Monday, July 09, 2007


Bill e. Goat's July Update

Okay, here's my stab at translating Vern's latest weasel-o-gram into English...

-----------------------

Vern: "Since our first aircraft delivery on December 31, 2006, our primary objective has been a ramp-up to our production goals".

Goat: Vern, Vern, Vern- your primary objective since Jan 01, 2006 has been to ramp-up production. Whatever bogus paperwork (Osh Kosh 2006 “Provisional” TC) you had to do generate to “legitimize” it and lock in deposits. MAYBE the primary objective should have been/still be, to DESIGN the airplane, THEN ramp up production.

-------------------------

Vern: "In the second quarter we certified 26 aircraft, bringing our total for the first half of the year to 30 aircraft...you will see that we have only reported 17 aircraft for the second quarter...GAMA uses as a measurement point the actual sale of the aircraft, not the certification of the individual aircraft".

Goat: Okay Vern, I give up. With "2600+" "orders" on the "books", you mean you've “sold” 17 out of the 26??? Can someone P-L-E-A-S-E explain this one to me? (I flinch, because I'm afraid someone WILL have a truth-bending, I mean mind-bending, explanation).

--------------------------

Vern: "In fact, we expect to deliver over 20 aircraft during July".

Goat: Boy, you gotta really turn the anti-weasel filter to max to “ferret” out the truth here. Consider: Someone listening to all that mumbo jumbo about what a delivery is, would have given up, and “bit” on the concluding sentence and though “Wow- they're going to build 20 airplanes in July”. WRONG. Weasel-speak, for: We have 26-17 = 9 sitting around (?for what reason?) from 2007Q2, and we're going to "finish" "building" / "certifying" / "selling" / "delivering" 11 more just for the "month" of July. Okay, we'll "see". (I still don't get it- “not sold” yet??? What's this, the nutty “bidding” scheme in action- whens the auction over?)

--------------------------

Vern: "We will continue to notify customers of their expected delivery dates six months prior to delivery".

Goat: We'll lie to you to lock in your deposit with some B.S. proclamation that we'll build your airplane six months from now.

--------------------------

Vern: "...and update all customers on deliveries by quarter. The delivery numbers outlined in this quarterly report will also be provided to GAMA...but I wanted you - our loyal customers - to see them first".

Goat: We want you to hear the bad news first from us, before you hear it from the press.

--------------------------

Vern: "We completed certification flight testing on the improvements to the pitot/AOA system earlier this week. The FAA testing was conducted in a humid/rainy environment in actual Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) and cold soaking at altitude".

Goat: WOW. What a stroke of genius. Who could have anticipated an airplane would EVER fly in a rainy environment. OR, amazingly, EVER fly in ACTUAL IMC conditions? Or EVEN get cold soaked at altitude. Revolutionary! Visionary!!Stupendous!!!

--------------------------

Vern: "The Eclipse 500 was one of the most tested aircraft to be certified in the last 20 years".

Goat: The Eclipse 500 has had the most screwed up development and test program in the last 20 years.

----------------------------

Vern: "There was extensive and thorough FAA involvement including approval of the test plans for the airdata/pitot/AOA system that resulted in an unrestricted Type Certification of the aircraft".

Goat: You mean the FAA won't just let you think up fun things to go do on a whim? You mean, the FAA looks at- what do you call them- “test plans”???Stupendous!Verntastic!! (Oh, maybe they are referring to the test plans that EVERY manufacturer has to submit?).

------------------------------

Vern: "Yet this problem was caused by fairly unique meteorological conditions that went undetected even though we did numerous tests in Texas, Florida and even the Climate Test Chamber at Eglin Air Force Base".

Goat: Okay Vern, you've been keeping us in the dark about the marvelous short field capability of the E-500. Just how fast do you fly it in the Test Chamber- that must be some BIG hangar. Nice of you to mention Texas and Florida, but somehow, you don't mention the word "rain"? Just a careless omission, I'm sure.(Hmmm, or MAYBE it's because somebody KNEW it WOULD NOT WORK in the rain? Oh, just a silly passing thought. "Fairly unique meteorological conditions". Ah, that's it. Just as I thought. That darn pixie dust again. Darn pixies).

----------------------------

Vern: "Perhaps the fact that we live and work in a high desert environment contributed to the problem".

Goat: Well, maybe the thin air at that “high altitude” has something to do with the overall progress so far. Wonder if they've tested the baro altitude for below 5000 ft. I'm sure they have. Ah, in Texas and Florida. Yeah, Every thing's okay. Don't worry.

------------------------------

Vern: "So the fact that the problem went undetected is not the lesson, but how we as a company have responded to the problem is".

Goat: Okay, I don't think this one can be translated into English. Anyone want to try? My best stab at it linguistically: “How we as a company responded to the problem is the lesson. But the lesson is NOT detecting or solving undetected problems”. Interesting, and revolutionary. Again.

----------------------------

Vern: "But virtually all newly certified aircraft have had problems inherent in the design that were not discovered in the certification testing. How the company supports those aircraft when the problem is discovered is the important issue".

Goat: Well, I guess you could just play dumb (wait a minute, you're already doing that), and let planes crash, and get sued, and have your TC revoked. Or, well, kind of support the resolution, like, the "Dinosaurs" do. Revolutionary, ...well, you know the rest. Again.

--------------------------

Vern: "We are still on track to cut the performance modifications into the production line at aircraft 39. In fact, aircraft 39 is currently in final assembly with all of the performance modifications incorporated".

Goat: Another linguistically intriguing mound of Vernisms. My best translation form Weasel to English:“We are still on track to do it. No, wait- in fact, we have already done it”.Vern, why not think big and go long: “In fact, we did it a long time ago”.

-----------------------------

Vern: “Things are busy at Eclipse as we continue to accelerate our manufacturing ramp and gear up for another exciting EAA AirVenture show”

Goat: And what a spectacle, I mean show, it is...

218 comments:

1 – 200 of 218   Newer›   Newest»
Stan Blankenship said...

Goat is very good at reading between the lines...that is where the truth often lies.

In the mid-70's, my wife and I were traveling by train through communist East Germany. We shared our compartment with a third guy, an East German business man.

He asked us a lot of questions, many related to politics and social issues in the U.S.. He was very well informed so I asked him how he knew so much, did he read about these things in the government controlled press?

He laughed and said, "No, they would never print such things, but we get very good at reading between the lines, that is where the truth lies."

Ken Meyer said...

Two days ago, gunner complained,

"They've scrapped the JetComplete pricing and can't seem to come up with new pricing; which tells us that even THEY aren't yet able to predict maintenance costs."

So, I decided to ask Eclipse about the pricing of JetComplete. They were only too happy to provide it:

$149/hour covers maintenance, one-call AOG service, Jepp chart service, XM weather, flightplanning, flight support, insurance and fuel discounts, recurrent pilot training, etc etc etc.

It was increased from the $115 originally announced several years ago, but remains less than the comparable Mustang programs even though that coverage is for parts and labor only (i.e. it excludes data service, weather service, training, insurance discounts, etc).

Gunner, I guess they figure they ARE able to predict those costs after all :)

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Hopefully, they will be for more accurate at predicting costs for JetComplete than they have demonstrated about other things like say schedules, costs to deisgn certify and produce the airplane, estimating project complexity, or designing systems that actually do what they said they would - you know, the basics.

I am suew that this new 'accurate' number will be the accurate number, until it is not the accurate any longer, should happen Tuesday.

So after being wrong about basically everything so far, they REALLY have JetComplete down pat - yeah, right.

So a 30%+ increase in JetComplete so far, and no news about Avio NfG, training, structural limitations, etc.

Look for a lot of fanfare for Avio NfG mockups at OSH along with a 'conforming' aircraft - just like the 'conforming' duct tape on the A700 prototype that Vern mocked with such enthusiasm not that long ago - wait, it was 5 years, two avionics suppliers, an engine manufacturer and over half a billion dollars ago.

Wonder how The Vern likes his crow....

Metal Guy said...

The silence on Avio NG is glaring. I can see it now from Vern: “Well, it was a lot harder than anyone originally thought and we ran into all sorts of unforeseen challenges.”

No Vern, it’s not harder than anyone thought – it’s just you because you don’t know what the F&*%$ you’re doing.

Vern, you’re making a complete fool of yourself – go back to the dot com world and fail in some body else’s industry.

Metal Guy said...

Avio NfG Sorry....

Shane Price said...

Yesterday, Ken was a little hot under the collar:-

"...and, by the way, not one of those communications was intended for you to read in the first place. They were private communications reproduced here without permission."

Today, ANN have an 'amused' commentary, if any of the faithful are interested.

So, Ken, did ANN get Vern's permission?

Or does Vern (as even I can appreciate) fully understand that anything he sends out to the 'position holders' is bound to reach the public domain?

So, having failed with that misdirection, Ken goes for the classic 'quote Eclipse numbers not available to anyone who is not a postion holder' with Jet Complete.

A small, friendly bit of advice for you Ken. Ignore numbers coming out of ABQ, they are bound to change. Even you must now appreciate that no matter what Vern says today, it will change by 'Tuesday'.

Another thought struck me about all the bits Eclipse have to take off the E499.5. There must be at least enough certified parts to produce the E249.25.

Hell, make the E249.25 light enough and the EJ22 will be up to the job.

Again.

Just think. Another couple of hundred deposits, then progress payments, then supplier failures. Vern could keep it up for decades...


Shane

airtaximan said...

Shane:

imagine how long (this is exactly what Vern is doing, by the way...) he can keep this up, with another model plane announced?

Decades, and decades...heck, the way things are going, his first projection was around 3 years to first delivery, and its been more like 7... another model can come with a 2 year certification promise, non-refundable deposits, firm price price, guaranteed performance etc..."guarantees-to-be-revised-when-we-figure-out-what-we-are-really-able-to-do" - buys another 10 more years or so.

It's brilliant!

4 place, single, $675,000... V-tail, perhaps? Naw.... too rediculous...

Gunner said...

Ken-
That's the beauty of JetIncomplete. It's just so "flexible". Just look at the latest Eclipse price for it. This is the REAL DEAL. Well it's the REAL DEAL since the last REAL DEAL was pronounced a DEAD DEAL.

You Eclipse guys sure do know how to "keep it REAL", no?
Gunner

Shane Price said...

ATman,

Sorry for the awful pun, but I feel a

YesterDay Jet coming on....

What's holding Eb back? Surely Vern would not let his main customer down, by allowing a competitor beat DAYJet to the market?

On a serious note, sounds like Lineair target 'high net worth' individuals with their services to the playgrounds on the East coast. Seems sensible to add a jet to that mix. After all, you can see the cocktails before dinner, with the casual 'we got a jet down this weekend, is sooo much faster' oneupmanship.

Oh, and Ryanair have decided to take on the entire EU. Michael (O'Leary) is pissed that his takeover of Air Lingus was blocked by the Commission (no, not the ruling council of La Cosa Nostra, but similar) last week.

He wants all state subsidy removed from airlines like Air France/KLM, Lufthansa and Alitalia.

Until someone points out that 'his' fleet of 737-800's are being paid for (in part) by the long suffering AMERICAN taxpayer!

Business. Don't you just love it.

Shane
PS. Just added the Ryanair bit in case you missed it. It does not seem to have impacted across your side of the pond yet.

Ken Meyer said...

shane wrote,

"Today, ANN have an 'amused' commentary, if any of the faithful are interested.

So, Ken, did ANN get Vern's permission?"


Beats me. But ANN wouldn't necessarily have to in order to cite portions of copyrighted material for news reporting purposes. That is different from the wholesale reproduction of copyrighted material without permission.

United States Copyright law is complicated; you can start your investigation of it here.

"A small, friendly bit of advice for you Ken. Ignore numbers coming out of ABQ, they are bound to change. Even you must now appreciate that no matter what Vern says today, it will change by 'Tuesday'."

I got a kick out of that one Shane, thanks. I should ignore what Eclipse says and get all my information right here. Makes perfect sense! :)

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

Here is the Linear Air announcement that they're receiving their first Eclipse Jet today, ushering in "a new era of personal air transportation at business airline prices."

Also you can take your very own 360-degree tour of the Eclipse right here.

Ken

Shane Price said...

Ken,

Copyright is simple. It is governed by Federal law, and reinforced by many UN and bilateral treaties.

Legislation to protect people from complex fraud, now that's difficult. Perhaps you might care to improve your own position by reviewing the law where you reside.

On the Jet Complete numbers you gave, which confirm the '30%' increse on the original ORIGINAL prices, I was simply offering advice. I'm glad you found it amusing. I don't think a 30% increase in operating cost is funny, but I'm happy that you do.

By all means use sources other than this blog when considering serious purchase decisions.
All I was (mildly) advising was not to rely on Eclipse for hard fact.

By his own admission, Vern has unilaterally redefined an industry wide term, Delivery, to mean what he SAYS it means. I would love to be in such a position in my small efforts.

'Hey, you over there, your equipment is delivered. Pay me now, come and inspect it, but don't take it away, it's not ready yet'

See, that is what (in effect) the current 'owners' are being asked to put up with.

THAT is amusing. For me but not, I'm sure, for them.

Shane

airtaximan said...

Shane... you make it seem like there have been many owners who have had to put up with a redined "delivery"...

There have only been a few, really.

The other 380 plus whatever number you believe about the order book (up to 2700) have had to put up with years of waiting, and in all liklihood...

someone diverting their deposit and progress-payment money to develop a new plane, so the company can make a new case for staying in business... 'cause the ype about the high-rate low cost e-500 is, well, relegated to hype. No reality there... good time to divert efforts and start another development program.

Sorry... We at E-clips find it easier to take deposit money based on new paper planes with fantastic guaranteed numbers... and huge market projections, AS OPPOSED TO finishing the aircraft you already bought 7 years ago.

Only a few have enjoyed any sort of "delivery" - most will wait and watch as their money is being used for product development, to try to save the company FROM the realities associated with one they already bought.

Bonanza Pilot said...

