Sunday, July 15, 2007


ECLIPSE AVIATION FIRES ECLIPSE AVIATION CRITIC

July 15, 2007

Albuquerque, NM – Vern Raeburn, President & CEO, announced today that his company’s ties with Eclipse Aviation Critic had been severed. “This outfit joins a long line of those who have failed to meet our company’s high standards,” said Vern gravely. “First it was Williams with the engines, then Avidyne with avionics, then United for training,” he sighed, “And now we have to part ways with Eclipse Aviation Critic.”

“We’ve given them every chance that we could, but they just can’t get ‘er done. The quality of criticism on the web log has declined by any reasonable standard. We think there is a failure in the blog’s leadership to set a good example. The debate has degenerated to the point that they are questioning whether I could fly our Eclipse 500 most of the way across the country,” added Raeburn. “Remember the Allies used gliders at Normandy and the Germans invaded Crete with them. It’s real quiet for the last hundred miles in our jet and so far there’s been no extra paperwork on landing.”

“But I digress,” said Vern. “Of course, we are open to consistently good introspection, and even criticism of our company and product. We are replacing Eclipse Aviation Critic with a much improved blog. It will be called Eclipse Aviation Critic XP, for eXtra Performance. We wanted to use NG for New Generation, but that was taken.”

“The new web site will offer better functionality and performance thanks to proprietary Eclipse Aviation software and hardware. We borrowed leading edge technology from the Eclipse cockpit suite and will be able to display Jeppesen enroute and terminal charts on the web site. We expect to be online in August and are accepting modest deposits. Early adopters will get reduced monthly pricing for access. I will personally edit each entry to assure the high standards you have come to expect from Eclipse Aviation.”

Black Tulip

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

226 comments:

1 – 200 of 226   Newer›   Newest»
Stan Blankenship said...

I understand the replacement will be mirage00. He has so much more to offer with his big book of quotations recently received for his birthday.

Thanks black tulip for the heads up.

Shane Price said...

BT,

Excellent. Several puns within a parody with a healthy dose of fun thrown for good measure.

Whytech posted an excellent link regarding Epic and the way that company has chosen to bring (what seem) really nice aircraft to market quite fast.

Epic could represent a real threat to our favourate ABQ based research and testing company. You can't claim that Eclipse produce aircraft at the moment, because they have admitted that what actually goes out the door has to come back (several times) to be finished.

On Tuesday.

Epic are making aircraft, delivering them to customers and have managed to do so without vast numbers of deposits or progress payments.

Mr. Raburn must also have concerns about the number of smaller and bigger, single and twin engined, jet and pistons etc that will likely show up at Oshkosh.

Shane

Real planes for real life said...

I have been reading the blog since its inception. I would like to thank Stan and other contributors for making this site a thoughtful meeting place.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I currently have a position for a Citation Mustang scheduled for delivery in 2009. I was at the Mustang’s NBAA introduction in 2002 and I was very impressed with the Mustang then as I am now.

I looked at the Eclipse in 2002 before I made my decision on the Mustang and I couldn’t get comfortable with an Eclipse purchase decision. For many reasons. One, as an engineer by training, I never felt Eclipse could make the performance promises set forth in 2002; the physics didn’t add up in my mind. Too much promised range and speed for the fuel and thrust. Two, the Eclipse 500 has a terribly cramped passenger cabin. The three pax seats are insanely tight. I NEVER seen the fourth pax seat installed or the emergency lav installed. Three, the Eclipse 500 has exceedingly little baggage capacity. I could say more but I won’t. We all make decisions and I made mine.

I check in here from time to follow progress in the VLJ space and the Eclipse 500 in particular. A lot of smart people have looked at Eclipse and fallen in love with it. Although I love the idea of what Eclipse promises, I feel the need to track what Eclipse delivers. In this regard, I feel that Eclipse hasn’t delivered what was promised to a single customer yet. Nothing in the past five years has led me to think that placing my money with Cessna for a Mustang was a mistake.

Although my interest in private aviation has primarily been as a user for the past 10 years, like many entrepreneurs I have been thinking about various business models for new opportunities in private aviation.

I am exceedingly skeptical that the air taxi market will develop in the manner envisioned by its proponents. The new smaller jets will open up markets but not as currently articulated.

A penultimate observation that has been on my mind for almost one year. I believe that this blog has contributors who have a lot at stake in the success or failure of Eclipse. Think CEOs and EVPS. And others who wrote very, very big checks. I think they are here in this forum, watching their investments and trying to spin the results. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Finally, I was stunned to read that Black Tulip was at Hanscom Field on Thursday to see the Mustang and that FlightCenter just missed the event. I was there and that is one reason I decided to break my ‘radio silence’ and post this comment. I work in Bedford, MA near Hanscom. I am extending an open invitation to get together for lunch in the area to discuss the VLJ space. Any interest Black Tulip or others?

Ken Meyer said...

whytech wrote,

"If saving money is your goal, you will be way ahead to buy a jet card or ride first clss on the airlines. Always cheaper than owning your own turbine acft."

I'm guessing maybe you're not a pilot. Pilots very often do not make their decision to fly or not fly based on economics. If they did, most would never buy a plane. Owner-flown planes seldom make financial sense. Pilots own planes because they like flying. And I can tell you, the Eclipse is a lot of fun to fly.

That the Eclipse is also cost-effective is a real plus. I can actually fly it for the same amount I'm spending now supporting my Cessna 340.

