

“Dear XX :

Welcome to DayJet and the future of "Per-Seat, On-Demand" jet services. You have successfully completed your enrollment into the DayJet travel network and your credentials are below: “

Yup out of curiosity I signed up in May.

airtaximan said...

Alexa:

once again, I am curious as to why you can't just stick to the point? You wrote:

"DayJet will provide the entire aircraft from any Dayport to any Dayport for $2500"

I wanted to make sure I understaood.
Any Dayport to Any Dayport you said, for $2500 for the whole plane.

I just wanted to make sure, that the price was $2500 for a flight between say Gainsville and Lakeland, and the same $2500 for a flight between say Boca and Tallahassee... or even between ANY TWO Dayports which are planned, such as perhaps One in South Florida to one in Northern Alabama.

This is what you said, and I wanted to make sure, since you are a member of Dayjet now - that this still holds true.

I just think its silly to believe that they will fly you and your two friends between any two Dayports in their system (they will have 40 by YE 2008 you know) for $2500.

It sorta begs the question, "why do they ever need to charge $4 per seat mile?"

You can choose to believe them... and you can avoid the question by making comments about me personally, but it really does sound a little silly when you spend a few minutes "not just believing what you are being sold.. I mean told".

I'm glad you signed up to Dayjet - "out of curiousity"... I'm certain you are included in their PR regarding having 700 members!

Enjoy your flights.

JetProp Jockey said...

AlexA:

How do you get the detailed information about DayJet that you seem to have. I just spent some time at their website and if you select the drop down for PerPlane - on demand, it takes you to the page for PerSeat - On Demand.

There is no information as to pricing for either service or the requirements. I couldn't even find the price of a membership - only that it requires 4 trips per year.

Does all of the detail info come after you make a phone call to the sales department?

AlexA said...

Jetprop,

The fee we paid was $250 for the year. They have various packages and deals for mid to large size corporate customers. For example our company provided 25 employee names as part of our agreement. Last I heard there were around 700 paying memberships (I have no idea how many potential travelers that represents). I think you will the folks at DayJet very professional and informative if you give them a call. I found it interesting the law firm my company uses (large firm) thought DayJet was the best thing since slice bread and have also signed up.

airtaximan said...

Alexa:

How do you plan to use the service?
What are your travel requiremenst?

AlexA said...

Eclipse Pitot AD becomes effective 6/27/2007

JetA1 said...

Stan,

I missed it if you defined "delivery". Anyone want to start an E-dictionary?

My "dinosaur" definition of "delivery" is: final config (aero-mods), NfG, FIKI, IFR, RVSM, FMS, 3rd AI...basically everything "promised", except I'll give them auto-throttles, those are years away for der wunderkind.

ZERO by end of 2007, heck make that ZERO by this time next year.

If "delivered" means: CofA and registered to someone other than EAC, I'm in for 45.

Stan Blankenship said...

Here's an update on the delivery predictions:


Tot. blogger
---- --------
035 niner zulu

036 jetprop jockey

038 a37pilot

039 Freedomsjamtarts

042 shane price

045 jetA1

050 flightguy

050 oldtroll

053 algernon

056 plastic_planes

057 gunner

068 buckerfan

070 bigjim

073 sparky

075 mouse

084 coldwetmackarelofreality

090 bonanza pilot

099 black tulip

105 airtaximan

120 stan

130 cj3driver

131 flightcenter

150 flightfollowing

158 aeroobserver

170 Boenning & Scattergood

176 eclipseblogger

180 execlipser

188 mirage00

200 alexa

200 Vern

234 andy

The prediction list is open for changes or new numbers until the end of this month.

ExEclipser said...

I, for one, am happy that this thread turned from the silly post that Stan made from CJ3Driver. Very useless, opinionated, and not factually oriented.

I've flow from Longview, TX to DFW in an EMB-120 Brazilia. If I recall correctly, there were only three passengers on the flight, no restroom, and we had a 20 minute stopover in Tyler. That was a commercial flight that cost $200 RT. I wish I could have flown with two other strangers in a leather seated jet for $600.

No one cared there wasn't a potty.

The whole potty arguement is CRAZY! Even in the Mustang, if it were used for commercial flights, there is not enough privacy for anyone to use it. Same with the smaller Lears.

Go before you go. Else, there are diapers...just ask Lisa Nowak.

DayJet is a God-Send for people who have to go 500 miles and be back the same day.

Yes, Ed and Vern are technogeeks and like Bill Gates said at a highschool graduation ceremony, be nice to nerds - some day you're likely to work for one. These guys are not idiots. Both have succeeded in most of their ventures. Most of you probably have something that Vern managed on your computer right now. They are not "Dot.com" idiots. Vern, drives a Honda unlike most of the idiot dotcommers that took their IPO money and bought vipers and ruined their companies.

flightguy said...

Talk about being opinionated?

paul said...

The "Honda" Vern was driving when I was in ABQ last year was a brand new 911 model. I didn't realize Honda was spelled Porsche!

ExEclipser said...

Hmmm ... The only Porsche I've seen out there is an Engineer's. Liscense plate: "FLYA500"

Vern drives a Honda Ridgeline - olive green. Peg drives a convertable Mustang - a 'brighter' shade of olive green.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

AD 2007-13-11

sparky said...

Has anyone thought about the extremely low life of the windscreens and side windows.

Has the requirement of replacing the windscreen at 300 cycles been removed? If not this could prove costly when you doing 3-5 cycles a day. At that rate you wouldn't make it through the summer without having a fresh set installed.

Just an observation.

BTW my prediction is based on vern's definition of a delivery, which I believe is something along the lines of off the assembly line and more or less in one piece. It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with functionality, just like the rest of the deliveries.

FlightCenter said...

execlipser said,

"Vern, drives a Honda unlike most of the idiot dotcommers that took their IPO money and bought vipers and ruined their companies."

I'm not sure what we are supposed to infer from the fact that Vern is driving a Honda. (Are Honda drivers somehow smarter than the average bear?)

However, instead of taking the IPO money and buying a Viper, Vern bought a Twin Commander 690B, a warbird SNJ-5 and a Constellation!

And those are just three of his aircraft I can think of off the top of my head.

I know for sure that I'd rather be driving a Connie than just about anything on the face of the earth, although flying a Blackbird would top the Connie.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

FWIW, Vern owned the Connie jointly with his former wife Dottie Hall, they sold it before the divorce. Agreed, damn nice plane.

He still owns the SNJ and 690, but he owned them prior to the formation of Eclipse from what I recall.

Have heard through the grapevine in ABQ that Vern also owns a new Ford GT (GT-40) - these sticker around $150-200K new, and go way higher with options.

Figgers he would drive a Ridgeline, not quite a truck, not quite a car, and less useful than either - hmmmm, I sense a pattern here.

Lloyd said...

Stan, Put me in at 185

airtaximan said...

TIME CAPSULE

July 12, 2002


http://www.equitekcapital.com/
Investorinfo/Webpagecontent/
eclipse_articles/eclipsewsj.htm

"the hardest part was raising the capital..." this staement after $350 million or so... you can triple it, and perhaps even at that...

...the easiest part might have been raising the capital.

It's been fun to watch, and remember.

enjoy.

mouse said...

Right on the money cj3,

You can get a King Air for $1700/Hr, or a Lear for $2900/Hr

The real market for the EA-500 in the charter arena is as a loss leader to get the new customer/user/pax in the door and then move them into a real airplane... Don't need 1000's of EA-500's just a few.

Vern does not understand that most individual owners will be out of their EA-500 in 12-24 moths and into a bigger, faster, rangier aircraft. Some will keep their planes longer, but they are the exception. The charter companies will hang on to their planes right up until they close their doors or file fore bankruptcy...

The ideal mission is for a small company airplane, flying company people/resources, sort of a miniflight department... Anyone with a flight department already in operation is not the candidate either, they know and like their capable airplanes...

mouse said...

Alexa,

what a bargin, $2500 to fly anywhere on earth as long as you depart froma dayport... Huh!?!?

The $2500 has to be tied to time or distance, so there is a formula, you just don't know it...

mouse said...

The Connie was sold when Dottie dumped Vern

Metal Guy said...

Execlipser,

Re: Both have succeeded in most of their ventures.

Can you please provide a venture that has been successful where Vern was involved? Microsoft of course does not count because he did not get along with the other management and left before he could make an impact (positive or negative).

Also, I have heard that he purchased as Ford GT (outside of this blog) – anyone know for sure?

Yes, Ed and Vern are technogeeks and like Bill Gates said at a highschool graduation ceremony, be nice to nerds - some day you're likely to work for one.

Vern must be proud - his company has turnover that is astounding. Perhaps people won’t work for an idiot, even if he is a geek.


Stan, put me down for 40 - I think they are running out of hangar room storing all of the partially completed, but "delivered" airplanes.

FlightCenter said...

Here are some statistics on the 2007 delivery projections.

The average projection of the entire group is 99 - the same as black tulip's projection.

The median projection is 75 - the same as mouse's projection.

niner zulu
jetprop jockey
a37pilot
Freedomsjamtarts

are all more than one standard deviation below the average projection.

eclipseblogger
execlipse
lloyd
mirage00
alexa
andy

are all more than one standard deviation above the average projection.

Metal Guy said...

News Update from ABQ

Personal One-on-One Interview with Vern Raburn

By Jim McKlain
Journal Staff Writer



ALBUQUERQUE, NM – The following interview was conducted on June 22, 2007, between Mr. Vern Raburn and Mr. Jim McKlain (Journal Staff Writer). Transcript as follows:

JIM: Mr. Raburn, I wanted to thank you for spending time with us this beautiful morning here in Albuquerque.

VERN: Absolutely Cliff, it’s my pleasure.

JIM: Jim actually. It’s Jim. Well, let’s get started by talking about your recent communiqué with your customers. In it, you outline how far Eclipse has progressed and your new revised production schedule.

VERN: Yes, Ted, I’m very very positive about the progress we have been making.

JIM: Of course of course... Jim. Can you enlighten us as to what progress has been made?

VERN: Why sure thing there Teddy – Why right off the bat, we have fixed that pesky windshield problem. We just whapped those production boys upside the head and made them follow the dang installation instructions. It turns out they just had the drawings upside down and were putting them in backwards! Dang-it, can you imagine!

JIM: Wow. That was easy. There were rumors going around that there were additional tests and certification task associated with what was cited as an actual fairly substantial design change?

VERN: Um, yeah, some of that too I guess. You know I don’t do the details too well there Tim.

JIM: What about those unexpected hurdles you mention? Some in the industry are calling you a, well, I won’t mention it here, but it’s not exactly complimentary. They claim that anyone who is even vaguely knowledgeable about the industry is well versed in exactly the issues you are running into. And plan accordingly.

VERN: You see dammit, it’s that whole planning thing again. Dottie used to get all over me about that. She would say things like “Vern, please plan on taking the trash out this morning.” And I would just forget and run out of time. Then she would just pester pester pester me on and on about not making reasonable plans and just peeing into the wind. Why that time that I wanted to install a water slide with the loopty-loop, she just…

JIM: Um Vern? Vern? Can we get back to the interview?

VERN: Oh, sorry, I get distracted sometimes. You know, I really like hearing my own voice. Should I sing for you Fred?