I just can't believe that Vern would announce a new single engine jet at OSH...there is no way. There is already too much competition in that space (Diamond, Cirrus, Piper and now Epic) If Vern wants a high volume of sales doesn't he need air taxi? And for air taxi doesn't he have to go bigger?

I have seen some amazing and surprising things out of Eclipse so far...but if they actually announce a single engine jet in the midst of the disaster which is the Eclipse almost 500....well that would top them all.

airtaximan said...

Stan:

I guess a new 4 place single to be launched at Oshkosh is boring....

No one seems to want to come near this subject.

Any thoughts as to why?

I would think there would be a bunch of opinions about what a terrific thing this will be for e-clips, or how insane it is...

Any clue?

Shane Price said...

Ken,

The Linear Air press release also says that they will be flying home to Boston next Tuesday.

Sorry, next week.

Be a long and expensive trip, at FL180, dodging them pesky fluffy things, during daylight hours only.

Better wait for the FAA AD to be lifted. Hang on, in a few more 'Tuesdays' the aero mods will be fitted. Why not wait until then?

Aha, if you wait for the aero mods, you might be tempted to hang on for Avio NG.

On Tuesday....

Get my drift Ken? Take delivery and pay in full, for part of what you were promised, with more binding/written promises to update/modify/improve (delete as you see fit) and so on.

Another thing. Putting a half finished toy in front of the East Coast Pilgrims is a very dangerous (for Eclipse) thing. It could backfire.

You know those folks in Boston. They have very short fuses and are quick to dump things they don't like into the harbour.

I presonally could not approve such a course, as I quite like tea, but those radicals can get very annoyed....

Sorry, I forgot, we were talking about a jet. Or something that at least pretends to be a jet. From time to time. When the AD is lifted. On Tuesday.


Shane

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

9Z,

Material removed per your request.

It appears that Ken is getting more edgy and defensive the closer it comes for Eclipse to call his number for delivery.

Guess I would be edgy too.

One would have to be a true believer to accept a half-finished airplane on the promise of some future fix(s).

No I wouldn't, would have bailed long ago...too many unfulfilled promises.

Damn, now goat has me talking to myself.

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

NZ....

Bold, very bold. You are a bad, BAD blogger.

I like Steve Martin. That bit was funny, but a tad hard on the Faithful.

Actually, forget the bold/bad bit.

And thanks also for the insight into Verns 'private' communications.

While I'm at it, Goat deserves a polite thank you, for his work on clearing up the Vernisims we have to plough through.

HOWEVER...

You better be careful. We all need Stan to stay focused, and not end up in a corner somewhere, babbeling to himself. Which we all would blame (of course) on you Goat, even though we know your heart is in the right place.

Shane

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

Linear Air is advertising for pilots on the subscription only Flight Info web site:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=1368709#post1368709

cj3driver said...

I just read the AIN article “Flightguy” posted a link to a few days ago. It featured a demo flight in a DayJet E500. They quote:

“…DayJet says its business model allows the company to make money even if only one of the three passenger seats is occupied…”

Yet further in the article the author quotes that the trip from BCT to LAL (140nm) took 520 lbs of fuel. Excuse me, …but that’s $300 dollars in fuel (at $3.85 per gal). That comes to well over $2 per mile fuel only. If DayJet is selling seats a $1 per mile, they would need all three seats full, just to cover the fuel costs. And, I hope there will be some another customer(s) waiting at LAL for the next flight, or the dead leg somewhere else to pick up a paying customer(s) will make further losses. Granted, most of the trip was below 18K, but I believe this is realistic for a 140nm flight. Even if it was flown IFR, ATC probably would not have given any higher routing, maybe even a longer route due to arrival/departure sequencing.

Also interesting is that the fuel flow numbers. (although not scientific)

AIN reported:

15,000 ft - 230 kts and 334 pounds per hour. 4.6 nmpg cruise
17,000 ft - 225 kts and 410 pounds per hour. 3.7 nmpg cruise

Mike Press:

17,500 ft 265 and 500 pounds per hour. 3.5 nmpg

These numbers shows average of over $1 per mile in cruise, plus add fuel for climb and taxi/take-off, add approach and arrival distances at lower altitudes and it jives back to $2 per mile.

A jet is a jet … Eclipse no different.

cj3driver said...

NinerZ said;

“…The thing that bothers me so much about Eclipse is the character flaws that exist in the management…. they try to sell you something they don't have, stretch the truth, conceal problems until after they have obtain your money, ad nauseum...”

9Z, well said.

Did you read the BC&A July issue. Vern claims the E500 could do the same trip (weather permitting) demonstrated by the TBM850 from San Deigo, CA to Atlanta, GA (1,640 nm), nonstop on less fuel and land with reserves. This guy will say anything at this point. Will he allow a third party (any national publication) test fly the aircraft? ….NO

So…. We wait. And why not?... anyone can purchase a Eclipse position for less than the cost of a new factory slot. Some advertised over 100K less.

And… unless you are a position holder, an investor, an employee or a vendor … it can be amusing!

gadfly said...

‘Come December 31, 2007,

Zero . . . Nada . . . Nothing . . . !

gadfly

(‘Based on implied original claims!)

airtaximan said...

Question to all the big brains out there:

How much would it cost for e-clips to develop a new airplane, say a single engine 4-place?

How much would it cost them to deveop one so that it flies into Oshkosh in a few weeks?

Let's call it, one of Vern's "fully-conforming prototypes" - how much?

How much?

EclipseOwner387 said...

Well I did it. I own SN28. It is gorgeous. I took delivery yesterday. COA was June 26. My test flight was fantastic - very solid. The plane is also very quiet. I was able to carry on a normal conversation in the cabin. We went to 16,500 FT on the flight west and flew for about 1 hr. At MCT we were doing 300 KTAS on about 600 lbs/hr. I used Aviva to do my acceptance and it was well worth the money. Very detailed inspection and professional check list. The Eclipse team was great and very accomodating. The fit and finish was much nicer than I was expecting. The paint looked nice and nothing like the pictures that were floating around that showed poor silk screening. Obviously they gave me a long list of IOU's but I left confident that I will get them. SN31 was in the delivery bay with mine and ready for delivery. A lot of actvity on the ramp with other Eclipse jets and the L39 trainer.

It was a very fun trip. Nothing beats the smell of a new jet!

;-)

thebigriper said...

Congratulations EO28.

Hope you get a lot of enjoyment and satisfaction with your new jet. I'll admit; I'm envious of anyone that gets to realize a desire like this.
Have fun and fly safe.

Griper

Stan Blankenship said...

eo387,

I am sure everyone here is happy for you and wish you many happy hours of flying.

I believe you went into the transaction with eyes wide open so there is no reason to second guess your decision.

Thanks for sharing the news.

Now about the empty weight and CG location, care to share the numbers from the AFM?

bill e. goat said...

"And… unless you are a position holder, an investor, an employee or a vendor … it can be amusing"!

Hmmm. Whether or not I attribute that above quote to cj3criver (well, it was above, I've been working on this a while), it could be argued that I committed copyright infringement.

(Argued, but probably not won...)
------------------------------

I love this blog!
I hate this blog!

It raises so many interesting questions, I spend too much time looking things up! I am continually amazed at how little I know! Ah, wait a minute, that didn't come out quite right...

A few months ago, I learned a lot about acrylics (windshields were the topic, back then).

And then there was inner-granular corrosion and FSW.

Lots of interesting discussions on the finances of air taxi operations.

Just to name a few of the many interesting, and pertinent, topics discussed.

And now, legal stuff! Got to admit, I spent a few hours surfing around about copyright stuff today.

(My conclusion, the blog represents "fair use", although Ken makes a point about copying in entirety, but since it was open sourced, as 9Z points out, and not for profit, and used as a critique, and parody, I think the courts would throw it out).

But, what do I know (ah, please, you can think it but don't say it!!!)- I also thought the FAA would have also used the rule of law (CFR), and thrown out the lame-o "provisional" (and almost equally lame-o "real") E-500 certifation, but the DC types pulled some strings.

Then, Vern pulled a few strings himself, as in "behind door number 2, Avio-NG!" Fool the public, then fool the FAA. No doubt, gonna grandfather a lot in, on an airplane with, ah, a couple dozen "deliveries" or so?

(Kind of like the Lear 28/29 about 25 years ago, a few built as a "bridge" contrivance- albeit very beautiful ones, as things were related to me once upon a time).

Well, enough of that negative talk. Or I'm going to start talking to myself too. (Don't mind, as long as I'm the one who wins the arguments...)

---------------------------
for those interested (well, it's sort of interesting, sort of...):

1) Wikipedia (of course!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

2) Don't know who these guys are, but nice info:
www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/faq.cgi

3) Electronic Freedom Foundation. I've heard of these guys- I'd send these guys a few bucks when you get a chance- this is BIG TIME important. These guys ARE the ACLU of the internet.

(Lots of fun to bash the ACLU; nobody agrees with what they have to say, until you're on the short end of a REAL (none-whiny) civil liberties issue. I don't "like" many of the suits they file, but IMHO, they are sincere- even if we do WISH they were biased towards our own individual points of view).

Anyway, I don't want to get us off on a tangent with ACLU. But do check out the EFF link).
www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php

4) A lot of good info from Stanford University:
http://tinyurl.com/27dtbs

-------------------------
www.learjetsales.com/article.htm

Nice Learjet site. And yes, thank you very much, I (and I suspect everyone else) WOULD like to hear Stan's comments about the Lear 28/29 "bridge" (even back then, it seemed a little, Vern-ish, to me. Bill Lear and Vern, two aviation showmen and aviation geniuses. (Okay, so I'm batting .750 :)

bill e. goat said...

By the way, in light of today's legal considerations, I've decided Eclipse should trademark "Delivery".

Trademark (Wikipedia): "to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities". Certainly, an Eclipse Delivery(tm) is, ah, "distinctive" and unique.

Niner Zulu said...

EO387 - congratulations! I didn't know you were actually going to take delivery, but I'm glad you did and I hope that you will report back here with detailed, accurate and unbiased information on your aircraft. The good, the bad, the ugly.

You're right - there is nothing like the smell of a new jet.

:-)

cj3driver said...

EO387(28)

Double congradulations! I agree with 9Z. Delivery flight in a new jet an incredible experience reserved for a lucky few.

Here's to many enjoyable flights and adventures.

I'm very sure we are all anxious to hear actual flight reports and experiences with the company.

cj3driver said...

EO287,

“…We went to 16,500 FT on the flight west and flew for about 1 hr. At MCT we were doing 300 KTAS on about 600 lbs/hr….”

When you say MCT, are the throttles in the Max Continuous Trust, FADEC detent or was this the MCT for the KIAS airspeed redline at this altitude? In other words, are you pulling the power back at this altitude to keep from over speeding, or does the FADEC do it for you?
Do you recall the N1% power at this speed and altitude?

Thanks

cj3driver said...

Niner Z,

Thanks for sharing.

Are you sure this is new communication? In the letter, Vern refers to the grand opening of Gainesville service Center which “will” be on June 15, and many statements regarding “will be” as if the center is not open as of the writing. If the letter is dated the 10th of July, the center has been open almost a month already.

redtail said...

9Z, as reliable as ever. Check the date on the email. The "6" at the beginning of the date means June.

Gunner said...

Sincere congrats to EO. Safe flying, Brother.
Gunner

Black Tulip said...

EO387

All the best with serial number 28. Please keep us posted.

Black Tulip

EclipseOwner387 said...

CJ3,

The power levers were pulled back from take off thrust and set in the MCT position. Sorry, I don't recall the N1 numbers.

Gunner said...

EO-
Are you able to confirm whether or not you're under a Non-Disclosure regarding AFM numbers. If the question puts you on the spot, I'll have no problem if you simply ignore it.

Also, did you take the jet home or is it living for a while at ABQ?
Gunner

Stan Blankenship said...

The faithful have criticized the blog for not printing enough positive news.

Vern's July Update was released to the public sector. The blog, as it has with all of Vern's messages, brought it forward, front and center.

Ken took exception (probably not with Vern's message but rather the blog's bitting analysis), voiced a complaint, and Vern's comment was removed, sort of.

Now there is a follow up letter from Vern. If the faithful want others to read this latest progress report, e-mail the text and I will put it up front and center.

Stan Blankenship said...

goat,

You mentioned the Learjet 28/29 as a "bridge" contrivance...that they were.

The company wanted to build the Model 55...with a stand up toilet...certified to FL 510...with winglets.

Too much groundbreaking for a clean sheet airplane so the company broke it into smaller bites. First certify the winglets and FL 510 with a modified Model 25. Then move to the 55.

The Model 35 was not used since the fan engines couldn't get the airplane up much above FL 450 (at least around Wichita). The GE powered Model 25's could easily make the higher altitude so the 28 and 29's became the "bridge" contrivance.

Linden Blue (Spectrum Aircraft) was really the main man behind driving the 28/29/55 projects.

My claim to fame, I sold (a loose term) half the Model 29 production. Four total built as I recall. Two went to my customer whose name I can't reveal since I signed some silly paper agreeing to never, never, never, never tell who bought the airplanes.

Goat likes the blog because it provides different topics to research. Here's another.

The Wichita test pilots couldnt't get the Model much above FL 450.

Jim Bir and I on a leg between Leticia, Peru (on the headwaters of the Amazon) and Lima, with seven on board a 35A, climbed up to FL 518 (no mis-print 518).

The high altitude temperatures near the equator are much lower (ISA minus) than what they are at the higher latitudes. It was no problem for the airplane, but a dumb thing to do.

Bonanza Pilot said...

Stan
Is there a legal reason that you are not printing those letters? If it is just to appease Ken, that is just ridiculous...reminds me of the lawsuits that are used to silence free speech. What would be wrong with posting the words of the great and mighty Vern? They are filled with enough spin to dry a load of laundry. You aren't posting a secret document that gives competitors advantage - but a carefully crafted PR letter from the Vernmeister! This blog is about the open exchange of info, and I have always appreciated Ken's insights into the Eclipse - but if he is going to stop info from being posted then he should just leave and go post on the owners blob with all the other Koolaid drinkers.

airtaximan said...

EO,

congrats. You got in a few weeks before the exodus due to the realization the company produced another plane with the deposit-money/progress-payments instead of finishing and completing the first one.

Kidding of course, the faithful will wait and wait.

Firm grip, empty bag. Vern's a smart guy.

Happy flying.

You are the deposit-spec king. Something tells me, after all was said and done trading, the e-500 cost you around $1 million.

Same as the original ad price of $779,000 in year 2000 dollars, or thereabouts!

Fly safe.

mirage00 said...

EO,

Congrats. You will love your new bird!

Don't kid yourself; the "bashers" are indeed envious.

I remain amused

double 00

hummer said...

Vern & group at Eclipse are the subject of this blogs critics.
Ed at DayJet may or may not be a visionary. . .time will tell.
However, the folks up at Lineair seem to have their airtaxi business operational and profitable with a degree of excellence and experience.
Why then would they purchase and promote an Eclipse for their charter operations? Are they stupid and uninformed too? Don't they realize that the Eclipse can in no way be considered an airtaxi? Don't they read this blog and understand the expertise here? Perhaps someone should advise them. I mean, why waste a million and a half on an uncompleted VFR aircraft. This could more wisely put to a payment on another Caravan. How do we account for this behavior?

mirage00 said...

However, the folks up at Lineair seem to have their airtaxi business operational and profitable with a degree of excellence and experience.
Why then would they purchase and promote an Eclipse for their charter operations? Are they stupid and uninformed too? Don't they realize that the Eclipse can in no way be considered an airtaxi? Don't they read this blog and understand the expertise here? Perhaps someone should advise them. I mean, why waste a million and a half on an uncompleted VFR aircraft. This could more wisely put to a payment on another Caravan. How do we account for this behavior?


Excellent question... one could only assume Vern has them in his back pocket as well... I see no other logical explanantion :) Maybe Stan can offer some insight?

I remaim amused

double 00

Plastic_Planes said...

"Aviation insiders reported to CharterX that Eclipse is going to make a major announcement--perhaps this month-- that it intends to produce a single-engine jet. Eclipse refused to comment. Herp said "unofficially" he's heard the same thing within the industry, but has no personal knowledge that Eclipse is going to announce such a project. However, during a press conference last year, Eclipse CEO Vern Raburn hinted that the company was involved with another aircraft design."

http://www.charterx.com/resources/article.aspx?id=2854

Picked off the wires this morning. The article is mostly about Linear Air and their new toy.

OSH is less than 3 weeks away!

/s/

EclipseOwner387 said...

Thanks to everyone for the kind words and well wishes. I decided to lease the plane back to Eclipse. My guess is about 1/3rd of delivered airplanes are on leaseback. Lack of Sim and Demo's are keeping the lease backed planes pretty busy. I have currently opted for a Sales and Marketing only lease. I get paid a lower rate than a training lease but I expect less cycle wear and tear this way. I am hoping I will get the AD fix quicker as Eclipse wants to have the full envelope when demonstrating. It will also allow potential clients the opportunity to sit up front on demo rides. Training estimated for September so putting in lease back was best choice for me.

As always, I may sell this pretty bird to a good offer so don't be too surprised if I report a trade in the future. I have to say though that selling the actual plane versus a position is much harder for me. I am already attached to her!

Ken Meyer said...

bonanza wrote,

"Is there a legal reason that you are not printing those letters? If it is just to appease Ken, that is just ridiculous"

Let's be crystal clear here, Bonanza--I just pointed out that the material was a private communication reproduced without permission. It doesn't bother me a bit if Stan posts that stuff here.

What bothered me was Rich's incessant nitpicking of the contents of a communication that wasn't intended for him in the first place.

I think Stan probably took a look at the copyright laws and realized that the wholesale reproduction of materials is a tricky area. And we all know the company never hesitates to enforce its legal rights. I doubt they would here, but maybe Stan doesn't want to take that chance, I dunno.

In any event, he can post any doggone thing he wants, as far as I'm concerned :)

Ken

gadfly said...

An amazing thing just took place on this blogsite. In less than 200 words, a “satisfied customer” has openly answered questions without insulting other “bloggers”, nor Eclipse. He has revealed his “emotions”, and his future intentions. He has given us a candid view of the little jet, it’s inner workings (corporate and technical), and smoothed the way for his next move.

We are all grateful!

gadfly

(It has been said that “A picture is worth a thousand words.” In this case, I would say, “200 words is worth a thousand pictures.”)

airtaximan said...

"What bothered me was Rich's incessant nitpicking of the contents of a communication that wasn't intended for him in the first place."

HAHAHHHAAAHHHA! That's funny.

How about the "new" plane? Wouldn't THAT be a HOOT!

- look at the history, look at the characters, look at the market landscape, and look at the real problems... AND just maybe you can understand what they are doing over there in ABQ.

- The e-500 CANNOT fulfill its promise. Cannot be produced and sold at higher rate, for anywhere near the price. THEY NEED ANOTHER EXCUSE...

If at first you don't succeed... try, try, try again.

A lot of CEO's would have admitted a long time ago they screwed the pooch - gotta love the gumption. A little distraction over here... a little diversion over there - Poof - no one will ever remember the 500-promise anyway.

Welcome to Oshkosh 2007, where the new e-clips will be announced. Look for a fly in - "we've been working on it secretly for a long time now!" ...sound familiar.

It's beginning to feel like Marx Brothers aviation over there.

"By the 1920s the Marx Brothers had become one of America's favourite theatrical acts. With their sharp and bizarre sense of humour, they satirized institutions such as high society and human hypocrisy. They also became famous for their improvisational comedy in free form scenarios. A famous early instance was when Harpo told a chorus girl to run across the stage in front of Groucho during his act with him chasing to see if Groucho would be thrown off. However, to the audience's delight, Groucho merely reacted by calmly checking his watch and commenting, "First time I ever saw a taxi hail a passenger". When Harpo chased the girl back the other direction, Groucho adlibbed, "You can always set your watch by the 9:20".

mirage00 said...

Anyone notice how angry "airtaximan" is?

An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes.
Cato The Elder

I remain amused

double 00

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Anybody notice how totally devoid of substance the comments from Zero are?

Hope that subscription to 'Obscure Quotes Quarterly' pays off and he can convince the other dolts he is smart by repeating what actually smart people say - whether he sees the irony in his selection of quotes or not.

I still hold that Eclipse would be suicidal to devote any time or money to another product when the current product remains so completely and publicly unfinished. I have heard on several occasions that there are no development projects underway beyond daydreaming, and that this is actually demoralizing to the team.

The beatings will continue until morale improves!

Stan Blankenship said...

Ken,

The subject material was removed at the request of niner zulu who provided the original text.

Whether or not Vern's updates get posted on this blog is immaterial and won't change the ultimate fate for the Eclipse program.

Without a change in direction, sooner or later the company will run out of money, and sooner or later, every single fact will come out.

gadfly said...

The "New Year" begins on Tuesday!

gadfly

(So much to do . . . so little time!)

Bonanza Pilot said...

Ken,
I appreciate that...I do want to know everything possible, and the threat of litigation shuts people up big time. I sometimes wish I had gone to law school, if only to be able to say things in a "lawsuit friendly" way. If you think about it, it would not be beyond anyones imagination that Eclipse could sue Stan and every member of the blog who posted a negative comment..they could claim that these malicious untrue statements hurt confidence in the product and damaged their business. I know it would be b.s...and they would probably lose in court - but think of the money it would cost to defend our basic right to freedom of expression. That is why I get so sensitive to legal threats pouring cold water on our first amendment rights.

Shane Price said...

Has everyone gone mad?

Its serial number 28 we're talking about here.

On the 11th of July 2007.

While I congratulate EO387 (or should he now be renamed...) I have to point out that he will wait another two months (at least) for his Type Cert. He has been left with no real choice but to lease it back to Eclipse. The AD (pitot) fix is not on, the aeromods are nowhere in sight and Avio NG still does not rate a mention. And EO 387 has parted with a wad of cash for, in effect, a load of IOU's.

But no plane, if you get my drift.

Sorry about the bucket of cold water, but the first point has also to be repeated.

It's SN 28 on 07/11/2007.

Not SN 387...

Shane

gadfly said...

Shane

Please keep your voice down. The “man” is making the best of the situation.

In a month or two, the “serial number” will have been “friction stir fried” into “Chop Suey” . . . and who can tell what’s in any of those exotic concoctions, anyhow. “Chop Suey”, “Chow Mein”, “Pu-Pu Platter” . . . with a side order of “Pu” . . . it all begins to taste about the same. And special training to use “chop-sticks” behind a flat screen . . . with plenty of “sweet-n-sour” sauce . . . and an optimistic “fortune cooky”, you want to come away without “Egg-on-your-face-foo-yong” . . .

‘Just be careful you don’t lose your “noodle”!

gadfly

(Next time we’ll talk about “How to wok a dog” . . . and other good recipes.)

airtaximan said...

Mirage,

The Marx Brothers are FUNNY... buddy.

I would have thought that you would be AMUSED by the reference to them, and the analogy to your favorite clown leading the company that has apparently (not sure yet... but there seems to be some more "opinions" about the littler-jet that's gonna fly at Oshkosh...) diverted attention to a new product, instead of completing and delivering the one hundreds of customers already paid for, is well… quite a show to watch.

You gotta admit, its been a year since they started production, and the list just keeps on growing on what they are owing. The letters from Vern are more criptic. AND, they diverted their attention... while delivering less than 10% of what they promised so far.

... and they are hiring production workers...

Groucho, Chico, Harpo...Zeppo... which one?

Amusing, isn't it?

PS. It must be making you angry to always be wrong, even though you have such perfect information, and all we have is years of experience, a keen BS meter, critical thinking and some intuition.

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

niner zulu wrote,

"One question though - would you feel as good about the deal if you had just spent $1.5 mil? That's the position most of us are in and why we feel a little different about it."

Heck, plenty of people have purchased at $1.5 million. And why not? If you bought it at $1.5M, you'd be getting the performance of a Mustang at about half the price. Your ongoing operating expenses would be about 40% less, and you'd pick up some nice features (like true FMS and workload-reducing integrated avionics).

You can't buy a single-engine turboprop like the Meridian or the TBM-850 for the price of this twin-engine jet. At $1.5M, the plane is a slam dunk, and it will probably be $2 million this time next year.

People who buy the plane for $1.5 million do so because they believe in the plane and its advanced features. And they don't like wasting their money--they don't see a reason to pay twice as much for the same performance.

But there is definitely a penalty for making the more cost-effective choice. The company has had (and very well may continue to have) some teething pains as they roll out the plane. But never lose sight of the fact that many of the naysayers said Eclipse would never get a Type Certificate. Then they said they'd never get a Production Certificate. They said they'd never deliver the first customer airplane.

All those dire predictions were flatout wrong. So is the current crop of "the sky is falling" estimates about the company. The company will deliver the plane they promised--maybe not as fast as you'd like, but they'll do it.

Did they fail to produce hundreds of airplanes this year as they originally forecast? You bet. But so what? They're cranking up now. I'm mighty glad I ordered mine before the price goes up.

By the time it becomes crystal-clear to the world that Eclipse is delivering the planes they promised and doing it in quantity, there are going to be a lot of pilots saying "I wish I'd bought one when it was $1.5 million" and a lot of naysayers saying "I don't understand; how did they do that?"

Ken

bill e. goat said...

Congratulations to E0387 for not getting his plane. I mean, getting it but not getting it. I mean Delivery(tm) of his plane.

But, with that poke at Vern and not our chum EO387, I do think he will be happy with it once it's "home" (delivered delivered).

And think it is wise (ah, well, sort of unavoidable) that it stays in ABQ. It will be even more enjoyable once it has gone through "finishing school".

(That raises an uncomforting spectre- remember all the community college auto shop classes that would overhaul your carb, tranny, brakes, etc., at marvelously low price, just to give the "students" the experience? Well, don't think about that too much).

Anyway, sincere best wishes for many years of happy and safe use.

airtaximan said...

Ken:

when you say "But never lose sight of the fact that many of the naysayers said Eclipse would never get a Type Certificate. Then they said they'd never get a Production Certificate. They said they'd never deliver the first customer airplane."

I think you are wrong. I do not remember anyone saying this, really. Its been crystal clear since Vern came up with engine supplier number-2 to replace his fantastic proprietary ej-22 revolutionary engine, plus hundreds of millions of dollars, more, that he could by the time to get a TC and a PC.

Almost all of the naysayers have said:
1- the plane is not designed for durability

2- the company does not have nearly the orders required for profitability, and claims of fat order books have been a fabrication - most orders are from a sister-company despite claims to the contrary for a long time

3- there have been many quality issues, that have really reflected a lack of concern for quality

4-the plane is not finished

5-the original price and performance guarantees are gone with the wind

6-the original "game changing" technologies have found their way into the garbage, so wat do you have anyway, except a plane that is priced below cost, and a business model that is not sustainable.

7- calls on progress payments based on complete lies regarding production rate and delivery

8- outrage at a company that never takes responsibility, but blames their supply cain, which has always been sold to the public as the best

9- my favorite... this little plane was not DESIGNED for air taxi plane - DAYJET was designed to try to use this plane.

10- some remarks about traiing and maintenance lack of capacity

11- many feel the JetIncomplete thing was another lie

12- going back a few months, problems mischaracterized by e-clips as assembly or dismissed as already resolved, remain unresolved and require design changes, such as cracking windows, the icing Pitot, bushing...

..but I do not recall wholsale opinions about e-clips failing to get a PC and TC. Perhaps recent remarks about them redefining the terms, but no opinions about "never" obtaining these.

OH YEAH, recent opinions about diverted funds to design and build and fly a prototype while customers wait, and wait...

- I think you'll find all the real concerns expressed are still valid... the one you mentioned is actually silly - only a matter of time and money - they have a lot of both, and seem to be able to attract more and more as they need...more time, more money.

They just have a crappy track record on EVERYTHING else.

FlightCenter said...