JIM: Um, no. That’s fine.

VERN: Ok.

JIM: Ok.

VERN: You sure?

JIM: Yes.

VERN: Ok.


JIM: Ok then. Umm… Lets see… Talk about your revelations that you have had related to production volumes for 2007 and 2008.


VERN: Yippy skip there old Nickoo! No problem! As I’m sure you are aware of, we, well, haven’t been exactly good at performing to plan. Actually, pretty dismal in reality. Anyway, so we decided to throw the whole plan thing away - you know how I feel about plans. This involved long negotiations with our marketing department to convince them to stop just making up numbers that sound good. Ooh ooh, that reminds me of a story! When we initially came up with our production “estimates”, we actually got the number from the batch code on the bottom of a Little Debbie Cheese Danish. It was Strawberry I believe! We all had a heck of great snicker when the industry actually published it! Whew, what memories…

JIM: Wow, that’s a great story Vern….. And?

VERN: And? … And what?

JIM: Production Volumes for 2007 and 2008?

VERN: Oh yes. Well, as I was saying, out with the old and in with the new! We just had to stop making up numbers that sound good – it was causing much too much trouble later on down the line. This time we decided to take a different tact and actually have our production people meet with our marketing people. Really! This would be an actual face to face thing – no online telcons, no VOIP, no SSLVPN’s, no SAP. Brilliant said I! We made a conscious effort to setup this first-of-a-kind meeting – we even brought free soda pop in bottles – the old fancy kind with the spin off tops! And well, to be brutally honest, after the production guys got back off the floor from laughing so hard, I made it quite clear to stop joking around here and that their jobs were on the line. They immediately straightened up and we now have the full buy-in from everyone in the company! Yippie Zip is what I said!

JIM: Not so good initial reaction from the troops then?

VERN: Well, actually not that bad. It did really piss me off when a bottle cap hit me in the back of my head as we were leaving. It really stings and I’m really reaching my tolerance limit with this sort of thing. I tried to fire the whole frigging lot of those lazy ass bastards but Peg wouldn’t let me. Bitch.

JIM: Ah, ok then… Well, this is certainly great news all around then. What about for 2008?

VERN: Well, as you know, I’m not much into that planning thing again. So we looked and looked for solutions. I finally realized something. A computer program I wrote back in college that could calculate how many beers we would need to order on the weekly beer run to keep from running short during the week. So I set aside my Sincair ZX81 (which I do all my financial fund raising work on) and dug out my old trusty TRS-80 and fired her up. Sure enough, I entered the number of parties planned, the number of girls phone numbers that I had received over the last week, the inverse of the number of pimples I currently have, and presto, out popped 924 cans. We are therefore predicting with high assurance that production will be 924 for 2008, only one less than the originally forecast of 925! Boy, are we smokin’ or what?

JIM: Well, that’s certainly great news. Good job on the whole computer modeling thing. What about final inspection? I have heard that this is one of the longer manufacturing steps to accomplish, given that this is where issues are typically found.

VERN: Well, yes, that was certainly the case early on in the program. Once again, I reached back into my experience with PC’s and have cleverly applied applicable technology here at Eclipse. As of last March, we started riveting all inspection panels shut. This makes the final inspection process a breeze. Well, in all honestly, we also had to correct the prescription in Margies’ glasses – she does the paint inspection and was failing aircraft left and right. It’s no longer a problem.

JIM: This all sounds like good progress. It sounds like you have finally nailed this whole production thing.

VERN: Absolutely. We finally realized that everyone needed to know real, reliable numbers, when to prepare to pick up your airplane, finalize your optional equipment selections and send your progress payment six months prior to expected delivery.

JIM: You mentioned that there are depositors that were scammed, um, excuse me, convinced to send in their six month deposits, with what now appears to be substantially greater than six month wait.

VERN: Yes, this is true. The um, second part that is. We previously established a detailed incentive offer. We now plan on offering a slightly modified plan, but we think it will be more than fair for Eclipse. Oh, and the depositors too. Yes.


JIM: Why thank you Vern for your valuable time. Any closing thoughts?

VERN: Well Larry, all I can say is that the loyalty of our investors and investor-depositors, and depositor investment depositors, is what keeps us going. Why if it were not for the free flowing monies from these fine friendly folks, as I like to say, “we would simply be up the creek without a deposit.” Hehe – I made that up my self. This is all just such a thrill!

JIM: And this is Jim McKlain from the Albuquerque Journal signing off with a good day to you all.




Um Vern, can you uh, please stop doing that to the microphone? Vern? Vern? Stop it Vern. FIZSHSHSHSSHSHSHS

andy said...

Stan,
Change to 199

mirage00 said...

Based on the latest post from metal man and a few other quality submissions, I believe the demise of this blog has begun.

I remain amused

double 00

flyger said...

The AD is out, 2007-13-11:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/23fa1e82e30343b986257302004b44cc/$FILE/2007-13-11.pdf

No IFR flight plans regardless of weather.

No night regardless of weather.

No single pilot regardless of weather.

They practically grounded the airplane. About all it is useful for is daytime VFR joyrides with your mentor. I'm sure that's why people bought one (not!).

Remember, AvioNG is promised to you by the same people who couldn't get a pitot/static system right.

hummer said...

How does this affect type rating training?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Zero,

Your daily attempt to declare this blog dead is rather humorous.

This is called Eclipse Aviation Critic - so here is an idea to end the NEED for this blog, rather than waste your time on pathetic drive-bys here, encourage Vern to FINISH THE PLANE and therefore remove the need for criticism.

There will be no need for this blog when there is nothing to criticize, in other words once the following list is FIXED and when Eclipse actually delivers an airplane that DOES everything they said it WOULD do - at the time of initial delivery to the customer.

- Windshield Cracking
- Cockpit Side Window Cracking
- Wing Attach Bushing Slippage
- Freezing Pitot-Static
- Part 135 Kit certified
- 6th Seat certified
- International Operations kit certified
- Fully functioning and certified autopilot
- Fully functioning and certified FMS
- Fully functioning and certified Dual GPS with WAAS and LPV Approches
- Fully functioning and certified moving map
- Fully functioning and certified autothrottles
- Fully functioning and certified RVSM capability
- Fully functioning and certified FIKI
- Fully functioning and certified radar
- Fully functioning and certified radar altimiter
- Fully functioning and certified Stormscope
- Fully functioning and certified Skywatch
- Fully functioning and certified TAWs
- Certified Aero-Mods to meet re-revised performance guarantees
- Adequate paint finish
- Adequate support capacity
- Adequate spares
- Adequate interior fit and finish
- Adequate training capacity exists

Notice, I am only holding them to the promises they made, and I am only holding them to adeqaute performance in regards to fit and finish, service capacity, spares availability and training, not 'WORLD CLASS', like say Cessna, or Hawker-Beechcraft or Bombardier-LearJet.

mirage00 said...

Cold,

Yawn.... my prediction stands.

I remain amused.

double 00

FlightCenter said...

From the AD -

"The concern is heightened by the aerodynamic characteristics of the Eclipse Model EA500 airplane, which relies on the stall warning and the stick pusher to alert the pilot prior to the loss of aircraft control."

Any one know why the Eclipse 500 aerodynamic characteristics would "heighten" concern over at the FAA?

Ken Meyer said...

flyger wrote,

"AvioNG is promised to you by the same people who couldn't get a pitot/static system right."

Is it now?

Or is that your usual opine first and think later technique?

The pitot/static system was designed and provided by Harco Laboratories of Branford, Connecticut. Due to the discovery of this problem, they've redesigned their pitot/AOA probe to add a drain in the pitot line and increase the heat.

And you think Harco Laboratores of Branford Connecticut is responsible for Avio NG, too?

OK; that pretty much tells us all we need to know about the quality of your comments.

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

Are you saying that Harco not only designed the probe, they also designed the Eclipse specific installation drawing, AND they routed the lines inside the Eclipse for Eclipse? Now that is what I call service, or total BS.

Harco designed the Probe, the OEnM is responsible for installation, plumbing and system integration.

I'd say that pretty much tells all of us how much credence to put in your comments.

a37pilot said...

Anyone have any idea how many type rated eclipse pilots there are in the world? How many instructor pilots are there, and how many examiners?

airtaximan said...

Kenny:

Non manufacturing OEMs in aviation better understand system requirements and all aspects of their airplane.

THEY SET THE REQUIREMENTS.
THEY LOOK OVER THE BIDS.
THEY CHOOSE WHO TO TRUST.
THEY DO Q/A (SUPPOSED TO)
THEY TEST THE SYSTEMS IN FLIGHT- ALL OF THEM.
THEY OBTAIN A TC/PC WITH ALL THE SYSTEMS THEY CHOSE INCLUDED
THEY BUILD YOUR PLANE
THEY TAKE YOUR MONEY
THEY ARE AT FAULT

Perhaps E-clips IS responsible? You seem to want to support the idea that e-clips can collect your moeny, and when something goes wrong, it someone else's fault.

I suggest, for your own good, you change your tune - you are buying a finished (in this case UNfinished) product from E-clips. They designed it, they assemble it, they paint it (qucikly but very poorly), they warrantee it, and yes, Ken - they are responsible for it. All of it, including thengines, avionics, seats, windows, paint, and ...

even a faulty pitot design.

You should be pissed at them Ken - they've known this issue for a long time, and they covered it up, too. They were afraid you would blame them, lose confidence in them, distrust them...

they apparently don't know you very well, no do they?

BigJim said...

Flightcenter said: Any one know why the Eclipse 500 aerodynamic characteristics would "heighten" concern over at the FAA?

From reading the statement directly below the one quoted above, I would guess that the Eclipse doesn't have any aerodynamic buffet prior to stall.

Ken Meyer said...

Coldwet wrote,

"Harco designed the Probe"

...and it seems coldwet didn't notice the fix entails Harco re-designing the probe.

Ken

Old Troll said...

Ken,
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the OEM and the vendors. The vendors build exactly what the OEM tells them to. The OEM provides the specs while the vendor builds to that spec. Size, weight, power, operating environment, etc. are all defined by the OEM. It is the responsibility of the DERs at the OEM to determine if there is a hazard of condensation and icing. Many pages are devoted to these issues and the OEM is responsible for all of it.

In this case, it looks like Eclipse erred when they defined the power requirements. As a result, Harco is redesigning the probe to meet the new requirements.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

Yes, Harco is adding more heater capacity.

If it is all on Harco, why then is Eclipse redesigning the plumbing to incorporate a 'low point and drain'?

Why is the AD against the AIRPLANE Ken?

Why not an SAIB for aircraft with the 'defective' system?

Must be Harco's fault right?

Who spec'd the probe Ken?

Who reviewed the design through a preliminary, critical and final design review Ken?

Who approved the design Ken?

Who bought the system Ken?

Who designed the plumbing for the pitot system Ken?

Who installed the system Ken?

Who flight tested the system Ken?

Who applied for an aircraft Type Certificate with the system installed Ken?

Who is RESPONSIBLE Ken?

Not the specific individual or individuals, which COMPANY?

I have a suggestion for you Ken.

When it becomess painfully obvious that you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground re: aircraft design, just stop talking - in fact, you might just leave the airplane design discussions to those of us who do or have done that for a living - would be a great idea for Vern to do that too come to think of it.

planet-ex said...