Eclipse's next jet needs to be a better performing jet than the E500, not a smaller jet, not a single engine jet, not a lower priced jet.

There are many, many reasons Eclipse must introduce a better performing jet at a higher price if they want to survive.

The main reason they need a new aircraft is that there just isn't a path to financial breakeven (or any hope of profitability) with the current aircraft at the current price. They can't discontinue the aircraft, they can't raise the price enough to achieve profitability. That means Eclipse will need to switch as many of their current customers as possible to the new jet.

And the fact is that very few of their current depositors will be willing to give up their twin engine aircraft position for a single engine aircraft. Certainly none of the air taxi guys will want to switch to a single with fewer seats and the air taxi guys are responsible for more than half of the Eclipse order book.

A high percentage of the individual depositors will see the advantage of a slightly bigger cabin, with more baggage capacity, with slightly faster performance and will be willing to pay more to get it. Certainly the air taxi folks won't be the only ones to appreciate an extra seat and some room for luggage.

The internal Eclipse 500 plan was for breakeven to occur once production reached between 500 and 750 aircraft per year. Those breakeven estimates were based on the rosy projections of ramping production to 3 a day and reducing direct labor from 4,000 hours to 400 hours. Reality is setting in. They now understand that those numbers will not be achieved.

The bottom line is that right now Eclipse is shipping a large stack of dollar bills with every E500 and that isn’t going to change for at least 18 months based on Vern's recent comments.

Some would argue whether they are shipping $100K or $400K or more with every airplane. That is the primary reason the faithful are faithful. But it just isn't a sustainable business model.

Introducing a single doesn't solve the problem of making the E500 business profitable. It can only be a major distraction.

They need to switch as close to 75% of their current depositors to the new aircraft as possible. That is the only way that they can turn this thing around if they want to survive and thrive.

FlightCenter said...

Ken,

What's your definition of a "true FMS"?

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

fc,

Years ago, the word on the street was that an E600 was the next step up for Eclipse. It would have been a step up for the customer base. Could it be a twin? or is there a single? Time will tell or at least the trek to Osh Kosh!!! I will be the one with a camera.

Ken Meyer said...

niner zulu wrote,

"No mentor pilot."

You familiar with FAR 61.63?

If you buy a Mustang (or any new jet where they train & test you in a simulator), and you'll get 25 hours "mentoring" unless you meet one of the exceptions (such as having a previous jet type rating).

Ken

bill e. goat said...

M00:

I enjoyed your "amusing" quote from Cato the elder. (Actually, I really did). I'd wondered what had become of him since that unseemly O.J. thing. Guess he's had a kid along the way.

I don't think ATM is angry, just a little put out with Vern's behavior, over the unseemly V.L.J. thing. Now it looks like Vern's going to be introducing an Jr. model too.

"An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes"...I'm am not aware of how good Vern's eyesight is, but he must be THE maddest man on earth.

(I don't think too many would argue the technicalities of that last one).
-----------------------------

Hope Cato doesn't come after us for (c) issues above...

From Wiki:
Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder (Latin: M·PORCIVS·M·F·CATO[1]) (234 BC, Tusculum–149 BC) was a Roman statesman, surnamed the CENSOR (Censorius)...

Figures.

FlightCenter said...

FG,

Vern has been planning a second airplane since the Pronto days.

Back then, the Eclipse 600 had three engines. Looked like a minature 727. But of course, back then, three engines would have only weighed 255 lbs.

mike said...

E0387 - Congrats and best wishes on your new airplane.

Two quick questions:

Would you be willing to share the weight and balance info ?

You mentioned that you may have a training slot in September. Is that going to be in the airplane or simulator ?

Thanks for sharing your experience !

mike said...

Stan,

Thanks for the background info on the Lear 28/29's. Did the original customers know that the production run was going to be so small for these models ? How well were they supported by the factory, considering the size of the "fleet" ?

planet-ex said...

FIKI countdown (in case everyone forgot):

It's either 17 or 79 days depending on what Eclipse considers to be their Type Certificate award date (want to make a bet that it's the date they got a "real" type certificate and not that "provisional" one?).

FlightCenter said...

My recollection is that in one of the recent podcasts Vern said that he thought they would have FIKI approval by the end of the year.

He didn't sound all that confident however.

So I think the official word is closer to 180 days.

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

“….You can't buy a single-engine turboprop like the Meridian or the TBM-850 for the price of this twin-engine jet. At $1.5M, the plane is a slam dunk, and it will probably be $2 million this time next year….”

Hey Ken…

$2 million next year? Do you think Vern knows this? …. Hmmm, wonder why he hasn’t increased the price for ’09 deliveries?

….Maybe it’s because the competition is selling planes for less.
The competition for Vern?, …. His own customer. Just look on controller or spjets and you will see E500’s for $100K less than the factory price, …and to be delivered much sooner than a new factory position.

Great business plan Vern!

Actually Ken,
I agree with you. If they finish the plane and deliver on promises, it is a $2 million dollar plane. In fact, I previously said I believe $2.4 mil is the realistic value of a fully spec’d E500 (if promises met). Its just not a 750 plane per year market, thats all. Its more like 100-150 at that price.

$2 mil? ...Now you are making some sense! Just don’t tell Vern.

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

“…If you bought it at $1.5M, you'd be getting the performance of a Mustang at about half the price. Your ongoing operating expenses would be about 40% less, and you'd pick up some nice features (like true FMS and workload-reducing integrated avionics)….”

Ken,
You might want to qualify your comments on the 40% lower cost. The operating costs remains to be seen. Someone may get the wrong impression, go out and buy s/n 16 or 28 based on your WAG, and find you to be in error.

After all, Vern stated publicly that the E500 can do San Diego to Atlanta, non-stop, and land with reserves. 1640 nm. He said so, ..so it can do it. Weather permitting…Next Tuesday. …At 40% less.

cj3driver said...

NinerZ asked of Ken;

“…At what point would you fold and NOT buy an Eclipse? What does Eclipse have to do to NOT earn your business?...”

CJ3 answers for Ken;

…Other than Eclipse folding, … Raise the price to $1.9 million! … I’m out.

9Z,

The current market places a value on the E500 at about $1.85 million (typically equipped). Just ask EO387. I’ll bet if you wrote him a check tomorrow, you would be the proud owner of #28. That is what a new Eclipse is worth today. Next month or next year will be a different story. Supply and demand will dictate the value.

If Mustang sales went in the toilet, Cessna could reduce the price and compete with Eclipse, Adam, Piper or any other manufacturer for market share. They have priced the product accordingly. If the product is not profitable, it will be discontinued. The problem for Eclipse is, they have committed their product to their entire market share for many years to come. This is evident by the lower than factory cost positions available in the market. Not only have they committed to this entire market share for their product, they have done so at a price that many believe (including themselves) is below cost. This is clearly not a good position for Eclipse. They will have to make up for the losses in other ways, or be forced to raise the price on the existing orders. Since the latter would create a certain mutiny, Eclipse will need to raise more cash. Since there are no more $995K “Kens” of the world to front deposits and investors will only go so far (over 1 billion?), the other profit center may be parts and service, …or new products.

My advise on Eclipse is, … wait and see. If you need/want a jet now, buy a dinosaur. You can always sell it later. There are plenty of Eclipse positions out there, and plenty more to come. If you do decide to spend $1.8 on an Eclipse, buy one that’s already built and flying. There apparently are several to choose from.

mike said...

CJ3

re : The current market places a value on the E500 at about $1.85 million (typically equipped). Just ask EO387. I’ll bet if you wrote him a check tomorrow, you would be the proud owner of #28. That is what a new Eclipse is worth today. Next month or next year will be a different story. Supply and demand will dictate the value.


I think the "market value" you reference is only for a very few airplanes at this point. I don't think the market will support very many at this price until they deliver truly "usable" airplanes. The current airplanes are not truly usable for anything except possibly training and marketing.

I define "usable" as those delivered to the customer at sales time with the current IOU list completed (possible exception of FIKI for a while). I believe the Avio issue will be Eclipse's next delivery limiting issue.

bill e. goat said...

Thanks to Stan for the Lear 28/29 info. I poked around on the internet and found some more info:
www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=264

"The unsuccessful Gates Learjet 28 and 29 Longhorns are based on the 25 but introduced a new increased span wing fitted with winglets, which improved fuel efficiency and overall performance, particularly payload range and fuel economy. The Longhorn 28 seats up to eight passengers, the similar dimensions Longhorn 29 sacrifices two seats for extra range. Production of the family ceased in 1982".

I don't think the term unsuccessful is appropriate; as Stan mentioned, the intent was to use the 28 and 29 as platforms to introduce the new wing. (Besides, as I recall, the performance was quite good: didn't Arnold Palmer use one of the 28/29's to set some world records at the time? Oops, make that Neil Armstrong. Also noted from reading that it was the first airplane to use winglets).

I went to a retirement for a long-time Learjet guy (Ray Oglesby), and asked him the biggest disappointment regarding "shelved"/denied projects was during his tenure there. I expected something like the Learfan or some other esoteric advanced design group concoction. He said, putting the Lear 45 wing under the 60 fuselage. That modest response surprised me. After I contemplated it, I realized the wisdom in his observation- using success to improve upon success.

(I'm not quite sure how this applies to our friends in Albuquerque though...but I think I'd better tm that last phrase before Vern snatches it up :).

It seemed to me the 45 wing might be a bit small for the 60, but checking Airliner.net,
Lear 55/60: MTOW 23.5K, wing area 264.5 sq ft
Lear 40/45: MTOW 20.2K, wing area 311.6 sq ft

Looks like it would work okay. Of late, the Lear division is the moneymaker for Bombardier, so maybe something will eventually become of this...

Now, regarding temp delta vs latitudes...
I love this blog!
I hate this blog!

Stan Blankenship said...

mike,

The systems on the 28/29 were nearly identical to the Model 25's. So I suspect the planes were supported equally well or equally bad depending on you view.

As far as the two 29's I was involved with, both were modified as special mission aircraft. The customer was only interested in flying high, really high, even above 510.

Stan Blankenship said...

goat,

The risk the 28/29's attempted to mitigate was certification above FL 450. The FAA had never approved a business jet to fly at that altitude and it meant plowing new ground.

Linden Blue laid out the road map.

Put the Longhorn wing on the Model 25 and certify the derivative to FL 510. Call it the Model 28/29.

Then take the Longhorn wing now certified to 510, add a larger fuselage and fan engines and certify it as a derivative. Call it the Model 55.

In the end, the Model 55 ended up on the same Type Certificate as the Model 25 even though it was a completely different airplane; different fuselage, different wing and different engines.

Regarding temp delta vs latitude, I think it has something to do with the earth spinning, cold air being heavier and centrifugal forces.

Stan Blankenship said...

Like a pathetic comedian on a cruise ship with one last joke, have one more thing to add on the 28/29 development:

At the beginning of the program, engineering told management that excluding the exchange of winglets for the tip tanks, the Longhorn wing would have 90% parts commonality with the old wing, 10% new parts.

As certified, 90% new parts, 10% common parts.

FlightCenter said...

"What has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

When Eclipse announced that they were replacing the Williams engine with P&W, a number of folks (dinosaurs) suggested that a change of that magnitude would require a complete redesign of the aircraft.

In Jan / Feb 2003 Vern told his depositors and investors not to worry, that only a few components of the Eclipse (like fuel tanks) will need to change to accomodate the new engines.

At Oshkosh 2006, Vern said that the one of the reasons for the delay in achieving certification was that 97% of the aircraft's components had been redesigned as a result of the decision to switch to P&W.

Ken Meyer said...

AIN is reporting today that Eclipse has completed the final report on the new Pitot design and the testing performed to validate the design. The company has submitted the report to the FAA for approval, which is expected shortly.

The AIN story goes on to say that the service bulletin is written and parts are in stock for the upgrade.

Ken

gadfly said...

‘Having managed people for many years, I would want the instructions for the installation of the “pitot” tube(s) to be abundantly clear: Make sure the “pointy end” is pointed toward the front end of the airplane, and the “drain” is pointed towards the ground. If unsure as to which is the front end, and which direction is the ground, check with Vern . . . he may be able to provide the correct answers to both questions.

gadfly

(Never underestimate the ability of people to find a way to get something wrong.)

FlightCenter said...

Mike Press has published a report about his first trip under the AD and about his first service call using Jet Complete.

Lots of good information.
Fuel burn and TAS at 17,500.
They stopped along the way to wait out some weather at the final destination.

Problem - The parking brake wouldn't release.

Solution - Eclipse dispatched their Mobile Response Team (MRT).

Mike Press Journal Entry #6

gadfly said...

Now, did I read what I just read? . . . “It’s basically start the engines, check ATIS and call taxi” . . . ? . . . and I assume, a “flat bed truck” . . . as in, “I’ll get home by taxi . . . and someone will get the plane home, later (with a “Wide Load” permit).

Revolutionary!

gadfly

(‘Just kidding: Who ever heard of ATIS having jurisdiction over an “Interstate”?)

mirage00 said...

The AIN story goes on to say that the service bulletin is written and parts are in stock for the upgrade.

Thanks Ken for the information. As expected, the AD will be lifted once the fix is approved shortly.

Progress. Look for more of it at Oshkosh. Something tells me the "bashers" will be swarming soon after.

I remain amused

double 00

cj3driver said...

Moo,

It will be great to see planes on flightaware again ... if they arent blocked.

Shane Price said...

"0Amused0"

Wrong, as usual.

The AD will be lifted (on each aircraft) when the fix is fitted.

Not before. Not during. Not, until, AFTER.

Now, want to bet when AFTER will be?

'Tuesday'?

Be careful. Vern might decide to do something else. Rather than complete (or maybe incomplete is a better phrase) the E499.5, he might decide to do something else.

Or should that be 'someone' else. Another investor, sorry, owner. Hang on, very few owners have possession of E499.5's right now.

I get confused around here...

Shane

mirage00 said...

ShaMe

All birds will be fixed by September and the new birds coming off the line will fly fly fly...

May I suggest a pillow to scream in? Like it or not Eclipse is here to stay.

I remain amused

double 00

mirage00 said...

The UPGRADE would be plastic to leather. THIS IS A FULLY FLEDGED FIX, Ken.

Airhead.. True. Immature comment, but true.

I remain amused.

double 00

cj3driver said...

Moo,
Are you suggesting the new birds comming off the line now, don't fly fly fly?

... at least not by thier owners!

airtaximan said...

Stan:

"At the beginning of the program, engineering told management that excluding the exchange of winglets for the tip tanks, the Longhorn wing would have 90% parts commonality with the old wing, 10% new parts.

As certified, 90% new parts, 10% common parts."

THIS WILL BE THE TUNE IN A FEW WEEKS REGARDING THE LITTLER-E-PLAIN... .OOPS, I meant plane.

airtaximan said...

mirage

your last comment seems a little angry...why?

I remind you, my speculation, charaterized as such on this blog, regarding some major issues at your favorite "little" jet company has been spot on.

You just characterized another observation, the difference between a "fix" and an "upgrade" as immature? At least you admit, I am correct.

I would ask why?
Don't you think we've been dealt enough BS redefinitions by Vern at this point? ONe that is a safety issue, a redesign and an fix, as opposed to an upgrade, makes a big difference to some.

To you?

How about you contribute something of substance to this blog for a change? Perhaps you know so much, that you can offer an opinion or insight into, say:
1- real delivery schedule
2- how many progress-payments has Dayjet made?
3- part 135 cert for the plane
4- schedule for NGing the plain (I know, I can't help myself... it's being replaced, you know, anyway)
5- the number designation for the new littler-jet model?
6- the development cost born by the progress-payers-in-waiting for the new littler-jet?
7- real, full up cost for jet INcomplete?
8- burn rate?
9- recent money raised?
10- the sister-company in europe -Ed-jet-NG - deposit and progress payments?
11- euro-cert? it was scheduled for a year ago, no?
12- cracking of windows fix cert date?
13- (tomorrow is Friday the 13th, so why not stop here...) schedule for weels and brakes supplier replacement? Scedule for AVIONG cert?

Use you noodle, not your Quotes-Book, and impress us, and amuse yorself with some logical thinking...and provide some interesting intel on these issues.

I remain confused by your auto-amusement, by heck, this IS America, where everyone is entitle to get screwed...

planet-ex said...

Might have to do another round of RVSM flights as they will be changing a critical part of the air data system. Considering Harco has changed the heater, it is no longer the same part as before (i.e., not interchangeable). I wonder who is going to eat the cost of high-dollar pitot-static tubes (the Harco units have an DADC on them) that they can't use unless rebuilt to the newer standard.

As for ADs Mirage, an AD isn't complete until the affected aircraft are fixed.

airtaximan said...

planetX

"As for ADs Mirage, an AD isn't complete until the affected aircraft are fixed."

We at EAC take exception to the word FIXED... we'd prefer UPGRADED, GN-ed or other less revealing terminology.

PS...we don't like "design problem, re-design or repair" either

Thanks.

bill e. goat said...

Hi Gadfly,

“If unsure as to which is the front end, and which direction is the ground, check with Vern . . . he may be able to provide the correct answers to both questions”

Well, when it comes to direction, I'd say Vern has a pretty good idea of what is backwards and downwards anyway.

“Never underestimate the ability of people to find a way to get something wrong”.

Somebody comes to mind here...

(I think Vern, like our dear Mr. Bush, continue to redefine misunderestimate...)

mirage00 said...

Airhead,

So you feel you and the rest of the "bashers" have so much to more to contribute? Got it.

I do remain amused. It's the only way.

double 00

mirage00 said...

We at EAC take exception to the word FIXED... we'd prefer UPGRADED, GN-ed or other less revealing terminology.

Yep... certainly productive dialog there...

I remain amused.

double 00

bill e. goat said...

Thanks to Stan for the interesting details on the Lear 28/29's.

(And, upper atmosphere dynamics around in the lower latitudes).

And thanks to Flightcenter for "closing the loop" historically with comparison of redesign effort between the Lear and Eclipse.

Even M00 must be amused by that!

(I think it is pretty interesting how history repeats itself. Wait a minute... Eclipse twin, Eclipse single... Ah, well, hmmmm).

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

Who is Mike Press and what does he know about airplanes? Couldnt believe that he was unaware (from his Journal #6) that the parking brake is to be used just long enough to getthe chocks in place on most every acft. Is this the typical E-clips pilot? Sounds a lot like the typical Cirrus pilot: very eager, very impatient, and very naive.

Its not my style to take shots at folks, but these idiots make life more difficult for those that take the time to learn to do it right.

WT

mirage00 said...

Sounds a lot like the typical Cirrus pilot: very eager, very impatient, and very naive.

Talk about a naive statement. There is no difference between a Cirrus pilot and a Cessan 182 pilot.

I remain amused.

double 00

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

9Z said:

"His is, afterall, very involved with Eclipse in reselling positions. "

An objective, independent, unbiased observer of the E-clips scene, no doubt!

WT

Ken Meyer said...

whytech wrote,

"Who is Mike Press and what does he know about airplanes?...Sounds a lot like the typical Cirrus pilot: very eager, very impatient, and very naive."

You should be as good a pilot. Over 4000 hours in single-pilot jets. Air Force Colonel with two Distinguished Flying Crosses and 13 Air Medals. He developed the initial Topgun school Agressor Squadron, instrumental in the design of Red Flag, assisted in the development of the F-16 Block 60, F-20, F-22, YF-23, F-35 JSF and others.

It figures the naysayers would sooner or later attack the stupid pilots flying the awful Eclipse. But your aim was a little off in shooting at this guy.

Ken

airtaximan said...

Mirage,

At least Ken tries to make a case for e-clips... you do nothing except make silly self-amusing comments.

Add some value.

Make a statement about your favorite jet company, it's goals, objectives, deadlines...fixes... something...

Many folks here try for insight and intuition...

Can't you?

WhyTech said...

9Z said:

"Actually Mike Press has a fairly impressive resume"

I would have to agree. Hard to believe that someone with this background wrote Journal #6. But then, I have had 40,000 hour airline captains in the right seat of my airplane who didnt have a clue re GA fundamentals.

WT

planet-ex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
airtaximan said...

Ken's right, Whytech...

pretty much all you could say is...

- didn't they explain the parking brake to him in training?

or

-I hope he doesn't look for the ejector seat...

He's probably more wualified than anyone taking the training course, so far. He said it was brutal...and he is probably one of the easiest students they will ever train.

Imagine the issues with guys who fly a 30-year old prop?

Imagine the issues with folks who don't even know that you need to FIX the entire fleet before an AD is lifted?

Ken's correct on this one...Mike Press is probably just doing a refresher course, compared to the guys going from High School straight to the PHD.

I'm sure THIS will be amusing to MIRAGE!!!

- fret not - the single 4 place will be slower, and will probably be easier to fly. I hear AVIONG comes standard - no retrofit required... coo-el!

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"It figures the naysayers would sooner or later attack the stupid pilots flying the awful Eclipse. But your aim was a little off in shooting at this guy."

One would think so, but how did he get through all this without learning about parking brakes?

WT

JetA1 said...

Ken, you wear us out with your non-stop mis-information and spin. We went thru this several weeks ago...short memory Ken?

If you buy a Mustang (or any new jet where they train & test you in a simulator), and you'll get 25 hours "mentoring" unless you meet one of the exceptions (such as having a previous jet type rating).

If the checkride is done in the aircraft, as 100% of the E-clips rides are currently done (and Mustang pilots like David Goode), you don't need an SOE.

airtaximan said...

whytech:

you've been watching Vern and e-clips for a long time now...

How do you assess the current situation?

What do you see as the major issues?

What do you think about the littler-plain (I know, plane...)?

gadfly said...

PX

'Not a problem! A fix is in the works . . . the "flaps" will have five settings, ten, twenty, thirty, forty degrees, plus "Park"!

gadfly

JetA1 said...

Mike's a bit confused:

Never set the parking brake unless you really need to. Let the FBO or crew chief chock the airplane. Actually, while I was waiting for Robert to arrive, I talked to a number of jet pilots (flying big iron) and they said they never use the parking brake for just this reason. They said that especially after landing in the big jets, the brakes are hot and could lock up if the parking brake is set. (Different reason for locked brakes but still a good point to be made about not using parking brakes unless really needed).

He's not flying "big-iron". Having flown nearly a dozen "dinosaur" biz-jets, I can tell you this claim is B.S. for this type of plane.

WhyTech said...

ATM said:

"What do you think about the littler-plain (I know, plane...)? "

I cant add anything that others have not already said, and this is why I have been inactive on the blog in recent weeks. Your earlier longish post above does a great job of summarizing the situation, sort of a "cold light of reality" view. I absolutely cannot as a former CEO, marketer of big ticket industrial products, design engineer, and purchaser of almost a dozen aircraft over the years understand how the "faithful" remain ... well, faithful. Ken and others keep talking about what a great airplane the E-clips is, but the reality is that the airplane they are describing cannot be purchased by anyone at any price at this time, and may not ever be available. The Kool Aid is incredibly powerful! Cant these folks think?

WT

The Real Frank Castle said...

"And why not? If you bought it at $1.5M, you'd be getting the performance of a Mustang at about half the price."

Kenny, that is an outright lie. the POS cannot even compare to our dear Mustang.

And it won't, even after the so-called "fixes" are done.

FL165 doesn't impress me at all.

NO FIKI, NO pitot fix(oh, maybe later) NO FL410

NO,NO,NO, it can just barely fly,fly,fly......

mirage00 said...

At least Ken tries to make a case for e-clips... you do nothing except make silly self-amusing comments.

Ken doesn't just try to make a case he actually DOES make one every time. But as usual the "bashers" bash him with insults and sarcasm. In fact, I believe you lead the group in the sarcasm category. Carry on.

I remain amused

double 00

airtaximan said...

41 listings on Controller... not definitive, but indicative of something - we've been through this before, a lot I know.

There are some new interesting things brewing though... among them, the apparent redefinition of "June" and perhaps "July" too... heck, even 121, 073, 178, 219 and perhaps 4th quarter have been set up for re-definition, as well.

NEW 2007 ECLIPSE 500 $1,800,000 MO S/N: 121, IFR, June 2007 Delivery; Owner anxious to sell--make offer; Part 135 and LX-
Updated: Jul 6 2007 4:48PM


NEW 2007 ECLIPSE 500 $1,775,000 MO S/N: 073, IFR, Sept 07 Delivery - Aero Mods complete. Price includes options, training and fixed CPI. , 2007 Paint, 2007 Int Updated: Jul 6 2007 4:48PM


NEW 2007 ECLIPSE 500 $1,740,000 CA S/N: 000178, N441DM, 0 TT, IFR, LX Edition for June '07 delivery from Platinum Position #P0139
Updated: Jun 1 2007 10:01AM


NEW 2007 ECLIPSE 500 $1,640,000 AB, CN S/N: 219, 0 TT, IFR, Fourth Quarter 2007 Platinum, no CPI, Pt. 135 and Copilot, sell may finance.


GOTTA LOVE THIS NEW AVIATION LINGO!

The Real Frank Castle said...

He makes his points as you do, by spewing forth the holy drivel from Vern's lips.

Go back to your quotes. It's almost believable you might be that intelligent.

airtaximan said...

Mirage00's brilliant remarks, brought to you by the same person who used the following to defend His and Ken's favorite A/C non-manufacturing company:

"According to aerodynamic laws, the bumblebee cannot fly. Its body weight is not the right proportion to its wingspan. Ignoring these laws, the bee flies anyway.
- M. Sainte-Lague"

AND he still amuses himslef with this!

mirage00 said...

I absolutely cannot as a former CEO, marketer of big ticket industrial products, design engineer, and purchaser of almost a dozen aircraft over the years understand how the "faithful" remain ... well, faithful.

Ahh yes... another "I'm smarter than everyone" argument.

I remain amused

double 00

mirage00 said...

A few pointless blog entries ago I asked a question. As expected; it was pretty much ignored. So I will ask it again and see what intelligent responses receive. Now boys try to keep the sarcasm and insults to a minimum and behave like adults.


I have a question the dinosaurs here. Why does this blog exist? Surely if Eclipse succeeds, aviation as a whole, should benefit. So why bash?
Oh and please don't preface your answers with "we all do hope Eclipse succeeds". You know what they call that in Texas.


I remain amused

double 00

Ken Meyer said...

jeta wrote,

"Ken, you wear us out with your non-stop mis-information"

Here's what I wrote...

"If you buy a Mustang (or any new jet where they train & test you in a simulator), you'll get 25 hours "mentoring" unless you meet one of the exceptions (such as having a previous jet type rating)."

You seem like a reasonably smart guy. Which part of what I wrote do you contend is incorrect? Or do you just shoot now and think later? That doesn't strike me as all that smart after all :)

Ken

EclipseOwner387 said...

Planet X,

Funny thing is a SR20 is faster than the standard 182 with all that extra horsepower. Now that is funny. I am sure Mirage00 was comparing the SR22 to the 182. And last I checked 182RG's have been retired (as in no longer made.) The SR22 is a good 30+ knots faster than the 182.

I have owned a 172 and still own a sr20. Both are good airplanes but the cirrus is much more fun to fly and doesn't have that aluminum can feel. Maintenance is a different story.

Metal Guy said...

I have a question the dinosaurs here. Why does this blog exist? Surely if Eclipse succeeds, aviation as a whole, should benefit. So why bash?
Oh and please don't preface your answers with "we all do hope Eclipse succeeds". You know what they call that in Texas.


Oh, that’s easy to answer:

Because Vern is an ignorant, arrogant, lying, stealing, thieving, no talented, mediocre, low life, big mouthed, head up his ass, ineffective, idiot, basically a scum bag swindling people for their hard earned money trying to make personal gain by making his bloated company succeed by insulting others in the industry and intentionally misleading depositors, investors and the general public. It’s called fraud.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Metal Guy,

Re: Fraud

Do you have any proof he is committing fraud? I am not saying he isn't. I don't have inside info. Insulting the competition, while I don't agree with, isn't a crime. But fraud is. Are you speculating fraud based on company performance/history or do you have a case that would bring him to trial?