Ken Meyer said...
Coldwet wrote,

"Harco designed the Probe"

...and it seems coldwet didn't notice the fix entails Harco re-designing the probe.

Ken


Harco may have designed the probe but Eclipse designed the pitot-static system.

From your last couple of posts, I have come to the conclusion that you've never been involved in aircraft design or manufacturing. The manufacturer of the aircraft designs the system then finds an OEM to produce the pitot-static probe to their specs.

Note the following quote from ANN:

"and incorporates changes in the Pitot/AOA probe and aircraft tubing."

Based on this, Harco is only partially to blame for the problem. The fault also lies in the engineering department at Eclipse for designing the pitot-static system and choosing the Harco probe.

airtaximan said...

I feel a joke coming...


"how many Ken's does it take to buy an e-clips airplane?"

AlexA said...

ColdWet&Nasty,

It’s nice to see you disagree with such professionalism. I’m sure you can take your finger and stick it in the hole on the ground.

Shane Price said...

The Fish...

... would not inhabit a 'hole in the ground' and the name implies a desire to awaken reality.

As in, a slap in the face with a wet fish, reality.

Alexa has a problem with reality. He/she/it cannot resolve the difficulty with the E499.5 not being allowed to fly free until a really REALLY basic issue is resolved.

All The Fish is saying, which is perfectly reasonable, relates to WHO IS TO BLAME.

As in, who is a fault that the 'thing' can just about taxi to the end of the runway?

On a clear DAY.

With two TRAINED and TYPE APPROVED pilots.

PROVIDED that, if they are foolish enought to attempt to take off they

a) Avoid clouds. Nasty things.

b) Fly low. Real low. Watch out for the Goodyear blimp low.

c) and monitor the stall speed. Really carefully, since the plane may not give any warning (buffeting or other stall
indicators) that its about to stop flying.

And a company wants to fly paying passangers in this?

People with REAL money will put their lives on the line?

Now, I know Americans are universally regarded as pretty dim.

But this stupid?

I hope not.

Alexa clearly wants stupid people to continue with the E499.5 dream. Wake up, smell the coffee and move on.

WHO IS AT FAULT?

Not The Fish for sure...

Shane

Ken Meyer said...

planet ex wrote,

"Harco may have designed the probe but Eclipse designed the pitot-static system."

You sure? You make it sound like it would be unheard of for Harco to design the system. But that's not their version:

"We have the expertise to design, develop, and manufacture the total air data system. This streamlines the process of component integration."

And, sure enough, all the components are coming from them. Go figure.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground re: aircraft design, just stop talking - in fact, you might just leave the airplane design discussions to those of us who do or have done that for a living - would be a great idea for Vern to do that too come to think of it."

I fail to see the point of purposely choosing words that make it sound like the "cold, wet mackarel" lives in a sewer. Why do you find it essential to be disagreeable when you disagree? Perhaps because you cannot make your point otherwise.

Obviously you cannot keep your comments halfway civilized. When you persist in employing all the personal attacks against the company, its management, and anyone who favors the aircraft, you're just chasing everyone but haters away.

Which maybe is your goal. But I'm confident you'll have less fun around here if it's all just haters telling other haters how much they hate, while the rest of us have moved on to flying the plane you hate so much.

Ken

planet-ex said...

Ken:

Harco only designed and built the pitot/static probe and Air Data Computers (ADCs). The engineers at Eclipse designed the pitot-static system - components to use, line routing, system specs, etc.

To quote Eclipse:

"The air data system consists of dual air data computers with reduced vertical separation minimums (RVSM) capability, dual heated static port, dual OAT, dual pitot/AOA heated probe, a pitot/static heated probe, and dual ECS static ports. "

Does it say anything about designing the pitot-static system? No it doesn't. Engineers at Eclipse did that - Harco just supplied the components.

I can tell now that you haven't worked for an airframe manufacturer or equipment supplier.

Ken...stay out of commenting about aircraft components - you don't have the experience to do so.

BigJim said...

Harco may have designed and built all the parts, but Eclipse is responsible for showing the installation complies with the regulations. Eclipse, as the TC applicant, has to prove the design is compliant and it isn't something they can farm out to a supplier.

airtaximan said...

thanks for the insight Ken:

the same Ken who defends (100% without fail on this blog, but in another context...that's a different story) the company that calls everyone else in this industry a dinosaur.

Sounds pretty darn personal to me. Pretty brash. Pretty conceited. Pretty stupid, too.

It was personal a long time ago - your friends made it so...and they have screwed up royally. Probably becasue they mistook dynamic, knowledgeable, prudent and safety-concious companies as "dinosauers
.

They got it wrong...and you love and defend them.

Get it though your thick head, Ken. You've been screwed. And you seem to love it.

HArcos promotional statements are not incongruous with Wefish's (and the reality of the situaton) analysis.

Your favorite irresponsible, careless, and brash airplane company (need I say failing and bragging at the same time, too) is responsible and you don;t have a clue.

I understand now what it takes to buy one of these things - KEN - and I'm hoping there are not too many folks like you who will actually NOT TRADE the positions, and fly the thing.

"how many Ken's does it take to make a deposit for an e-clips?"

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

Perhaps you have heard of cliche's?

My criticism of the plane stands on its own technical merits, my critique of your total absence of technical knowledge re: aircraft design and certification also stands on its own.

Would you prefer I just point out you actually know about as much about airplane design as Vern does, and you also think you know about as much about airplane design as Vern thinks he does (hint - very, very little).

Air Data System BTW, means probes, air data computers, code, etc., there are no plug and play air data systems, plumbing included, supplied by any vendor to any OEM that I am aware of.

Of course, Eclipse does NOT manufacture anything, so perhaps this is what they mean by 'disruptive'.

If you can suggest I have actually misrepresented something factually here, please feel free to try and point it out - otherwise I stand behind my colorful cliche.

And since you repeatedly misrepresent the facts let me make them clear, again - I do not hate the plane, I do not the rank and file at Eclipse, I do not hate anyone.

I do hate lies.

I do hate it when people deliberately misrepresent the truth for their financial gain.

I do hate it when a company asks for several hundred progress payments and then announces they are canning the second of the three technological marvels that make their 'revolutionary' product possible. That they have been working on it for months (since before asking for the progress payments for planes they knew they knew that wold be unable to deliver).

And I certainly hate it when people who have literally no qualifications continue to make horses' rear-ends out of themselves by proving again and again and again that they are incapable of seeing the truth, no matter how clearly laid out in front of them.

Ken Meyer said...

Planet ex wrote,

"Harco only designed and built the pitot/static probe and Air Data Computers (ADCs). The engineers at Eclipse designed the pitot-static system - components to use, line routing, system specs, etc."

Harco says (in this news piece), "HARCO’s design and development expertise was selected for development and sole-source of the air data systems for the Eclipse 500."

What makes you think they didn't apply their "design and development expertise" to the development of the air data system as the press release says?

Ken

airtaximan said...

I would love to know how many KEN's are the proud purchasers of this little wee-jet?

many savvy foks traded...he's waiting. Waiting. His money is GINE.. HIS plane is for all intents and purposes grounded, and he must know he's skating on thin ice.

He seems to do and say anything - no matter how rediculous - to try to nencourage anyone to make the same mistake that he made. Provide VErn with money to burn. That's all you did Ken.

If you ever receive metal for your money, it will be someone else's deposit money that was used to build (I dare say manufacture) YOUR plane. SOME ONE ELSES MONEY -YOURS IS LONG GONE.

Keep the faith - someon else wil have to buy in, becasue you will need thei money to make your plane.

Heck, YOUR money has gone to make DAYJET's.. how disruptive is THAT?

airtaximan said...

Ken:

if you are going to keep up this silly argument about HARCO... please describe E-clips' role?

also, you should probably start a class action lawsuit against Harco for undermining your delivery date and delaying the plane.

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"many savvy foks traded...he's waiting. Waiting. His money is GINE"

(whatever that means)

Just for the record AT, at the prices that positions are fetching on the open market, I have a (paper) profit right now on Eclipse.

So I could sell out, make some money, and be gone. Why don't I? I'm not in a hurry to sell. I like the plane. I think it will turn out just fine when all the little "teething pain" issues are ultimately resolved. There are, IMHO, some steps that need to be taken to be sure the customers are treated properly in the interim, and all that is in the works.

So why sell if the plane is fundamentally a good design with great features (many of which are not in the competition at $1.3 million more), an unprecedented low operating cost, and a very attractive upfront cost? There's no reason to; it's silly.

Ken

Algernon said...

Ken sez:

"Why do you find it essential to be disagreeable when you disagree? Perhaps because you cannot make your point otherwise."

Really.

I can remember when you wanted to get frank castle fired, just because you didn't like what he said. Justify and testify, schmuck.

"Obviously you cannot keep your comments halfway civilized."

Talk about reductio ad absurdum.

Algernon said...

Besides, the payola from Eclipse, and the reduced price and revised contract for keeping your mouth shut about the realities of the POS should make you an excellent profit, yeah ?

Yeah. When the smoke clears, that deal will not get any of you "owners" anywhere. Other than on the front page, similar to an Enron collapse.

planet-ex said...

"Harco only designed and built the pitot/static probe and Air Data Computers (ADCs). The engineers at Eclipse designed the pitot-static system - components to use, line routing, system specs, etc."

Harco says (in this news piece), "HARCO’s design and development expertise was selected for development and sole-source of the air data systems for the Eclipse 500."

What makes you think they didn't apply their "design and development expertise" to the development of the air data system as the press release says?


Eclipse provided the specs, which is standard practice, and Harco designed the components to meet those specs.

Eclipse designed the pitot-static system and Harco provided the components. The result is that Harco has to redesign the pitot/static probe heater and Eclipse has to redesign the routing and installation of the pitot-static lines.

Ergo...both Eclipse and Harco screwed up.

airtaximan said...

planet x,

did the Harco work/parts meet the spec provided by e-clips?

if not, why do we find this out NOW?

if yes... well there you have it.

airtaximan said...

Ken:

the issue is, you apparently have no problem throwing the e-clips suppliers under the bus, and admitting they screwed up.

at the very least, if you know anything about how aircraft design, development and the OEM's role work, you NEED to admit e-clips has screwed up.

Your refusal to admit this is a joke.

As for your paper profit - I can now see how you justify your deposit. Your opinion of a paper profit is ficticious, as is your description of the status of the plane, and your opinion about blame and how the company is doing.

Must be nice... even if your wife is a dog, you can BELIEVE you are married to Cindy Crawford.
(I'm not suggesting anything about your wife, just an example)

.. must be nice for you...

keep the faith, and keep the lies flowing here too - afterall, in the end, you are trying to get something for your depopsit money, right.... THAT's the name of the game.

I wonder where EO24 is... he should be right at the point of receivng his plane... I'm sure he'll have plenty of time to write every day after sun down!

AlexA said...

ColdWet&Nasty & Shame Priceless

No problem with various points of view. Problems when you start name calling. Take a look at the mirror you are calling someone a horse’s rear end because his point of view is different than yours.

There is a problem with the pitot system, either Eclipse can get it corrected in a reasonable period of time or they can’t. With a target date of less than 40 days time will tell.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Alexa,

Your last post, coming from you, gave me a much needed belly laugh, thanks - I mean it.