Fraud is a serious accusation. Business is not a guarantee - to assume fraud for miscues and mistakes, or even potential incompetence is a serious step. But if fraud is something you have proof/evidence on then stop wasting your time here and go to the regulators and authorities and make your case.

On the otherhand, if you work for a competitor and you are making unfounded claims to hurt your competition I would also be careful. Message Boards do not protect you. Look at the whole foods ceo and the hot water he is in.

Niner Zulu said...

Wow, leave for a few hours to watch a movie with my kids and all heck breaks loose.

Metal guy has a meltdown.

M00 is judged to be a moron by a jury of his peers...(imagine that!).

EO387 - in the July BC&A Vern claims the E500 can fly from KMYF (San Diego) to Atlanta (KPDK) nonstop with 3 x 200 lb occupants and 114 lbs baggage in 4hrs30min using 1,494 lbs of fuel and landing with 30 minutes of reserves. This is quite a claim. I don't know the tailwind he is counting on. Can you look at your AFM and see if this is possible in your plane?

Ken, with regard to a mentor pilot, I don't know what the regs say, but for me it's usually been the insurance company calling the shots. In my 24 yrs and 2100+ hours of flying, I've had to fly with someone 10-25 hrs several times. I usually try to negotiate the hours down, and take care of it during training. I don't like to have a copilot with me on trips with my family because I get tired of watching them pick their nose. I bang out the "in flight" hours as fast as possible because after a few days at Flight Safety I can't wait to get out - their coffee and snacks suck ;-). Also, I learn more in the class or sim than having them sit in the right seat in my plane.

I'm not sure I understand why the FAA has mandated that every Eclipse pilot fly with a copilot when they are flying VFR, though. I thought this was an EASY plane to fly. Any thoughts on that one?

EclipseOwner387 said...

I have questions:

Since all the bloggers hope that Eclipse succeeds. Ok I said that with a smile.

What does this blog want to see accomplished? What outcome are the critics wanting?

What do you want the depositors and owners to do?

Going to bed now. I will see the responses tomorrow!

Nite all.

Ken Meyer said...

niner zulu wrote,

"Ken, with regard to a mentor pilot, I don't know what the regs say"

FAR 61.63 governs the addition of a type rating to your present certificate. If you take your training in a Part 141 school (like FSI's Mustang program) employing simulators for training and testing, you'll have a 25 hour "supervised operating experience" requirement before you can fly the plane as PIC (unless you meet one of the exemptions like having a previous jet type rating).

According to FAR 61.63, you "may have the limitation removed by accomplishing 25 hours of supervised operating experience as pilot in command under the supervision of a qualified and current pilot in command, in the seat normally occupied by the pilot in command, in that airplane of the same type to which the limitation applies." In other words, mentoring.

So the claim that some make that the Eclipse is somehow unique in requiring mentoring is just wrong.

"I'm not sure I understand why the FAA has mandated that every Eclipse pilot fly with a copilot when they are flying VFR, though. I thought this was an EASY plane to fly. Any thoughts on that one?"

First, it appears the AD is on the verge of being lifted, so this is largely an academic discussion. I believe the logic is that the aircraft was approved for single pilot ops on the basis of an operating autopilot. That's true for most (all?) SP jets. If the autopilot is not functional, you cannot legally fly single pilot.

Loss of ADC 1 or ADC 2 causes the autopilot to disengage, and it cannot be re-engaged. Therefore, the pitot issue, if it occurs, would render the autopilot inoperable. Thus the plane would be no longer eligible for single pilot operation because it would no longer have a functioning autopilot. The AD appears to envision this scenario and simply requires the plane to be staffed for legal operations with an inoperative autopilot.

Ken

cj3driver said...

Ken,
Good answer regarding single pilot operations.

... Now, about Verns TBM comparison claim, San Diego to Atlanta ...

That may be stretching the truth a bit, don't you think?

WhyTech said...

Moo said:

"Ahh yes... another "I'm smarter than everyone" argument."

Actually, you've got it wrong again. This experience has taught me very well that I dont have all the answers, not even half of them. Now, if only you and Ken can come to see the world this way.

WT

WhyTech said...

EO387 said:

"cirrus is much more fun to fly and doesn't have that aluminum can feel"

How about that plastic model feel?

I remain outraged by Eclipse's ethically challenged behavior. (Borrowing from Moo.)

WT

WhyTech said...

What's the big deal re a mentor pilot other than Eclipse's "jam it down your throat" approach? I have done this a number of times (at the request of my insurance company) and have always found it to be a fun, productive experience. My most recent mentor pilot was a 40,000 hour airline captain with 4000 hours in the PC-12 as chief pilot for a larger 91k operator, and an ex Marine pilot - a genuine nice guy with both credentials and espertise. I'd love to spend a year flying with this guy.

WT

EclipseOwner387 said...

WT,

Smooth as glass....

WhyTech said...

EO387 said:

"Smooth as glass.... "

I think you mean "plastic" ...

WT

EclipseOwner387 said...

WT,

No, I knew what I meant to say. I have flown BOTH and am entitled to my opinion on this. Have you flown a Cirrus? I am not saying I recommend it for everyone. I think the Piper Malibu is an amazing airplane and would recommend a used one over a new Cirrus. Especially if you throw a PT6 on front of it.

;-)

FlightCenter said...

EO387,

What are the reasons you like the Malibu over the Cirrus?

Have you owned a JetProp?

airtaximan said...

.. Plus, giving Ken and excuse to harass me on my lack of spell-check, and my poor finger dexterity...

WhyTech said...

EO387 said:

"I have flown BOTH and am entitled to my opinion on this. Have you flown a Cirrus?"

I have also flown BOTH, and like you, am entitled to my opinion. I have actually done more than fly one. The brothers Klappmier (sp?) invited me to Duluth in the early 90's (somewhere between 92 and 94, IIRC) to spend a day with them and consider investing in the Co. Much of the talk at that time was similar to what we have heard from E-clips: "revolutionary, change the way people fly, everyman's airplane," and much more along this vein. In the end, there was little revolutionary and the brothers modified their pitch to be more realistic. I doubt that investors have yet made a penny given that the Co. is still private, although when there is some liquidity in the stock, the later investors may do well.

I'll never forget a conversation with Alan about avionics. He was asserting that the glass cockpit would make instrument flying easy and safe for inexperienced pilots. I observed that when when the glass failed (apparently not a rare event from some of the reports I have heard) the pilot would have to fall back to an "enhanced" partial panel (addition of a 3"in mechanical AI to the customary partial panel instruments) mode of flying, and would need to keep these skills sharp as a result. He reluctantly agreed.

While generalizations are never exactly correct, they are often directionally correct. The Cirrus owner/pilots I know are all nice, well meaning people, but this acft seems to attract a disproportionate number of people who dont know what they dont know; this seems to be the case for Eclipse as well.

WT

airtaximan said...

airtaximan said...
EO387 ASKED:

"What does this blog want to see accomplished? What outcome are the critics wanting?

What do you want the depositors and owners to do?"

This is why I really like you. I've watched you for more than a year now, and you are a smart person and class act!

You seem to know the issues better than most, and eventhough we differ in our opinions, and you are trading in the e-500 and I am not, you are open, honest and yout timeing for buying and selling these things seems impecable.

Personally, its just fun for me to watch, listen, read and write on this subject. I think my intuition has added something on this blog - the BS orderbook, and more recently the lettler-jet as a stratgey for getting orders and therefore the cost down for the 500.

In general, I do not think depositors or owners listen very much to what anyone here is really saying - the "influence" factor is probably nill.

I find the "defensiveness" of some pretty comical - its obvious they think their "investment" in e-clips (won't say deposit or progress payment) could be at stake based on what someone might read here.

EO, I guess I would "hope" that Vern would come clean on the issues, and stop BS-ing everyone. This is not likely going to happen... it could have already, but the biggest BS has yet to be seen, in my opinion -- the littler-jet was developed with time and money that should have gone to finishing, fixing, and producing the 500.

There's going to be a snowstorm of BS surrounding the littler-jet... I believe.

I trust this answers your question.
recap:

outcomes:
- more transparency/honesty...less BS from ABQ
- no depositor/owner outcome sought: depositors will do nothing
with anything posted here

- most importantly, exercising my intuition and knowledge about this industry, listening to smart folks about their ideas as well... and of course, enjoying watching you take advantage of timeing the e-market and making the greenbacks!

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3 wrote,

"Did you read the BC&A July issue. Vern claims the E500 could do the same trip (weather permitting) demonstrated by the TBM850 from San Deigo, CA to Atlanta, GA (1,640 nm), nonstop on less fuel and land with reserves. This guy will say anything at this point."

It took a day or so for me to get the necessary data to perform the calculation.

Vern's right. If you plug in the winds aloft for the route of flight KMYF-KPDK on the day the TBM 850 did the cross-country test flight, the Eclipse would do the same flight non-stop (it was, after all, still winter when they did the flight).

By my calculations, using actual upper air data reported by NOAA, the Eclipse would take 4:22 and use 1415 lbs of fuel. The TBM 850 took 5:24 and used 1672 lbs.

Vern said the plane could do the flight one hour faster and use 10% less fuel. By my calculations, he's right.

Ken

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"It took a day or so for me to get the necessary data to perform the calculation."

Ken, you are unbelieveable! You have got to be Vern, or on Vern's payroll. Who else would go to the trouble?

WT

Ken Meyer said...

Whytech wrote,

"The Cirrus owner/pilots I know are all nice, well meaning people, but this acft seems to attract a disproportionate number of people who dont know what they dont know; this seems to be the case for Eclipse as well."

What makes you think you know enough about the pilots of either plane to make that assessment? I'm pretty confident I know more Eclipse owners than you do, and I certainly couldn't make that claim.

As the the Cirrus, NTSB data show the plane has as good as safety record as piston singles collectively despite the well-known fact that Cirrus aircraft are typically used in more complex and challenging IFR flights as well as more difficult weather than the average piston single.

That suggests to me that your conclusion that Cirrus pilots "don't know what they don't know" is probably incorrect.

Ken

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"the well-known fact that Cirrus aircraft are typically used in more complex and challenging IFR flights as well as more difficult weather than the average piston single."

Thanks for making my point.

WT

Ken Meyer said...

whytech wrote,

"Thanks for making my point."

You're welcome. If your point is that newer, modern, better-equipped aircraft tend to fly more difficult flights than old, poorly-equipped clunkers, I think that's been well-established for a while.

But it's a big synaptic jump to conclude that Cirrus and Eclipse pilots fly more difficult flights because they don't grasp their own limitations. You have data on that?

Ken

mirage00 said...

Ken, you are unbelieveable! You have got to be Vern, or on Vern's payroll. Who else would go to the trouble?

Someone who cares about the truth and defends something he believes in by stating facts instead of using insults and criticisms to make the point.

Thank you Ken and of course EO387

I remain amused

double 00

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"Cirrus and Eclipse pilots fly more difficult flights because they don't grasp their own limitations."

Precisely my point!

WT

Ken Meyer said...

whytech wrote,

""Cirrus and Eclipse pilots fly more difficult flights because they don't grasp their own limitations."

Precisely my point!"


You have some reason you've adopted that belief? Any data or just a "feeling?"

Ken

mirage00 said...

Whytech

Just in case your cut and paste didnt work correctly, this was Kens FULL quote.

But it's a big synaptic jump to conclude that Cirrus and Eclipse pilots fly more difficult flights because they don't grasp their own limitations. You have data on that?

I remain amused

double 00

Niner Zulu said...

Ken,
Thanks for looking at the data. Would I be correct in assuming that the main reason the Eclipse would be able to make that flight to Atlanta non-stop was because of the higher winds at FL410? The ability to fly that high is usually an advantage going Eastbound - whether or not you could get right up there and utilize that altitude the entire way is another story, however, so this is a hypothetical case. On the other hand, it is VERY likely the TBM850 could get FL310 consistently. So there are advantages to both. As for me, I'd rather be flying in the jet, of course ;-).

TBM used the wrong example - they should have done that flight on the same day going Westbound. Then, they'd probably have more of an advantage.

Ken Meyer said...

niner zulu wrote,

"TBM used the wrong example - they should have done that flight on the same day going Westbound. Then, they'd probably have more of an advantage."

Oh, I agree completely.

The TBM 850 is a great plane, and in my view, it has a slightly different set of capabilities than the Eclipse. I don't really see those 2 planes as being in direct competition aside from the fact that they both attract owner/operators.

If you regularly need to fly over 1000 nm or need to carry a lot of stuff, the Eclipse is really not the ideal choice. The TBM 850 may or may not be depending upon how much stuff and how far you want to go (PC-12 might be better).

All that said, I think the problem with the TBM 850 is the price. It would certainly catch my eye if it were priced at, say, $1.4 million instead of $2.8 million.

Ken

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"You have some reason you've adopted that belief? Any data or just a "feeling?""

In the case of Cirrus, its the personal interactions I have had with Cirrus owner/pilots, as well as the published displays of poor judgment. In the case of Eclipse, since there are virtually no owner/pilots at this time, it more on "reading between the lines" as Stan so aptly put it in a recent post. The data will, perhaps, come eventually.

Lets put this to rest. Since you seem to have time to burn, why not review all the Cirrus accident reports on the NTSB web site and compile a distribution of pilot experience and credentials. This is only a proxy for judgment, but should be instructive as to direction.

WT

Ken Meyer said...

whytech wrote,

"why not review all the Cirrus accident reports on the NTSB web site and compile a distribution of pilot experience and credentials."

Ummm...I'm not the one who said Cirrus and Eclipse pilots lack judgment. You said that. I was just wondering if there was any legitimate basis for that belief.