Mr Pot, this is Mr Kettle.

Funny

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"Mr Pot, this is Mr Kettle."

See, there you go again. This is why you guys are just rotting in your own personal Hell as the airplane gets delivered. 25 so far, I hear. You're just dying, aren't you?

And your only solution is to attack the few proponents of the plane nice enough to listen to the crap you dish out here.

The train has already left the station, guys. Sorry, there's just nothing you can do to stop it, and your frustration shows with every post you make.

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

You can keep lying about why we do what we do Ken, it will not make it true.

How many of those planes are fully functioning Ken, like for example the Mustangs that have been delivered? Answer - NONE.

You are the one who should be upset that your deposit has paid for parts, that don't work, installed on someone else's plane.

It does not kill me, it makes me feel sorry for all the true believers like you who are getting screwed, blued, and tattooed six ways from Sunday and who are so delusional they are thanking Vern for the boning all the way.

When this train wreck comes to a stop and you and all the people like you realize just how poorly you have been treated, how badly you were misled, how blatantly you were lied to, you will not need us to say I told you so, you will figure out on all your own that we were right, all along.

So keep lying about what we say - it is the only way to protect your bubble of congitive dissonance.

Keep lying for uncle Vern to keep this ponzi scheme goin as long as possible - need more suckers to pony up if you are to ever stand a chance of getting your 'position'.

I am not in any kind of Hell Ken, I am not the one who ought to be very worried about losing $1M on an unsecured investment into a company with an abysmal track record, just because I wanted to a have a jet on the cheap.

Keep the faith Ken, you might, someday, maybe get an airplane that might, someday, maybe, do what the liars in ABQ said it would do when you took the deal, hook, line and sinker.

mirage00 said...

This is why you guys are just rotting in your own personal Hell as the airplane gets delivered. 25 so far, I hear. You're just dying, aren't you?

Exactly Ken! This is also why we hear less and less from Stan these days.

As always, thanks to you and Alexa for keeping it real.

I remain amused

double 00

flyger said...

Ken Meyer said...

Or is that your usual opine first and think later technique?


The weak minded resort to personal attacks.

The pitot/static system was designed and provided by Harco Laboratories of Branford, Connecticut.

Ah, blaming another vendor. Eclipse can do no wrong, huh?

Take your pick:

1. Eclipse is incompetent at designing a pitot/static system.

2. Eclipse is incompetent at choosing a vendor to design a pitot/static system.

3. Eclipse is incompetent at reviewing a vendor's design for a pitot/static system.

4. Eclipse is incompetent at testing a pitot/static system to uncover such flaws before manufacture.

Ultimately, the final performance of the airplane is the responsibility of Eclipse and no one else.

And you think Harco Laboratores of Branford Connecticut is responsible for Avio NG, too?

Well, by your "reasoning", AvioNG will be late or fail due to incompetence at IS&S, Honeywell, Garmin, etc... Eclipse will be perfect as always.

Eclipse really is a religion, isn't it?

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

ken, the train may have left the station, but the plane hasn't left the ground.

get real man, the train is rolling downhill fast and IMO its pretty hard to stop from derailing at this point and no matter how ugly the tone gets on here (and you tend to contribute a few snide little digs) your wishing and wanting to prove everyone wrong just doesn't change how shitty the situation is.

In fact, how much more disfunctional can this airplane get?

As far as I can tell, the only timetable Eclipse has kept was when they promised to announce new avionics suppliers within two weeks, and took slightly less. So your continual assurances of fixes "soon" for every problem under the sun long ago lost credibility

as usual i remain extremely amused at the sandbox crapper and big zero up there

mouse said...

Gotta love all those yawns from M00, shows his brain is starved for O2, apparently all the time too!

mouse said...

Ken, HARCO has a great, certified pitot/static head. The issue falls onto Eclipse who incorporated the probe onto their airplane. The drain of concern in the AD is on the plumbing within the airplanes systems. Seems Eclipse forgot about the requirement to have the drains and plumbing flow downhill, and not allow any moisture traps in the design, which it did not.

This is why certification is so difficult, and why using certified components is not accepted "as-is" on the plane. The Mfg must certify the entire system used on their planes.

Due to the location and mounting position (slightly down hill) the current and certified probe from HARCO is not working correctly on the EA-500. Put blame where it is due, and not on the vendors like Vern does... Unless the vendor truly is at fault, which in this case, they are not.

Since Eclipse did not use/choose an "off-the-shelf" probe/design you (an owner, maybe, some day) will have the opportunity to pay a much larger replacement cost than any other of their probe users... Say "Thank you Vern"

mouse said...

Cold/Wet, it's obvious to me now... Ken is to blame for all of the planes short-comings! By giving them his money he gave his go-ahead for whatever crap they can shove out of the hangar, and since Ken and his partners-in-crime (other depositors) keep accepting this junk, Eclipse will keep kicking it out!

mouse said...

Ken, even the patient lose patience when dealing with people who know very little about what they are talking about. Talking with you, Ken is like arguing with a 3 year old.

Your ignorance is blaring, and you do not have sense enough to stop proving it in such volumes.

At least M00 has sense to limit his quotes to oxygen deprived yawns, and not much else...

mouse said...

How many Kens does it take to buy an Eclipse? We'll probably never know. Ken only threatens to buy the plane. He has not paid his much needed deposits, and he pushed out his S/N position. Him speak with forked-tongue.

Ken Meyer said...

mouse wrote,

"Your ignorance is blaring, and you do not have sense enough to stop proving it in such volumes."

OK; prove me wrong.

Harco says (in this news piece), "HARCO’s design and development expertise was selected for development and sole-source of the air data systems for the Eclipse 500."

What makes you think they didn't apply their "design and development expertise" to the development of the air data system as the press release says?

Ken

Old Troll said...

9Z,

At first glance, I assumed those photos were of a very early S/N. But that's S/N 13!!!! And a marketing unit as well!!!! I can't believe they would use that turd as a display model. It's easy to see how they achieve such short paint times.

Ken,

It looks like you're getting what you pay for.

Shane Price said...

Ken,

Do Harco staff install the system into the aircraft?

Did Harco select themselves?

I think we all agree its not The Fish. Bart defense No. 1. He wasn't there.

You and Comic Relief would pin the ENTIRE fault with Harco.

Who picked Harco?

Now we know CWMoR didn't.

I need you to clearly understand that I didn't.

I hope YOU didn't, because the laughter would really hurt.

Harco, I'm pretty sure, didn't.

By a simple process of logic, and because he is the RESPONSIBLE person at the head of the company...

VERN DID IT.

Very simple. He messed up. He picked the supplier, who failed. OR he hired the staff that installed it, in such a way that it could NOT work to the satisfaction of the FAA. Either way, Vern is at fault.

These are the facts. Hard to deal with, facts. Pesky things that get in the way every now and then. Bit like clouds.

Any average company owner, with a normal view of how business works, would see this.

VERN MESSED UP.

Admit it. Stop the merry go round of 'pass the blame'.

Unless, of course, you are in a management position in a certain ABQ company with an AD in force since yesterday....

Shane

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

Shane wrote,

"You and Comic Relief would pin the ENTIRE fault with Harco."

I didn't said that. I suggested that Flyger's comment that Avio NG is brought to you by the same people who developed the pitot system is incorrect.

And it is.

Switching gears...I do agree the fit and finish of S/N 13 are unacceptble, and the plane should not have been accepted by the customer with those quality lapses.

Ken

airtaximan said...

How strange is this situation?

A company that says "we do not manufacture anything" is in the aircraft "delivery" business... I guess that's what they do.

They popped a cork for obtaining a production certificate...

They bragged since 2000, about selecting all these world class manufacturers as suppliers (to whom? would be a good question, but we'll leave this one to common sense, for now)

Problems arise, vendors are blamed. Some are fired and replaced some are just publicly blamed and we are told THEY have to fix the problem they created.

Its as if there was never a design for the plane, just like there is no manufacturer for the plane.

I wonder where the $1 billion went?
I wonder why it took so long?

Perhaps, and this is just a guess...PERHAPS ther problem can be summed up as ...

There was never a design, there was never a manufacturer.

By this, I mean: No one who will take responsibility for these jobs.

Its going to be very interesting watching the MRO side and the warrantee side of this business, if it comes to that.

I believe its time for another few hundred million dollars to keep the scheme alive... otherwise the "little problems" like shoddy paint, systems problems, upgrades, fixes, inspection periods and ADs, will be little deatils that were only tell tale signs of the real problem.

- finger-pointing is no way to develop, build and support a safe wuality aerospace product. Unless the outsource the paint job, I think e-clips should have a look in the mirror and put out the following statement.

"we are a manufacturing company and we are proud of it. we are responsible for the suppliers. we are responsible for all quality issues. we are responsible for delays. we are responsible for the pain job. we are going to get our own house in order. Its going to take a long time".

airtaximan said...

Ken... "I do agree the fit and finish of S/N 13 are unacceptble, and the plane should not have been accepted by the customer with those quality lapses."

what else is shoddy?

Imagine a company that can't even PAINT a plane? Imagine the balls to brag about how fast they paint planes in communications... as a distraction.

man... get serious.

redtail said...

Shane Price said: These are the facts. Hard to deal with, facts. Pesky things that get in the way every now and then. Bit like clouds.

Shane, you have no idea what the facts are. You're right about - you didn't design it, Fish didn't design it, Ken didn't design it. If those are the facts you talk about, I stand corrected. Beyond that, you have no idea who was responsible for the design. You have no idea why the design failed. You have no idea what the fix entails. You have not idea what the design even looks like. Those are my facts.

flyger said...

Ken Meyer said...

I suggested that Flyger's comment that Avio NG is brought to you by the same people who developed the pitot system is incorrect.

And it is.


Ah, so Eclipse doesn't have "vendors", it has "excuses".

AvioNG and the pitot/static system are fundametnally brought to you by Eclipse. They choose the specs, the vendor, and vet the design.

Every single one of the numerous vendors they have blamed has worked with other manufacturers successfully. The common thread in all the failures is Eclipse itself. How many times does it have to happen before you get a clue?

I do agree the fit and finish of S/N 13 are unacceptble, and the plane should not have been accepted by the customer with those quality lapses.

That's what I think about Avio, pitot/static, lack of FIKI, etc. An owner can, *on his own*, get the plane repainted or retouched. He *cannot*, on his own, fix the other flaws. Funny that you should be so sticky on something purely cosmetic, but accept all the other flaws.

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

Redtail,

I said I was not RESPONSIBLE. I never made any comment on the design. It might be a great design, or it might be a terrible one.

I don't know, and I'm not qualified to comment.

The FACT is that your own FAA don't like it enough to impose an Airworthiness Directive, which puts restrictions on when and how the aircraft can be flown.

Thats a FACT.

In my opinion these limits will, at the very least, delay the DayJet launch. Any delay with this critical Eclipse customer is bad for both companies.

Right now, Eclipse and DayJet both, need bad news like another hole in the head.

So, Redtail, who is to BLAME?

Who runs the company, that made the decisions, that resulted in the AD?

Name the man (there is one) who is responsible for this mess.

You know you can do it. It will make you feel a lot better.

Vern.

Yessiree. Mr. Eclipse hisself.