Your idea for a study is interesting, but the premise strikes me as unsound. You cannot use pilot credentials as a proxy for judgment unless you can also control for exposure (number and difficulty of flights). Available data clearly show that commercial pilots, not student or private pilots, have the highest accident rate per pilot among the various certificate classifications. Commercial pilots have 4.36 accidents per 1000 pilots; student pilots have just 1.29 accidents per 1000 pilots. Perhaps that means beginner's luck is more important to safely operating an aircraft than training and experience :)

Ken

mirage00 said...

Whytech,

All the information you need to debunk your argument is here.

Cirrus_Accident_History:_Statistics_and_Lessons

I remain amused.

double 00

EclipseOwner387 said...

FlightCenter,

I currently own N921GG (1998 Mirage) which I had converted to a JetProp in October of 2006. Before that I owned N4421R which is a 1985 Malibu. I also own a 2003 SR20.

The overall quality of the Piper product out classes the Cirrus. The Cirrus is not in the same league (in much the same way I would guess the Meridian is not in the same league as the TBM 850.) The Cirrus is a fun airplane - but I would not fly it in hard IMC. Murphy's Law could bite your butt. Having a parachute should not be a reason to risk your life in an all electric airplane somewhat prone with alternator and rare (but potential) pfd problems. Not to mention a static system prone to moisture problems. VFR or light IMC (busting through a thin layer), no problem. Do the latest Cirrus's have these concerns? I don't know. I am sure as time goes on Cirrus will continue to enhance the reliabilty of the airplane and it will continue to be a great selling airframe that truly is a joy to fly. For those of you asking why I own a JetProp and a Cirrus, I wanted to build time in a glass cockpit and train in a plane that is cheaper to operate than a Malibu or JetProp. Plus Wives think the parachute makes it safer! ;-)

Hope this helps answer your questions on my OPINIONS and personal EXPERIENCEs.


WT,

New airframes seem to have issues with pilot training and previous experiences to build on. Cirrus is not the first inherently safe airplane to go through the unfortunate loss of life in its early adoption. However, to stereotype a pilot based on his plane is just plain wrong and your anectdotal readings don't come out in the science. Have you looked in a community hangar lately? They have pushed the Cessna's out. I have watched this happen at my airfield. Cirrus's are everywhere and they get flown a lot. A plane stuck in a hangar or corroding on a ramp have a hard time getting into accidents. I read accident reports all the time to try and learn what others did wrong. The early Cirrus pilots didn't have any data to learn from. I belong to COPA and safety is what they preach. COPA pilots have been shown to be statistcally more safe than non-members. I don't remember the exact numbers but I was amazed when they calculated it. But joining COPA or MMOPA doesn't mean you will be safe. You have to particpate and learn and have that state of mind. Just knowing the owners of Cirrus Design unfortunately doesn't make you the expert. Spend some serious time in the airframe and participate in COPA then come talk to me. I know more about Cirrus's than I ever wished to know. But I am a knowledge junky.

EclipseOwner387 said...

AirJordan,

Thanks! Let's grab a beer and laugh about all this someday.

flightguy said...

All this talk about Cirrus. What do Cirrus owners think about "The Jet". Would any the faithful give up the E500 for The jet?

EclipseOwner387 said...

I looked up the COPA versus non-COPA accidents.

26 total fatal accidents in Cirrus.

23 were non-COPA

3 were COPA

WhyTech said...

EO387 said:

"Just knowing the owners of Cirrus Design unfortunately doesn't make you the expert. Spend some serious time in the airframe and participate in COPA then come talk to me."

I dont claim to be an expert in any area, just a dedicated student. My point was not that the airframe is inherrently less safe than any other piston single, but that the way in which these airplanes are marketed (like Eclipse and Harley Davidson, as more of a life style than a product), TENDS to attract a different kind of buyer: relatively high discretionary income, fairly new to aviation, a few hundred hours total time, and not YET sufficiently aware of how many ways there are to screw up. As I said in an early post, generalizations are never ENTIRELY accurate, but are often DIRECTIONALLY correct.

The half dozen Cirrus owners I know personally scare the crap out of me in their approach to flying, and I would not ride with them. The more public displays of poor judgment by Cirrus owners such as Corey Liddle, Rich Kaarlgard (Forbes editor, in his book Life 2.0), and Scott McCartney of the Wall Street Journal, are equally frightening. I am sure that there are some superb Ciirrus pilots out there; I just dont happen to know of any.

What you say about Cirrus being everywhere could be true, but where I am based in the Northeast, I rarely see them, and as far as I know, at my home airport near Boston, a very busy GA airport with several hundred based acft, they are conspicuous by their absence.

WT

cj3driver said...

Ken,

Re: San Deigo to Atlanta in a paper Eclipse.

The point of the article was actual COMPARISON. Not paper mythical flights. This trip Vern and you attempt to compare with, was actually made (in a real airplane).

There is no way the Eclipse would have made that flight on the same day in the SAME conditions, non-stop. Please read the April TBM article Vern is referring to.

As you may be aware San Deigo and Atlanta are very congested airspace and both are class “B” terminal areas, and will require the use of SIDS and STARS. I know from experience (over 2,500 hrs) in the LA area, you will not get a high altitude decent or direct climb to the upper flight levels within 180 miles of the basin. A quick look at the procedures, or even a glance at flightaware, will verify.

The flight comparison Vern compares the paper airplane to, arrives into Atlanta. The author states the arrival required a decent and lower altitudes 200 miles before PDK. There is no way the Eclipse would have made the exact trip on the exact day (even with the higher enroute altitudes) done an approach and land with IFR reserves.

I’m sure if you pull out the TBM charts for that day, (and not made the actual flight) the fuel burn would be lower and the times shorter. That’s not real life. Its paper. It’s a fact of life in terminal areas. I certainly don’t flight plan that way, and I hope you don’t either.

Since we all know you are lucky to get over 500 nm in an Eclipse below the flight levels (with tanks full), I do not believe you could travel over 1650 nm, with out a direct climb, and the last 200 nm at lower altitudes and still make Atlanta. Not even on paper.

Based on the information I have been able to extract from EO387, Mike Press and BC&A, the only actual reports I have seen, I don’t think I would be comfortable landing an E500 with less than 500 lbs in reserve. The TBM in the article landed with over 500 lbs in reserve. A single engine turboprop. I do believe an Eclipse holding, or flying to an alternate (or looking for a hole, as the case may be) will burn more fuel than the TBM.

Maybe some day we will get to see the actual performance of the Eclipse, reported by a third party, or on flightaware, making an actual non stop trip from San Diego to Atlanta on a cold winter day. …Somehow I doubt it.

cj3driver said...

Ken said:

"...All that said, I think the problem with the TBM 850 is the price. It would certainly catch my eye if it were priced at, say, $1.4 million instead of $2.8 million..."

Ken,

Maybe if EADS dropped the price to $1.4 million, they could make up the difference in volume just like Vern. Why, …Socata would have those 2500 orders and give old Vern a run for his money in the air taxi market. Heck, they already proved they can make San Diego to Atlanta at $.50 per mile (fuel cost). Nice big cabin, 6 people and lots O’ luggage space. But, …. Then EADS would have to give up something very valuable to most companies. Cash. They would take a loss on each sale. I’m quite certain they are not making 1.4 million profit on each aircraft that is delivered today.

… And this still doesn’t raise a red flag with you? Eclipse is shipping twin-jets out the door at $995K (they have several hundred more at this price and then some), and EADS ships the TBM at $2.8 and they have been for 15 years. How can you remotely believe that Eclipse will be profitable shipping planes at one-third the price. Volume you say? Were not making paper cups here, these are complex aircraft. And,…The E500 isn’t made in China. Its made in ABQ!

Piper Meridian $2.1 million
TBM 850 $2.8 million
Cessna Mustang $3.1 million
Pilatus PC-12 $3.4 million

These products likely need volumes less than 50 per year to be profitable.

Eclipse 500 $995K (next 250 units)

This product needs volumes of over 500 at $1.8 to be profitable (’09 dollars). And don’t forget Eclipse will be spending millions more in warranty and retrofit.


Which company will be in business in 3 years?

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3, The ideal descent profile for an Eclipse from FL410 requires 64 nm. An early descent starting at 200 nm with level off at 15,000 feet before final descent and landing would still leave the plane with VFR reserves.

I agree it's not really a practical flight for the Eclipse unless you knew there were very strong tailwinds, however you implied that Vern was lying ("this guy will say anything") when in fact every word he wrote was correct.

You, on the other hand, wrote this inaccurate sentence:

"The TBM in the article landed with over 500 lbs in reserve."

That's just wrong, AT. The article clearly states they landed with 215 lbs fuel aboard.

You also wrote this one:

"we all know you are lucky to get over 500 nm in an Eclipse below the flight levels (with tanks full)"

In fact, the tanks-dry range of an Eclipse 500 at 17,500 feet is approximately 900 nm at longrange cruise.

Ken

Shane Price said...

CJ3 has made (as usual) an excellent point.

Business is very simple. Take an input, add value and sell to the market.

The difference between what it costs you to make and what you can make the market pay is the value (profit) you add.

Eclipse seem to have real problems doing this simple task.

Now, if I was in a devilish mood, I would suggest that Eclipse have to find some way to reduce the losses on the slow selling (because they can't build them fast enough) E499.5. A simple way to get rid of the E499.5 position holders is to introduce a new toy at a LOWER price and offer them the 'E249.25' OR an 'NG' version of the original design at a more realistic number.

Like $1.75 million.

Soooo.....

Bets on a E249.25 at $800K in 2007 money or an 'NG' at $1.75M?

No need for any flights or anything costly like that, just a mockup in a tent somewhere.

Soon. Real 'before-the-funding-runs-out-on-us' soon.

Ken, I would like you to reconsider your last post. CJ3 was careful to point out that the airspace at EITHER end of the trip would make an early/late FL410 almost impossible.

You claim that Vern was correct in his defence of the E500T ('T' is for Tuesday version) with regard to range. Yet you also make it clear that, even for the E500T, that trip would not be 'a practical flight'.

OK, just so I'm clear on this. You say that CJ3 is wrong, but you also say that Vern is wrong as well. Hang on, Vern is RIGHT. But then if Vern is right, so is CJ3.

Can't have it both ways. Either 'its not a pratical flight' (CJ3 = correct)

OR

Vern is right (CJ3 = wrong)

Please shed light on the error of my ways, o wonderous guide.

Sorry, forget that last bit, it was the devil in me coming out....

Shane

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

"...In fact, the tanks-dry range of an Eclipse 500 at 17,500 feet is approximately 900 nm at longrange cruise..."

In fact.. huh? Is that right, to tanks dry, wow.
it says right here. Let's try that one! Thats great info for an Eclipse driver! Especialy if you want to fly 900 miles at piston speeds and glide in. Great info!

Again Ken.... you miss the point.

PAPER vs. ACTUAL !


btw- I stand corrected on the TBM reserves. (I must have been thinking Eclipse reserves!)


To make the point again, You and Vern are comparing Paper assuptions vs. REAL world at this point.

Non of the acutal data reported by actual owners or third parties supports your numbers. Nothing I have seen publicly. Period. You would not even give me data for hypothetical trips.

Vern letter to BC&A ridculous. Why did't he just invite them over for a ride? IMO, it lowers his credibility even below his current state (with non-deposit holders).

Ken Meyer said...

"You say that CJ3 is wrong, but you also say that Vern is wrong as well."

Regarding whether Vern Raburn was right or wrong, I said, "every word he wrote was correct."

What's so complicated about understanding that? That good old-fashioned American English.

:)

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3 wrote,

"To make the point again, You and Vern are comparing Paper assuptions vs. REAL world at this point....Vern letter to BC&A ridculous. Why did't he just invite them over for a ride?"

Now you're singing a different song than you were before. First, you suggested Vern Raburn was less than fully accurate in his words. I have shown you he was actually correct, so now it's "huff, huff, well, they should do it in real life." Okay; one day they probably will.

Ken

Shane Price said...

Ken,

If every word Mr. Raburn wrote is correct, why is that trip not practical?

Proper English.

Written by an Irishman. The only tribe every to beat the English a ALL of their own games.

(As well as some we invented ourselves)

So, is Vern right or is CJ3 right?

Answer in whichever version of Irish you prefer.

Also...

Any bet on a new toy 'real soon'?

Answer in English (any version) if you prefer.

Shane

Ken Meyer said...

Shane wrote,

"So, is Vern right or is CJ3 right?"

Asked and answered.

Vern wrote, "Using Eclipse 500 performance data that are extracted from flight testing of the final configuration aircraft, the Eclipse 500 rather easily completes this same mission nonstop with the necessary fuel reserves." By my calculation, that is entirely correct.

Ken

Niner Zulu said...

The reality is, if you try to fly your E500 today nonstop from KMYF to KPDK, there is a very good chance you'll be pushing up daisies somewhere in SE Oklahoma. That's whether you do it now, or after the E500 gets RVSM.

It's 1640nm, 340nm further than the 1300nm range of the Eclipse with 45min reserves.

In either plane, it pretty much requires a perfect set of conditions. One in a thousand chance, and nothing you can flight plan for. So, it's pretty much a pointless comparison.

airtaximan said...

Simple facts...

Dayjet going to "per jet"

"Per seat" is an "also-ran" - a good way to entice tech fools to provide capital, but eventually, just like the engine, avionics and other "revolutionary concepts" which found their way to the garbage.

Per jet, MEANS "we do ot have the faith in our sophisticated revolutionary, enabling computer technology invented by russian Rocket scientists and aunt farmers (pun intended) to have confidence that we could fill 10 planes or so, running routes between 5 hand picked, low lying fruit markets - of any markets on the globe - to fill a few seats on this little-jet.

Ratinale number 2 for the littler-jet.

No revolutionary model exists HERE for air taxi - its per jet.... even smaller-per-jet CHARTER SERVICE.

explains the smaller-plain

explains ed-jets claim that the money came from non-conventional aircraft finance sources

- same type of slight-of-hand as the little-jet, now needs a littler-jet.

Capiche?

FlightCenter said...

EO387,

Thank you for your comments regarding the SR20 and the Malibu.