Now, that is a fact I can stand over with complete confidence.

Unless you are saying that he dosn't run the company, that can't make aircraft at the rate promised, to the specification promised (add your own comments here, da capo)

Shane

AlexA said...

9Z & OldTroll,

It’s SN#: 13! I guess the guys at ABQ and OKC have a propensity for drinking moonshine and a hell of sense of humor.

redtail said...

Shane Price said: I don't know, and I'm not qualified to comment.

That about says it all.

Shane Price said: So, Redtail, who is to BLAME?

Is that ALL that this is about - the "Blame Game"? THAT seems to be the nature of the blog (Gunner's about to chime in now with something about the Nazis. Where has he been lately anyway. It's been kind of pleasant). Now, grow up. It's a problem that needs to be corrected. It's another problem that Eclipse doesn't need right now. But it has been discovered and it is being addressed. It is going to slow DayJet down for a few weeks. But Eclipse isn't the first manufacturer to receive an AD.

Shane Price said...

Leadership.

Good topic at this time.

It seems that when facts are presented the faithful attack. When these facts paint The Leader in a bad light, the faithful attack in pack mode, each taking a little bite in the hope of undermining those same facts.

Good leadership is about planning, resouce gathering and allocation, inspiration and persperation.

First, a good leader must have a realistic plan. Second, the resources for the plan have to be found, and also a method to deploy them to advantage. Third the leader must encourage the chosen group to join with, and implement, the plan. Last and most important the team must work together to achieve the end result

Great leadership is all of the above, but at the outer limits. By that I mean picking the hardest job, digging the deepest for the tools, engaging large numbers of people and running huge risks to gain a noble end.

Best example of the latter is America between 1961 and 1969, when your (soon to die) President declared that the country 'chose things, not because they were easy, but because they were hard'

The result, which the world admires to the this day, was the Apollo Moon landings.

Vern chose to do something easy (build a small jet) and has made it look very, VERY hard.

He set unrealistic goals, to timescales that could not be met. Gathered excessive resouces. Picked (by his own, repeated, admission) the wrong suppliers. Blamed his staff when the going got tough. Avoided personal RESPONSIBILITY for mistakes on his watch.

Not good leadership.

Not even close.

In any business I have been in, and they are varied and (so far) sucessful, I am quick to admit to my failings. Its good to share the issues with others, get up off the floor and try again.

Vern (and Comic Relief) would benefit from similar strengths.

Shane

mouse said...

Ken, ever here of PR statements, you know, like all the stuff Vern slings?!

HARCO does not, and did not design the airframe side of an airplane, they design probes, boxes that support them, Etc.

Even if they did, and they did NOT design the entire system or any of the airframe system, Eclipse is still 199% responsible for every single aspect of design, specifications, certifications, testing, Etc.

What you and aircraft owners should be concerned about is the rotten support that Eclipse has delivered, will deliver, and the high prices and huge time delays invloved in support and corrective actions. Every delay that Vern blames on a vendor is a direct delay on Eclipse.

HARCO makes a fine product, but even if they made a crappy product or the best in the world, the fact is Eclipse selected them, used them, tested them, specified to them, and screwed them, just like they do to the owners and depositors.

This blog exists to bring these points to the masses.

mouse said...

Ken wrote:

Ken Meyer said...
Shane wrote,

"You and Comic Relief would pin the ENTIRE fault with Harco."

I didn't said that. I suggested that Flyger's comment that Avio NG is brought to you by the same people who developed the pitot system is incorrect.

And it is.

Ken, you're an idiot! Shane made a correct statement. Eclipse/Vern is responsible for every single little detail... This is the part of the business that Vern does not understand. In the software business maybe he could throw anyone under the bus, but in our business the buck stops with the Mfg.

Get it now!?

AlexA said...

Little Rat,

A little too much cheese with caffeine? Who cares whose fault it is? The bottom line is the FAA has issued an AD, Eclipse needs to take corrective action, which includes the new design, get approval and retro-fit the fleet.

I’m sure that Stan with his tremendous expertise in ADs could make a few extra bucks by offering his services to Eclipse. This way we could all get t-shirts for Oshkosh “I’m a dinosaur supporter” or “I believe in e-volution”

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

9Z,
Have you ever read ATM’s Blog entries? Now you know who does the stencil work at Eclipse. Mystery solved.

Mirage00 I would agree with 9Z. ATM and Little Rat will be consoling themselves until May 08.

Gunner said...

Back from The Hunt and, honestly, I cannot believe it!

Supposed adults actually arguing that the Company who takes credit for a product and charges you for it is not "responsible" when KEY SYSTEMS THAT COULD GET YOU KILLED fail. Not one or two KEY SYSTEMS; but about a half score at this point.

I swear, if one of these birds augers in some day soon, the very same posters will be the first to question the skills of the poor bastige that tried his level best to save everyone on board. When does this reality denial end?

I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto.
Gunner

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

And now for a bit of honest comparison.

I flew my Baron from the DFW area to Fort Lauderdale, nonstop, today. A pretty regular trip for me.
- Nautical Miles: @1,050 as the crow flies
- "Air Miles" due to weather and other diversions: 1,100 plus.
- "Eclipse Demonstration Miles": Whatever Vern claims it traveled.

Full fuel and max takeoff weight. Manufacturer recommended power, 2300 rpm and full throttle (not Economy Cruise). 15 knot headwind for most of the trip; 10 knot tail wind for the rest. It took me just over 6 hours (LONG day) and I landed with 65 minutes reserve fuel; about 200NM of cushion.

The Baron is not revolutionary; in fact, it's a quite ordinary design from a bygone era. Mine is 17 years old in manufacture; much older in design.

Yet, the Eclipse cannot do what this little piston twin did. Sure, it can go a lot faster; but not farther; not thru the weather I just came thru; not with the icing that I picked up at 15,000 just west of Lafayette, LA.

It can't do any of those things. In fact, at 18,000 feet, I'm not even certain it can do the entire run in significantly less time! (Would really appreciate if one of the jet-wizards here would run the numbers and see how many 1 hour fuel stops would be required for the Eclipse and what the door to door time would be.)

But the point is this:
A very few months ago, when the company claimed "Mission Accomplished", it boasted an aircraft that rivaled (and surpassed) the Cessna Citation Mustang.

Today, with less than a couple dozen "deliveries" under its belt, it can offer you a $1.6 million dollar dream that cannot compare in practical functionality with an aging piston twin.

That's sad.
That's what we call a "clue".
Gunner

mouse said...

Alexa, the "who cares" is you and the other delusionists who keep the unsupportable supported. I agree, there is now an AD issued, period.

Eclipse once again failed, tried to blame others, and got "pants" in public by the FAA.

Hopefully Vern will get the issue at hand corrected and move on to the rest of the laundry list.

I'm sure Stan makes a nice living in his business, and I'm sure he knows his business well enough to not get involved with a poor business deal. When you are good at what you do you can afford to turn down the bad business. A lot of people could learn this lesson, huh?

mouse said...

Alexa,

Lesson #1, if you don't specify a date you can't miss a date. Is that a Tuesday in May of 08?

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

Gunner, thanks for a good report. Just the facts.

The crowd just doesn't get it. The VLJ's are nothing more than the same old planes with a small turbofan engine, period. Heck, today a Cessna 172 and a Boeing 777 have essentially the same avionics.

A VLJ is just another turboprop without propellers. Many turboprops offer not much more than high performance pistons with propjet powerplants and kerosene.

As usual, it's not the airplane but the powerplant that decides the next generation and design.

Many airplanes define the design. The Baron, The 690 series of Twin Commanders, the LearJet, Etc. all define the state-of-the-art in design and performance.

The Eclipse is just another airplane. Perhaps some day it will define a state-of-the-art, but not now, not yet.

When you breakdown the cost of the your trip by fuel, maintenance, reserves, debit retirement (I realize you plane may be payed for already), you will find that your Baron cost way less than the EA-500 to operate too.

mouse said...

9Z, no outrage because most of the defenders have no irons in the fire. They make lots of claims, but fail to out the money where their mouths are.

At least Ken's wife has intelligence and is looking at "really" certified airplanes with know quantities.

For those guys that just don't get it yet... PS. It's a duck!

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"I flew my Baron from the DFW area to Fort Lauderdale, nonstop, today."

You make the case for the Eclipse better than any "believer" could.

You flew from Dallas (KGPM actually) to KFLL non-stop. But it took you about 6:15 to do it, and you had to suck oxygen just about the whole way.

I flightplanned that same flight, using the same route, in the Eclipse 500.

Guess how it came out? Under 3 hours time and 187 gallons of fuel. And no sucking oxygen. Why would anyone choose to make that flight in a Baron instead of an Eclipse?

Your flight is a perfect example of why people are buying the Eclipse in unprecedented numbers. These days, a new Baron costs almost as much as an Eclipse, but it offers only piston, oxygen-sucking performance while the Eclipse offers jet performance at a price that is only slightly more than the Baron. No wonder Beech was worried enough to lower their asking price!

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

80% is being a bit generous I think 9Z. ;^)

By my math, it is 42% of the altitude (17500 vs FL410). And who knows what the actual range result is when putting about at 17.5 instead of up high.

By my math it is 25% in terms of Kinds of Operations (Day VFR, vs Day\Nite VFR, Day\Nite IFR).

By my math it is maybe 10% in terms of operational utility (next to nothing vs. FIKI, FMS, GPS, Moving Map, Autothrottle, Autopilot, RVSM).

And that paint job, you have got to be F'ing kidding me - most kitplanes are finished better than that.

Nearly 1 in 4 of the claimed deliveries to date, according to Mike Press, sold at or before delivery - speculators. '08 deliveries are being sold at a discount, according to Mike Press.

Sorry, the numbers just do not add up.

redtail said...

Peace time is over, Gunner is back. Now we just have to wait for Gadfly to return from another class reunion for more stories of the "olden days".

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

Ken-
You just have to attempt to make this about Beech, don't you? Have at it, guy. I'm not particularly interested. I simply made a factual observation.

You, on the other hand, respond with a fairy tale (and that's being generous):

"I flightplanned that same flight, using the same route, in the Eclipse 500."

There isn't a delivered Eclipse aircraft that can do those numbers and you knew it when you wrote this trash, Ken. ONLY THE PAPER ECLIPSE CAN.

And guess what? They're not delivering paper Eclipse's any more. They're delivering the Real McCoy.

Rerun your numbers at 18,000 feet, as I specified, Ken. Then take a look at the weather and my flight route. You'll find Le Petit couldn't have done the trip at all, due to weather; if it had tried, it wouldn't have made it across the Gulf without an In-Flight Tanker Stop.

The FACT remains that I can do, in a 17 year old Baron, what today's OWNERS of the WunderJet can only dream of. I'd have thought after your amazing series of technical gaffs on the Harco issue, you'd at least be "twice shy", Ken. I now see that you really like wearing a Clown Nose. ;-)
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken Meyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cj3driver said...

Gunner,
Regarding 1,100 nm, no wind flight at low altitude.

According to BC&A, at 15,000 ft, the E500 burns 760 pound per hour with 288 TAS. Leaving 450 lbs for reserve, it will achieve a tanks full range (max) of 375 miles in 1 hr 28 minutes at this altitude. Assuming no wind and two 45 min stops for fuel, it would take just under six hours to make 1,100 miles and use over 550 gallons of fuel. Of course, this is at high speed cruise, the Eclipse pilot could pull the power back and save some fuel, but, then Barron would then beat the time.

Add a 30 kt headwind and the Eclipse will need another 50 gallons and 30 more minutes for the trip. Not to mention extra time and miles to say away from weather at this altitude. Turbine engines need altitude (and lots of it) to be efficient. Eclipse is no exception.

AlexA said...

Mouse,

“Who cares?” Mouse I care, but I have been around long enough in aviation (not as long as Stan or Cold&Wet) to know that this type of AD is not a big deal. If the FAA issues an AD on Eclipse they ..“got "pants" in public by the FAA." If the FAA does not issue an AD then Eclipse has the FAA in their pocket.

May 19, 2008 – Third Tuesday

airtaximan said...

FROM AVWEB THIS MORNING...

"An anonymous buyer has paid almost $500,000 extra for the privilege of jumping the line to buy a Cessna Citation Mustang. When the Mustang was first announced, Sporty's Pilot Shops owner Hal Shevers was among the first to put down a deposit and he got the 13th position. Rather than keep the twinjet (and give up his existing larger Citation), Shevers bet that there would be others who would pay a premium for being among the first to take delivery of what Cessna calls its "entry-level jet."

Congratulations to Ken Meyer for his "paper profit" he claims he's made on his "paper airplane" he claims can perform wonderfully.

Above you will find a real plane, backed by a real company, that really performs according to spec in the real world, and is worth a real premium for early positions.

Long live your paper revolution!

Gunner said...

CJ-
Thanks for the calculation and comparison. I think it more fair to compare the Eclipse at 17,000 feet for the trip, since that's the flight level that the currently produced aircraft would most likely fly this trip. Still, your numbers can't be far off.

The thought that customers are being expected to pay full price for delivery of a virtually crippled aircraft (plus a whole lot of promises to finish the build at a later time) is the greatest aviation joke since the Moller SkyCar.

The pics of the SN13 paint job tell the story of an organization stripped of pride in what it's producing. That paint job wasn't a simple QC "miss"; it was intentionally passed as "good enough". Anyone who believes that this type of attitude can exist in one isolated department, simply doesn't understand organizational behavior.

I'll guarantee issues like that paint job are the topic of discussion at lunch tables and water coolers throughout the facility. And I'll guarantee that the culture which allowed that paint to pass pervades this organization, "dedicated workforce" notwithstanding.

The company management is a farce. Its product is an embarrassment to aviation.
Gunner

mirage00 said...

Once again, fear leads to misinformation...

Airhead forgets to mention this was a charity auction. Please see the link below.

Sportys Charity Auction

I remain amused

double 00

JetProp Jockey said...

00 - yes it was a charity, so of the $500,000 premium paid for the aircraft, about 35% is a tax savings. That means the premuim paid was "only" $325,000. Even this is a stretch as there are serious limits on the amount of charitable contributions the IRS allows an individual or corporation. The taxable income needed to be able to take a $500,000 charitable deduction in one year is REALLY high.

AlexA said...

Gunner,

Said “tell the story of an organization stripped of pride in what it's producing..…. Anyone who believes that this type of attitude can exist in one isolated department, simply doesn't understand organizational behavior”

My June issue of S.W.A.T. had two pages were the offset was displaced making the text impossible to read. I wonder what that means;)

JetProp Jockey said...

Axexa:

The next time you decide to use your S.W.A.T. magazine to 10,000 feet and do an ILS approach, I would be really concerned.

Gunner said...

Mirage-
What's it matter whether it was a charity auction or deductible? Many purchasers of the EA50X also write off the capital costs. So what? A half mill Premium remains a testimony to the value of the aircraft in the market, tax ramifications notwithstanding.

You remain bemused. ;-)

Alexa-
As to your issue of SWAT, we produce 90K copies each month, in a mass production manner. We get a dozen complaints per issue of missing copies, mangled copies or missing pages. These each come direct to me and I personally REPLACE the damaged or missing product, no questions asked.

If we produced 4 products per month, like Eclipse, I assure you I'd personally inspect each one before it went out the door.

What's your point? That this paint job is acceptable because the print on a magazine page was offset? Tell you what. Send an email to the Publisher....address can be found right on the Contacts section of the web site or magazine. It'll be replaced. How does the owner of SN13 contact Vern? Is his email listed anywhere? Will he replace the aircraft?
Gunner

AlexA said...

9Z,

There is no excuse or justification for the quality on SN 13. I have personally seen 6 other aircrafts and they do not demonstrate of the workmanship on 13. In addition I have direct information from SN 19 and he did not encounter any quality issues.

My understanding is the SN13 has been leased back to Eclipse and the owner is making a very handsome profit on daily basis. Eclipse will address all the issues of SN13 before returning the aircraft to its owner. The biggest hurdle which Eclipse is experiencing is having enough aircrafts to train the backlog of pilots (DayJet pilots, Mentor pilots and owners). It was expected that most folks would be able to obtain their Type Rating in a week. It’s been taken closer to three weeks. This has caused an incredible backlog in the process. FYI there are now Typed Mentor Pilots as well as additional owners the are Typed.

AlexA said...

JJ

If the quality of the paint had anything to do with flying an ILS approach then we need another AD:

FAA Docket 06-12-2007 All general aviation aircraft in service with poor paint jobs need to grounded until further notice.

Gunner said...

Alexa-
the point is that the quality of the paint is an indicator of the company commitment to quality throughout the design and build. They're more interested in producing aircraft than producing aircraft well.

That's pretty obvious from their entire history and, sooner or later, someone's gonna get hurt as a result.
Gunner

golfer said...

I am new to this site.

Why is mustang a competition to Eclipse.? Vern said in one of the employee meetings in Dec05-Jan06 that "Mustang is a real threat".
He stopped all the vacation/leave requests of the employees from then onwwards.
Alexa says it is 500,000 more than Eclipse. So, they are not in par based on size or price.
can you clarify? Why would anyone jump with half a mil extra to Mustang?

AlexA said...

Gunner,
I agree with you that someone dropped the ball with the finish on sn13. It is not fair to impeach the whole company or its employees because someone did a miserable job on placards. Then to extrapolate that into someone is going to get hurt is despicable.

If it would have been my aircraft I would have not accepted delivery. Same way I have not accepted delivery on a number of products that I purchased from world leading manufacturers that had obvious lack of craftsmanship.

I have no doubt you take pride in the product you put out. One misprinted magazine does not impugn your good reputation.

Gunner said...

Alexa-
Had it been a wiring harness SNAFU, I might have understood. But this is an issue of paint that HAD to be seen by a dozen management types and passed anyway. THAT makes it indicative of an atmosphere regarding priorities...a dangerous one.

Check back in this Blog and you'll find that I was among the first to give Vern a pass on the pitot/AOA problem. But these are no longer isolated issues; there's just too many issues of design problems and KNOWN inop systems to speak anymore of "Teething Problems".

From wings to windows to empennage to AVIO to AOA, the aircraft design is not complete. Yet this company continues to "deliver" aircraft with promises and IOU's.

You say:
"Then to extrapolate that into someone is going to get hurt is despicable."

Just when WOULD it be appropriate to "extrapolate", Alexa? AFTER someone gets hurt? I'm sorry, but the design, build AND quality control problems with this aircraft demand that someone begin to question its safety. I do. And if that's "despicable", what would you call taking 300 progress payments for delivery of a jet when the manufacturer knew it had no avionics suite and couldn't deliver 1/4 that number in the 6 month window?
Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Alexa,

Paint quality and aerodynamic sealer application can actually effect RVSM qualification by altering airflow around static ports or pitot probes, whether they are icing up or not.

Paint IS a big deal.

Gunner is right, this indicates that moving planes is more important than moving quality planes.

Any of you owners, sorry 'position holders\unsecured investors' heard rumors of planes stacking up in ABQ for 'interior fit' issues - as in Customer complaints?

As a reminder here are the 'teething pains' and IOU's (the ones that we know about so far anyway):

- Windshield Cracking
- Cockpit Side Window Cracking
- Wing Attach Bushing Slippage
- Freezing Pitot-Static
- Part 135 Kit
- 6th Seat
- International Operations kit
- Fully functioning autopilot
- Fully functioning FMS
- Fully functioning Dual GPS with WAAS and LPV Approches
- Fully functioning moving map
- Fully functioning autothrottles
- Fully functioning RVSM capability
- Fully functioning FIKI
- Fully functioning radar
- Fully functioning radar altimeter
- Fully functioning Stormscope
- Fully functioning Skywatch
- Fully functioning TAWS
- Aero-Mods to meet re-revised performance guarantees
- Adequate paint finish
- Adequate support capacity
- Adequate spares
- Adequate interior fit and finish
- Adequate training capacity exists

AlexA said...

Cold&Wet,

You would be much more credible if you stuck to facts. Creating a laundry list with inaccuracies does not add to credibility (it only demonstrates your ability to cut and paste). Please check off the following from your list: bushings, paint finish, spares, support and part 135. By late July you should be able to check off a few more items.

Ken Meyer said...

golfer wrote,

" So, they are not in par based on size or price.
can you clarify? Why would anyone jump with half a mil extra to Mustang?"


At a half million more, Mustang would have been a threat because it's a nice plane. It's a slimmed-down Citation that really doesn't have many of the groundbreaking features of the Eclipse (such as the virtual co-pilot features offered by Avio NG), but it's here now and flies beautifully. The Mustang does use about 40% more fuel per mile than the Eclipse. However it is still a very, very nice airplane. If it were priced just $500K more than the Eclipse, I think many Eclipse customers would be considering it.

However it is not $500K more.

The Eclipse is $1.52M in July, 2006 dollars. The Mustang is $2.495M in 2002 dollars. If you work it out, the Mustang is about $1.2-1.3 million more than the Eclipse delivered. It is up to the individual purchaser whether Cessna's greater experience and broader support network justify that much more for a plane with essentially the same performance figures but 40% or so greater ongoing costs. For the most part, I think Eclipse customers have not been swayed toward the Mustang to any significant degree, primarily because of the much higher initial acquisition cost and the higher operating expenses.

Ken

Gunner said...

The Mustang functions right out of the box.

Eclipse, like Moller, needs a bit of "tweaking".
Gunner

paul said...

Are you saying it is part 135 certified now?
Plenty of spares?
What are the employees in Gainesville doing, looking at the walls or are aircraft there?

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cj3driver said...

Golfer,

The Mustang is really apples and oranges with the Eclipse. However, I believe the actual value difference is not as much as Ken portrays ($1.2-1.5M). We have argued the point before, and he is entitled to his opinion. But, I believe the “value” difference is closer to $800K.

The real cost for an Eclipse, if you equip it similar to a standard Mustang, is over $2 million. In order to make an E500 even remotely comparable to a standard Eclipse, you must order virtually all options bringing the total price, in 06 dollars, to $1.7 million. Then you must then add the CPI adjustment until a realistic delivery date.

You must also add the cost of funds on the 60% payment that Eclipse requires six months prior to delivery with the risk factor associated. Cessna does not require this much advance, unsecured payment. Like auto manufactures, the risk and cost of carrying the aircraft during production is built into the price. After adding the CPI and cost of capital, and assuming a reasonable production rate, a new Eclipse order will likely cost way over $2 million.