I thought you were going to point out 6 place vs. 4 place, club seating, baggage space, or the combo of turbo and pressurization. Very interesting.

Is your comment about not wanting to fly hard IFR in the SR20 also related to the fact that the PA46 is certified for FIKI and the SR20 isn't?

So it would seem that you are a three plane family right now. Once you start flying the Eclipse on your own are you planning to sell the Piper and / or the Cirrus?

Black Tulip said...

PAPER JET or REAL JET?

Too much virtual ink has been wasted on this debate lately. After all, if we are just pecking away at a computer keyboard, what difference does it make?

I spent a couple of hours yesterday crawling in and around a real jet - the Cessna Mustang. It's beautiful.

The Cessna sales team said:

Number delivered: 14

Price delivered now: $2.67 million

Next delivery available: 33 months out

Expected price then: $3.0 million

The big improvements over the older Citations include:

Glass windshields with more efficient and quiet electric heat.

No electrically heated leading edge anti-ice cuffs.

Vapor cycle air conditioning rather that air cycle machine.

Trailing link landing gear.

An awesome Garmin panel with approach plates and enroute charts.

Negatives....

There was lots of room in the cockpit but my wife and I both found that our noggins touched the headliner while sitting in back.

No relief tube and the potty seat is just across from the door.

Finally, range of 1,167 nm NBAA.

But it is a REAL jet and they expect to deliver forty next year. I will now re-enter the world of PAPER jets as I push the 'Publish Your Comment' button.

Black Tulip

FlightCenter said...

BT,

Were you at Hanscom yesterday?

Black Tulip said...

FlightCenter,

Yes.

Black Tulip

EclipseOwner387 said...

Flight Center,

I am debating my eventual outcome. I love the economy and club seating of the JetProp. I really like the promise of the high tech Eclipse. The Epic Dynasty (if certified) and TBM 850 (used and discounted) are very desirable for my typical missions as well. The Cirrus is good for my pilot friends and myself to train in and use for short missions. It is nice to have when the JetProp is in for annual, etc. But I will eventually sell her or take in partners to divide up the cost.

I am like most aviation geeks. Faster, newer, sexier, safer, cheaper - all have an appeal and if a plane promises those things then you start dreaming of using it for your missions.

The jury is still out for me, but flying in the Eclipse 500 definitely made me want to make it my primary airplane. However, with all the IOU's that is not practical yet so I am trying to be rational about my next steps.

Clear as mud?

Black Tulip said...

FlightCenter,

Were you at Hanscom yesterday? If not, where?

Black Tulip

FlightCenter said...

BT,

I was planning to go but didn't get free until after 7 last night.

Seems like you could probably get a couple Eclipse Aviation Critic bloggers to show up whenever Eclipse or Cessna hold one of their local seminars.

If you can't make it to Oshkosh, it looks like you can see both the Eclipse and the Mustang in Denver and Chicago.

Jet Preview Show
Denver, Colorado
August 9 - August 9, 2007

Jet Preview Show
Chicago, Illinois
September 6 - September 6, 2007

andy said...

FC,
Don't count on jet preview I went to OXC to see both. They both where absent.

gadfly said...

Speaking of "PaperClips" and the "PaperJet" industry, is Kimberly-Clarke entering the market?

In today's news: "Now Kimberly-Clark has taken the next step and developed toilet paper dispenser that shoot(s) out exactly five sheets per incdident."

'Don't quite know what to make of the news, but 'am sure I don't like the restrictions. Next thing, there will be an "AD" or some government restriction limiting . . . who knows what!

gadfly

About 2:30pm or there abouts, I think I saw a "little jet" flying over the shop, heading toward Sandia Crest . . . turning toward the northwest (what with all those clouds building to the east, with rain-drops, etc.). 'Probably someone learning to fly with a minumum of paperwork.

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"Your idea for a study is interesting"

I realize that this is not a Cirrus blog, so this digression will be brief and will provide some closure to the earlier comments on this topic. I believe that there is some relevance to Eclipse in that the airplanes are marketed in a similar way and seem to attract some buyers with similar behaviors.

I have done a quick survey of the Cirrus fatal accidents reports on the NTSB web site. I looked at only SR 20 and SR 22 data (VK-30 data ignored). There seems to be a pretty consistent and not surprising (at least to me) pattern to these accidents. Virtually all pilots involved had relatively low total time and time in make/model. A few held Commercial certificates and were CFI's, but even these pilots were not what could be described as highly experienced.

Draw whatever conclusions make you ahppy.

WT

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JetA1 said...

Ken,

Sorry about the confusion on the whole mentor vs SOE thing. I was referring to the situation TODAY, you apparently were once again speaking with "Tuesday" as your reference frame.
The misrepresentation I was calling you on is the fact that 100% of E500 type rides are being done in the aircraft, yet they still require this "mentor" garbage.
Unless last "Tuesday" they got their level-D sim and training program approved (and didn't broadcast it all over the universe? HA!)
You claim Mustangs require mentors practically the same as E-clips; you know that's B.S.
Your cheap, easy to fly, maintain, etc, etc, little bird just doesn't measure up.

FlightCenter said...

9Z,

All good points. Thanks.

bill e. goat said...

Hello Black Tulip,
Well, with fairness...
The Cessna sales team said:

Number delivered: 14
(Eclipse, x2 = 28 or so, but many are "Deliveries"(tm)...Real(tm), ah, well, EXACTLY the same as Cessna: both can be adequately quantified by using only one person's fingers and toes)

Price delivered now: $2.67 million
(Eclipse, x0.6 = 60% or so...maybe, I can't keep track)

Next delivery available: 33 months out
(well, who knows...Vern certainly doesn't).

Expected price then: $3.0 million
(well, who knows...Vern certainly doesn't).

The big improvements over the older Citations include:

Glass windshields with more efficient and quiet electric heat.
(Eclipse: Bug-Be-Gone replacable windshields with electric heat!)

No electrically heated leading edge anti-ice cuffs.
(well, FIKI any day now...)

Vapor cycle air conditioning rather that air cycle machine.
(same as Eclipse)

Trailing link landing gear.
(same as Eclipse)

An awesome Garmin panel with approach plates and enroute charts.
(Awesome Avio-NG !! any day now, with Bug-Be-Gone replacable software. S/W Upgrades(tm) conveniently scheduled to coincide with windshield and tire changes...)

Negatives....

There was lots of room in the cockpit but my wife and I both found that our noggins touched the headliner while sitting in back.
(Vern is a little touched in the noggin too).

No relief tube and the potty seat is just across from the door
(No relief for owners-in-waiting, time for Vern to be shown the door?)

Finally, range of 1,167 nm NBAA.
(Eclipse tbd? Free tailwinds with JetComplete-LX-NG!!! (Wind up your tailpipe, or something like that...)

"But it is a REAL jet and they expect to deliver forty next year".
(Eclipse will Deliver(tm) more than forty next year (but some of that total will be the same ones multiple times, sort of like Sales(tm), for Avio-NG rework, etc).

"I will now re-enter the world of PAPER jets as I push the 'Publish Your Comment' button".

Goat:
Black Tulip- PAPER???
(Don't be a "Dinosaur"!
It's a virtual paradise! :)

Shane Price said...

Ken,

So, Mr. Raburn is right and you are wrong.

Noooooo.

Tell the faithful that it cannot be so. The Prophet and his Desciple are at odds.

Or....

CJ3 is also right, you are right and Vern is wrong.

?

I cannot reconcile your posts. Either the flight is practical, and Mr. Raburn is correct.

Or it is not, and you are correct.

Help.

In English, either American or any ordinary standard form.

Shane

bill e. goat said...

I think Ken is giving it to us straight, as much as possible- a little optimistic, maybe. But from what I've discerned, never with any intent to deceive.
EO387 too.

Sometimes we "bash" a lot, but in general, it's in fun, sometimes to promote discussion, but thankfully generally not to PROVOKE discussion.

It is interesting to present "Devil's advocate" arguments (ah, well, that would be Vern's line...)

Let's say "hypothetical" conditions...Darn, that's Vern's position too...

Hmmm, let's say "contentious" points of view...what? Oh, yeah...

Ken Meyer said...

shane wrote,

"Mr. Raburn is right and you are wrong. Or....CJ3 is also right, you are right and Vern is wrong?"

I'm getting the feeling you think if you ask the same question over and over again the answer will change. Is that some kind of Irish thing?

In fairness, we do that here in the states occasionally. We put up bond measures to the taxpayers. Quite commonly, they are defeated, so we just keep putting them up over and over and over again until finally, with luck, they garner enough votes to pass.

But that's not really how blogs work. You ask a question; you get an answer. And then you move on.

That said, just so we're crystal clear here...my calculations show Vern Raburn was totally accurate in his assessment of the capability of the Eclipse to perform the flight in question.

Ken

Metal Guy said...

EO387
While my opinions are strong, I assure you they are all based on solid facts.

Shane Price said...

Ken,

Sometimes you have to repeat the question, especially when the first answer is (at best) unclear. Sorry if I seemed keen to get to the truth (an Irish 'thing') but your posts do conflict with each other.

Now we are all clear.

You are wrong about the Eclipse. The trip is 'practical' in an E500, Tuesday edition.

Vern is always right, even when He is wrong....

That just about sums up the postition of the Faithful. You believe, even when the logical part of your brain tells you the opposite. Whenever a tiny bit of logic slips out, you have to deny the truth and revert to 'the Prophet is correct'.

And remember what this is about. Mr. Raburn was, in writing, taking on a single engine prop. He insisted on having a pointless fight with the press about a trip that not many people want to take anyway.

To top it all, it cost him a full page ad, when colour copies are at a premium for the workers.

What is on the record is your statement that Mr. Raburn is correct, even when you also state that the trip is not practical.

In any E500.

That's one of the many things I like about this blog. The truth comes out, eventually.

Shane

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"Cirrus and Eclipse pilots fly more difficult flights because they don't grasp their own limitations. You have data on that?"

Ken,

Read the NTSB accident reports (both fatal and non fatal) and pay special attention to the narrative section, in particular, the pilot interview transcripts. What an eyeopener!

WT

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

Why is Vern looking at comparing the E500 to the TBM 850 anyways? Doesn't Eclipse have enough air taxi sales to worry about?

Ken Meyer said...

niner zulu wrote,

"The point is, both TBM and Eclipse should sell their planes on their real merits i.e. every day performance. Not hypotheticals."

I agree with that, but that wasn't Vern's point. Vern's point was that the B&CA article was incorrect in slapping VLJs in favor of the TBM. The article had these words:

"The five-hour, 24-minute flight was hardly a routine mission for the TBM 850, but it would have taken much longer in any VLJ because of the time required for a typical refueling pit stop en route."

Vern likes accuracy in reporting, especially when the inaccurate reporting understates his product's capabilities. He noticed that what they wrote was wrong, and he corrected it.

That doesn't mean the flight is a typical one for the Eclipse any more than it is a typical one for the TBM 850. However, it was doable in the Eclipse on that particular day.

Ken

Shane Price said...

Ken,

Pity Mr. Raburn is'nt fonder of accuracy in delivery forecasting.

Or performance.

Heck, even asking for the progress payments....

But, I suppose, if a reporter steps out of line, he should be slapped down.

For inaccuracy.

Makes perfect sense when you explain it that way.

Thanks

Shane

Ken Meyer said...

By the way, the B&CA article pointed out one of the things I don't like about the TBM 850 (in addition to the fact that it is overpriced)--it is pretty much yesterday's technology. In various places the article observes these faults that all tie into the plane needing a modernization job:

1. The aircraft's avionics consist of several autonomous boxes which only work begrudingly with each other. "Each independent box has its own little electronic empire and it seemingly doesn't want to acknowledge the roles played by its neighbors in the panel...the cockpit is a classic federation of independent components that just aren't designed to work as an integrated system, a cohesive team that supports the pilot." As we all know, when Avio NG is completed, it will represent a whole new level of integration between components that supports the pilot and dramatically lowers his workload.

2. There is no automatic load shedding, and the plane has a bunch of conventional CBs. The Eclipse, in contrast, has a sophisticated system to control the electronic circuitry, protect the pilot from doing something stupid, respond intelligently to whatever problem might occur, notify the pilot through integration with the CAS and permit the pilot to easily adjust whatever parameter is necessary to deal with the problem.

3. Pressurization is controlled by "an older, vintage pressurization controller" that doesn't offer the intelligence, ease of use and smooth, seamless cabin adjustments of the Eclipse pressurization system.

4. There is no FADEC, just a "basic, hydromechanical fuel control" so the pilot "must make dozens of adjustments during the course of a flight." The Eclipse system is sophisticated so that the pilot doesn't have to do much to run it. It makes the adjustments automatically for the pilot as conditions change, lowering workload and protecting the engines from pilot error.

5. Perhaps most telling, the plane still has a bunch of old-fashioned steam gauges for flight instruments. "Socata officials say that a fully integrated avionics system with large-format displays is under development." The Eclipse Avio NG is a state-of-the-art, well-integrated system that can do dozens of things the TBM 850's steam gauge system cannot. Yeah, we've had to wait a while to get it, but the wait is worth it.

For $2.8 million, I'd certainly be disappointed to wind up with such a technologically dated aircraft. One has to wonder if perhaps Socata is resting a bit on their laurels instead of taking on the challenge of keeping the TBM design up to date.

Ken

Shane Price said...

Ken,

If the TBM 850 is such a pile of junk...

... why, oh why, did the Prophet have to enter attack mode?

Why not let the E499.5 speak for itself on FlightAware?

Why do you spend valuable time dishing an aircraft that cost the guts of $3 million and won't appeal anyway to those who have set their mind on your wonderbird?

I just don't get it.

Is it because you (and Mr. Raburn) hate the French?

Must be something daft like that. Nothing else makes sense.

Oh, and when your talking to God (sorry, Mr. Raburn) again could you ask him to 'modernise' the E499.5.

Or at least get it flying above 18,000 ft.

Something I understand the TBM does all day, every day.

Shane

airtaximan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 218   Newer› Newest»