Given the track record of the company, and the likely failure of DayJet, (Eclipse’s main volume customer), there is a greater than 50% chance the price of the aircraft need to be increased to offset volume cost savings. In order for the company to survive, I predict a price increase on the E500 this year. Whether Eclipse increases the price on existing customers, remains to be seen. The higher the serial number, the higher the risk. The resale market agrees, ...and thus the soft prices for later positions, ...even lower than the factory. This gives you the value of the perceived risk.

I believe that in the overall picture IF Eclipse survives, after 2010 (when pent-up demand for both products is met), the Eclipse will be priced at $2.6 million and the Mustang at $3.4 million. Production rates will be similar and stabilized at 80-100 units per year each.

As to operating cost, since Eclipse is a start up company, and in my opinion, has very likely failure chance, I believe the operating cost will be very comparable to the Mustang. Due to the recent AD, the current operating cost is double, if not triple that of a current Mustang.

Based on track records, the Mustang operating cost has a very high likelihood of achieving Cessna’s predictions, and the E500 operating cost has a very high likelihood of NOT achieving Eclipse’s predictions. I believe Kens projection of 40% higher cost for the Mustang is in error, but again, he is entitled to his opinion. Since there is no history to create fact, we are all just guessing. It comes down to which company you believe.

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cj3driver said...

NinerZ,
I own and operate CJ3. I love it.
As far as VLJ's.. I'm a Cessna fan, but I also like the Phenom. I think it will be a real contender. I'm hoping to make it to OSH and check out the EPIC product.

Gotta run...

Bonanza Pilot said...

I just read a really interesting article about Cessna and their lean purchasing initiatives. I didn't realize that cessna is outsourcing so much...I would expect that many of the problems that they have been facing, and correcting, will be hitting Eclipse as well. A very interesting read.

http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6450825.html

Gunner said...

bonanza-
Thanks for that. Agreed, it's a great article, especially for those of us without aircraft manufacture experience. It appears that Cessna takes a proactive role with its suppliers, supporting them, training them, providing them tools to make all their other business lines more profitable and essentially partnering with them. Obviously, this is relationship driven, rather than simple dollars and cents.

By contrast. look at Eclipse. Here's a company that appears to view suppliers as traditional third parties that simply provide parts. Certainly that's the impression one would take from Vern's comments. The nature of the Eclipse relationship: If the aircraft works, Vern's a genius; if it fails, the suppliers are at fault. Cessna apparently treats its suppliers as an extension of itself.

Compare these two very different styles and ask yourself, "Who's the REAL dinosaur in this dynamic?"
Gunner

cj3driver said...

BP,

Interesting article. Gunner is right. I can tell you first hand Cessna and their vendors have “hand in hand” relationships. When my aircraft was delivered, I had a small issue with the cabinets. Within 1 hour the cabinet vendor was at the delivery center solving the problem. The Collins rep and the rep from Williams were also both present at delivery. Since then, I give Cessna and their vendors a 10 out of 10 for customer service and follow-up. In this price range, Eclipse needs to pay close attention. I agree with comments made regarding s/n 13. It never should have been presented to the customer, period. The aviation community is very small, and it does not take much to severely tarnish a manufactures reputation. Raytheon learned the hard way, and have made great improvements.

Every year Cessna has a Citation conference, and they invite vendors. The vendors have booths and reps on hand to answer questions and solve problems right in front of their customers, both “End user” and Cessna. No finger pointing there. It’s really very comforting to know they work together, from a safety, service and operational point of view. I’m sure there are difficulties that arise, but they appear to be careful that the “end customer” is insulated as much as possible.

cj3driver said...

It’s interesting to me that Mike Press did not comment in his newsletter about the E500 performance, his perception of product quality, and the delivery process. He has taken possession of the first “Revolutionary” new jet, he is the self-proclaimed expert in the Eclipse resale market, and there is no mention of performance or specifics on product.

In my opinion, this lack of information, and the removal of his aircraft from ”flightaware” seems very suspect. If he was not in the Eclipse “business”, I would give him some slack, but since he obviously makes profit in this venture, he needs to be “Pressed”.

That being said, I do enjoy reading his newsletter, he seems to be honest with what he does write. He tactfully says that Eclipse has run out of money and needs capital. This begs the question. …What about the millions collected for this years projected deliveries? Many of these depositors are Mikes customers, past customers, or potential customers. Thin ice.

I’d just like to see some current performance numbers… subject to change with the B model, of course! … or at least be honest and tell us Eclipse does not want the info out. I think tight lips harms more than helps. Unless the current configuration is way, way off.

airtaximan said...

cj3,

According to the die-hards, Mike Press is flying his e-500 so much, he has no time to write.

That's their conclusion, and they are sticking by it.

And by the way - this opinion comes from folks that consider my sloppy typing to be in the same category as the sloppy paint job on a suppoed-to-be-jet.

That should tell you something.

My guess is he's worried about liability associated with puffing the junk-jet... but hey, I type fast, and I make typing errors... so you be the judge.

airtaximan said...

new term from Vern:

"designed for high cycle"

now means:

"designed for high cycling of deposits"

mirage00 said...

I do enjoy reading his newsletter, he seems to be honest with what he does write.

So which is it? Is he honest or is he dishonest. Oh I see, he's honest when he writes about Eclipse needing cash but suspect when he doesn’t write anything about published performance numbers?

As usual, I remain amused

double 00

mirage00 said...

One more happy customer.

Happy Customer

I remain amused

double 00

cj3driver said...

Moo,
Yes, I'd say your analysis correct.

Maybe he doesnt want to lie, so he just doesnt write.

If he doesn't at least throw out the fact Eclipse is broke, my guess he might be in trouble with selling future positions without at least a little disclosure. I'm sure he must feel Vern will have no problem raising some more cash, but Mike needs to at least go on record with a cash flow comment if he knows it to be true.

As for performance... what do you think?, no news must be good news?? ...Methinks not.

planet-ex said...

eclipse500club.org - hardly an unbiased source of information considering the domain is owned by Eclipse Aviation.

WhyTech said...

flightcenter said:

"Vern owned the Connie jointly with his former wife Dottie Hall, they sold it before the divorce. Agreed, damn nice plane."

Been in the Connie. Not so nice, Used to be a sprayer and it stibnks of malathion. Nice in its time, though!

WT

cj3driver said...

I wonder why there are no links to the owners club website on Mike Press's website or the Eclipse aviation website?

I actually found it interesting. You can see why there is a passion among the faithfull.

Still, with all that info, nothing about actual performance.

I can also see why this blog will become very popular in the comming months. (mostly with depositors!).

cj3driver said...

NinerZulu asked;

“…Which VLJ are you leaning towards and why?..”

Niner,
If I was in the market with a $3.1 million budget (price of a new Mustang), I would probably pursue a CJ1 or late model CJ. I think these are great aircraft (I have owned both models). I frankly think they are a better value than even a new Mustang. They have very similar performance to the Mustang. They are a little faster, but burn a little more fuel with comparable hourly operating cost. The CJ’s a proven track record, plentiful parts service and training, they are comfortable, easy to fly, economical (as jets go) and good looking. I like the private potty and the ability to use it as a spare seat. Having the capability to carry 8 people has come in very handy. There is generous baggage space front and rear. The front side facing seat is popular with my friends and family. The refreshment center is small but meets the needs for most missions. Catering can be stored in the lav if no one is sitting back there. The hot wing is my preference over boots. You can fill the seats and fly an honest 900 NM or 1,250 with four. Extend the range farther if you pull back to Mustang speeds. Long range cruise makes the fuel flow and speed similar to the Mustang at max cruise.

The benefit to the Mustang, is it is “brand new”, with a new panel. And I admit, there is nothing like a new aircraft. But for value, I choose a used CJ and be flying next week. Sure, if you’re a gambler, plunk down $150K for an Eclipse, Phenom, Mustang or others. You can always sell the CJ in a few years when the new plane is built (sure thing with the Mustang, questionable with Eclipse). The CJ’s have an excellent charter history so resale value is strong. Used CJ’s have been appreciating in value over the last few years. But, I’ll bet you won’t look back, and a CJ2, CJ3 or CJ4 will look interesting. There were less than 600 CJ and CJ1’s built since 1993. With Eclipse claiming orders for over 1,000 of their little jets (owner flown) there are bound to be numerous disappointed owners. “Jet fever” being contagious and all, I think the CJ market will be strong for a long time. Especially if Eclipse somehow delivers on their promises. After a couple hundred hours in an Eclipse, a step-up is what the doctor ordered.

The Eclipse program is a great idea for a little plane, especially if you are one of the original owners and the price is $995. But if the number is $2mil, for a 4-5 seat plane (after baggage), there are too many other choices.

paul said...

Travolta's still happy because he hasn't taken delivery yet.
Anyone know what the eclipse employees do in Gainesville all day?

Ken Meyer said...

cj3 wrote,

"The real cost for an Eclipse, if you equip it similar to a standard Mustang, is over $2 million."

That is completely false. Even if you ordered every single option available for the Eclipse, it would not be possible to get to the number you quoted.

You seem quite concerned that the Mustang costs $1.3 million more than the Eclipse. I can understand that. It's a lot of money to pay for essentially the same performance. You say it's worth it, and to some, I'm sure it is. Mustang is a great plane.

But I say let the buyer decide for himself which plane is the better value for his purposes. We don't need to mislead buyers with baloney like "the Eclipse actually costs over $2 million."

If you truly believe the Eclipse is as bad as you say, it shouldn't be necessary for you to fabricate the numbers. Perhaps what you're really telling us is that the plane is not so bad after all :)

Ken

cj3driver said...

Paul said,

"...Anyone know what the eclipse employees do in Gainesville all day?..."

According to Mike Press's journal they changed his windows and tires after 98 hours last friday. ...He could have gone another 2 hours, but he was in the area.

flyger said...

cj3driver said...

I wonder why there are no links to the owners club website on Mike Press's website or the Eclipse aviation website?


Just for grins, I clicked on the "Events" tab and what did it say:

There are currently no future events.

I found that funny both for the phrasing and for the implication there is no future.

cj3driver said...

Ken,

I guess you didnt get the "real cost" implication regarding time value of money, risk value, capital outlay value. At the present rate, or even the revised, revised, revised, revised rate, do you really think a person purchasing S/N 1,200 is going to get his plane in '09? Now, add in the prefirential fleet orders and either way, I think NOT. I'm being generous at $2 Mil. Read the post carefully and you will see that I have indeed added most of the options to get to the base price of 1.75... that's the only way to make it even remotely comparable. For the tenth time KEN... your paying for a big chunk of the plane upfront. That has cost. Read the first line again. Apples and Oranges.

If you were to give value to comfort, size, servicability, stablility of company and on, and on... the cost of the eclipse (as a comp to the Mustang) is way more than 2 mil.

BTW Ken - do you really think someone who reads this blog, and is willing to spend $2 mil for a plane, give a flip about how much I "think" the actual cost is? If this is true, it says loads about the typical Eclipse buyer.

Gunner said...

Ken said:
"You seem quite concerned that the Mustang costs $1.3 million more than the Eclipse."

And ONCE AGAIN, we compare a functional, produced, flying aircraft to a Paper Airplane, a Promise from Vern. Pure nonsense; pure sales hype; pure BS.

Fact of the matter is that the currently available Eclipse doesn't compare in efficiency, economics or range performance to your 30 year old piston twin, Ken.

Fact of the matter is that the Paper Eclipse doesn't hold a candle to the Moller Skycar....and, I assure you, the comparison between the EA-50X and the Moller is much more appropriate than the comparison between the EA-50X and the Mustang.

Get over it and check back with us when the Eclipse you speak of moves off paper to certified production. The current incarnation is an aviation farce and a deposit scam.
Gunner

cj3driver said...

I wasn’t going to post this Ken, but since you struck my nerve again..

Mike Press’s journal from the Eclipse owner’s website:

“….we climbed to FL270 and flew at MCT to KGNV. At that altitude and MCT we were getting about 330Kts and 280pph per engine. We pull it back to 250lbs per side and only lost about 5kts. (Kent Ewing, Eclipse Chief Pilot showed me this trick). It seems you can get it up on the step and then pull it back a little to save fuel without much loss in airspeed….”

Suddenly your econo-wonder-jet isnt so econo-wonder anymore...
It makes sense that "mums" the word at Eclipse. At MCT and FL270 you have a 510 nm no wind aircraft. Pull the power back to 500lbs per hr and 325 kts and you have a 560 nm no wind aircraft.
... WOW ...
This, is using the larger “B” mod tip tanks. (1,686 lbs) 520 lbs of reserve, and a direct climb to FL 270. That’s over $1.00 per mile for fuel.

I have a feeling DayJet’s per mile per rate will be jumping up very soon. ATC will not be giving FL410 on a 250 mile trip.

Ken,
Of course, this could all change one the rest of the aero-mods are installed. Likc um … hmmm… um …. Retract the landing gear? …. Oh you did that…. Uh …. Um…. What do we really need two engines running up here for? …Once we get above gliding distance AGL, shut one down. Start it back up on approach. Yea… OK … OK. …Call DayJet. :)

In all seriousness, as posted before, …a Jet is a Jet. They burn fuel, that’s what there good at. Some a little more than others. After you've spent 2 mil for a jet does it really matter if you get 2.56 MPG vs. 3.21 MPG? There not Yugo's.

It’s all fun.
Viva la $500.00 hamburger.
Viva la Revolution.
Viva la Eclipse 500.

Ken, lets hope for some really, really slippery aero-mods. Cause if not, your 40% less than the Mustang is gone. Heck its not much better than a CJ3 in LRC.

cj3driver said...

Hey Ken,
Guess what… If the Mustang had to fly at FL270 for 500 NM it would burn 1,264 lbs.
Based on Press’s performance numbers, it takes the Eclipse 1,135 lbs for the same trip! (max range for this altitude). And, the Eclipse is currently 20 kts slower at this altitude. If you pull the power back on the Mustang to LRC, at FL270 it will achieve a range of over 850 nm before reserves.

The Eclipse is still a “cool Jet” but… revolutionary? Too bad the aero-mods don’t include 500 more lbs of fuel.

cj3driver said...

Actually Ken... No need to pull the power back on the Mustang. At FL 270 it will make 810 NM with 100 gallons reserve!

cj3driver said...

Hey Ken,
Guess what... I pulled out my '05 issue of BC&A and the performance of Mike Press's aircraft is very close to test aircraft flown in the article. This was over 2 years ago. Eclipse was promising aero-mods before June of 05! before production, before TC, before PC, 18 months before the first delivery, two years before Mike Press's delivery and a year before hundreds of people sent in thier 60% deposits.

And you are worried that a fully loaded Eclipse doesnt really cost $2 mil in 2010 dollars? Ok its $1,940,927.00. Nevermind the whole interest on deposits for 9 years and the 60% six month thing .... too confusing.
... But the aero-mods will be done next Tuesday. I'm sure.

cj3driver said...

From Mike Press’s Journal last Friday;

“…I had already coordinated with Eclipse JetComplete to do the 100 cycle windshield replacement in Gainesville. We were going to do it on Monday but because the tires needed checking anyway, I decided to go early at 98 cycles.

We arrived at the Gainesville Service Center at noon on Thursday. N229BW was the only airplane there until two new DayJet airplanes (s/n 21 and 22) showed up. They replaced all the windshields in less than 24 hours, put new tires on, serviced the airplane (oxygen, oil, fuel), changed out the DSU, performed some cosmetic touch ups (IOU’s) and I was on my way a little over 24 hours after arriving….”

Makes sense now why there is a DayPort in Gainesville. Since the Eclipse needs new tires and windows every 100 cycles, … lets see… based on DayJet utilization each aircraft must return to the service center every 7 days. With 21 planes in service, that’s three sets of tires and windows per day. That should keep the Gainesville center pretty busy. With that many flights into Gainesville for tires, DayJet could run a coupon special… after all, we were going there anyway!

fred said...

yes gunner you're right ! even if ti's cost only one dollars , if it's useless = it is still much too expensive ....!

for the final price of an E500 =

no needs to beat the bush ...

if you just assume for 2700 order they got 1.755.000.000 US$ (i know not every order is backed by a déposit , but there is outside investors , so all in all it should amount to the same ...so lets take that as a basis ...)

i assume they produced around 20/22 planes by now ...

so (quite simple ) how much is 1 Billion 755 Millions divided by 22 ? (i know .... but whatever "nice peoples" are going to say if you want the cost of production + cost of dev. to be made , only one way = this one !)

so the big question is "how many planes will have to be made , for eclipse to start to earn some profits ?? (if no profits at some point , better run away now ....!)

it wouldn't be such a big deal if only the dev.process would have infanted a flawless thingy .... but it seems to be very far from being that way .....!

so my guess is that within 1 year to 18 months eclipse will be completely out of anything spelled with cash , and after everybody will run for the exit ....!!!

so no real point to compare speed , flying level or operating costs , as one is a fruit of a proven making profits company , the other one is still a question mark (over)valuated 1.8 Million .....!!!

Stan Blankenship said...

Been away for a few days but the blog seems to do fine without me.

Headlines in today's Wichita paper:

"Firm Claims Bombardier Sold it a Bad Learjet 60"

Bombardier goes on trial today. Kestrel a Chicago air taxi operator is suing for $6.9 claiming:

"Learjet sold it a plane with deep-rooted problems that were never fixed and that Learjet hid those problems from it."

Most problems were electrical because the jets metal parts weren't properly bonded. The instrument panel went blank, the flight indicator would flash error messages and the autopilot went astray.

Learjet claims the plane was fine, after some initial repairs, and that Kestrel complanied constantly because of "lessee's remore."

Kestrel ordered the airplane before September 11, 2001...took delivery in February 2002. A period in which the charter market took a sharp decline.

One can only imagine what the future may bring for Eclipse.

Stan Blankenship said...

The complete Kestrel v Learjet article is on the web:


http://www.kansas.com/news/story/106621.html

Gunner said...

I doubt we'll be seeing any suits out of Boca. I suspect DayJet's investor base would be hesitant to chew its own arm off.
Gunner

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Mirage00 will say;

Thanks Stan, for keeping it real!

Yawn, see how the faithful are correct - Stan did a lousy job of building those Learjets, and now he is just jealous of Eclipse :)

Ken Meyer said...

CJ,

No jet is particularly efficient at low altitudes, but the Eclipse is pretty good--much better than, say, the Mustang. The Eclipse A Model gets 325 KTAS on 500 pph at FL270 per Mike Press. That's .65 nm/lb of fuel. At the same altitude, Mustang gets .43 nm/lb fuel burned. Eclipse is getting 51% better fuel efficiency at FL 270 than the Mustang.

As to range of the Eclipse at FL270, with the aeromods, it is about 950 nm at LRC, 700 nm at HSC, each with 45-minute reserve. It's not as good without the aeromods--that's why they decided to put them in :)

Ken

sparky said...

Ken,

Why would you want to fly at FL270 in a twin tubine aircraft anyhow. You compare the functional limitations of the eclipse with voluntarily limitations on the mustang.

Must suck to have to do that.

Gunner said...

Eclipse is now "functionally" limited to 18,000 feet. Mustangs regularly fly at FL410.

Just "keeping it real".
Gunner

HiFlyer said...

I know many of the posters here are involved with aviation on the airframe side but was wondering if anyone can enlighten me on the process involved with getting FAA approval on avionics. I've had a little experience with software on medical devices and would assume aviation would be similarly rigorous. With Avio being as complex and integrated as it appears, I would think the process
of software validation to be pretty time consuming

Second question for Ken: I noticed on the owners board that you have been notified of a November delivery. Have they asked for your 60% payment yet?

sparky said...

Sorry gunner, lapse in memory.

FL180. what's the operational characteristics at FL180. Ken?

cj3driver said...

Sparky

According to BC&A, at 15,000 ft, the E500 burns 760 pound per hour with 288 TAS. Leaving 500 lbs for reserve, it will achieve a tanks full range (max) of 350 miles in 1 hr 22 minutes at this altitude.

The numbers for a west bound flight at 16,500 will be pretty close, assuming no winds.

The aircraft reported on this aritcle was an A model.

cj3driver said...

Ken,

1. Can we assume Mike Press's numbers are accurate? (I think he's being honest, even though one would think he is biased towards Eclipse)

2. Can we assume Cessna's published FPG is accurate? (all the major Aviation publications have tested the Mustang and ALL say the Mustang performs BETTER than book)

If we agree that both sources are correct, than in the CURRENT configurations for both aircraft at FL270 and 500 NM at MCT and no wind;

Mustang 1264 lbs and 1 hr 33 min.
Eclipse 1165 lbs and 1 hr 37 min.

Thats a little less than 10% differance. And, if you belive the magazines, the Mustang beats the published numbers by 5%.

Both planes will perform better at LRC.

These are real numbers Ken.

It remains to be seen how much speed the aero mods will help on the Eclipse. I'm quite sure the engines will still burn 560 lbs per hour (at MCT) ...unless Pratt is doing B mods on the engines too!

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

3% thrust bump is reportedly part of the aero-mod, that don't come free.

I have heard the aero-mods really do improve speeds, there were apparently quite a few go-gets to be had.

Just wait until HawkerBeechcraft gets into the act!

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Based on the severity of failure conditions out of the system safety assessment (FAR23.1309) you will have to certify/qualify the software to one of the software development assurance levels according RTCA Document DO-178B.

Any primary system who's failure effect is Catastrophic will need to be certified to level B at least, and probably level A on a twin jet. Although they may have got away with Level B?

AC23.1309 page 16 has a chart.

I would expect that the Avio NG game plan is that the core of the Chelton software is already certified, with well defined interfaces, so they expect to port it to this new system without having to re certify it.

Obvious the display drivers, etc will need some programing and certification.

Green-or-Red said...

Put me in for 167 to be delivered this year.

HiFlyer said...

Stan

I vote for 97 this year.

gadfly said...

“Eclipse 500's” delivered by end of year, fully certified, fully functional, all promises kept including payload/range/speed/altitude/avionics/etc.:

Zero, Zip, Nada, “0" . . . as in, Not a single one!

gadfly

(That’s not a “vote”, but an expectation!)

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 326   Newer› Newest»