"I think that your focus on fuel efficiency is misguided. Sure, in isolation, this is a good thing, but in the overall context of buying and operating a light jet, the fuel cost savings resulting from flying around in a tiny little Eclipse jet are a relatively small part of the cost structure for a typical owner"

There is merit to that point. So, how about we look again at the Direct Operating Costs (which, of course, go way beyond fuel) and the total operating expenses (which then add in fixed expenses like insurance and cost of capital)? Here are three planes and what I found were their per-mile operating expenses:

Direct Operating Expenses:

Eclipse: $1.35
Mustang: $2.13
CJ2: $3.94

Total costs:

Eclipse: $2.70
Mustang: $4.08
CJ2: $6.45

In the last year, we flew our plane just over 60,000 miles. A Mustang flown that far would cost us $82,800 more than an Eclipse. A CJ2 would cost us $225,000 more.

Both of those Cessna products are very nice planes. But the Eclipse is real nice, too, and it gets the job done for a lot less money. I can find something useful to do with $225,000 extra each year. I'll bet you could, too.

Ken

Real planes for real life said...

Dear Ken,

In your last post, you furnished the following information:

Direct Operating Expenses:

Eclipse: $1.35
Mustang: $2.13
CJ2: $3.94

Total costs:

Eclipse: $2.70
Mustang: $4.08
CJ2: $6.45


Would you be so kind to furnish the assumptions and details behind these calculations so we can all examine them? Thank you for your consideration.

Real -

WhyTech said...

Ken said:


"I'm guessing maybe you're not a pilot. Pilots very often do not make their decision to fly or not fly based on economics"

Then you'd be guessing wrong - been flying for more than 40 years, and currently own and operate a PC-12.

If pilots dont make decsions based primariliy on economics, then why are you obsessively preoccupied with what it MIGHT cost to fly an Eclipse? Just go for it with the Mustang and get all the other advantages endlessy enumerated here. (I say MIGHT because we dont know with real accuracy what this will be as the acft isnt finished yet.)

Ken also said:

"I can find something useful to do with $225,000 extra each year. I'll bet you could, too."

Yep, a PC-12/47E or a CJ3!

WT

flightguy said...

Ken,

So why did you waste $1.5million buying an Eclipse?

Is the glass half full or half empty?

The Real Frank Castle said...

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."

Frank Zappa

WhyTech said...

Real Planes said:

"I am extending an open invitation to get together for lunch in the area to discuss the VLJ space. Any interest Black Tulip or others? "

I am nearby would welcome this.

WT

Real planes for real life said...

Dear Whytech,

Great. It would be a pleasure. Please send me an e-mail at the address under my profile.

Real -

EclipseOwner387 said...

WT,

That last post to Ken was just silly. Give me a break. You sound like a kid trying to break someones balls at every turn.

Having your own plane and being a pilot provides much more freedom than any aircard. Then you weigh all the factors in making a buying choice. You are being an ass nitpicking Ken's post. How he has chosen to make the decision was based on HIS desires and economics. If the Eclipse delivers on his desires then good for him.


You like to argue for arguments sake and quite frankly you bring little to the discussin in MY opinion. Just noise.

The Real Frank Castle said...

"Nobody looks good with brown lipstick on."
-- Frank Zappa

Ken Meyer said...

whytech wrote,

"Then you'd be guessing wrong - been flying for more than 40 years, and currently own and operate a PC-12."

As a pilot, you should know that your comment, "you will be way ahead to buy a jet card or ride first clss on the airlines. Always cheaper than owning your own turbine acft," is accurate, but misses the point.

Of course it is cheaper to be a passenger than a pilot of your own aircraft. The goal is not the cheapest method of getting from point A to point B. The goal is to fly! But that does not mean you have to spend as much as possible to enjoy flying. If you can do it cost-effectively rather than throwing dollars down the toilet, what could anybody have against that?

Ken

mirage00 said...

Stan...

As usual, your continued replication of others posts exposes you for the empty headed dinosaur you are. Keep up the ummmmmmm work.


I remain amused

double 00

The Real Frank Castle said...

"Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
-- Frank Zappa

And THAT'S what makes the difference between Owner/Faithful, and "position-holder".

Even after taking it up the wazoo, you still have to take the party line.

Pathetic.

flightguy said...

Where do I get a Frank Zappa quote book?

WhyTech said...

EO387 said:

"You like to argue for arguments sake and quite frankly you bring little to the discussin in MY opinion. Just noise. "

Thanks for your support and tolerance of the opinions of others than Ken. In case you hadnt noticed, this blog has the word "critic" in the title.

I have grown weary of Ken's relentless harping on what the economics of the Eclipse might be someday. This has been going on for months - Ken has made this point way too many time in my opinion.

Have a nice day.

WT

Ken Meyer said...

real planes wrote,

"Would you be so kind to furnish the assumptions and details behind these calculations so we can all examine them?"

I can't. It's copyrighted material that I massaged to better fit my particular situation. But if you're still considering which plane would suit your purposes the best, a visit to this page will get you started. From those reports, you can adjust the numbers to your situation and derive an impartial estimate of what the planes you're considering will actually cost you to operate.

Ken

The Real Frank Castle said...

From the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen.

"I have grown weary of Ken's relentless harping on what the economics of the Eclipse might be someday."

Amen, brother. As he admits, he "massages" numbers, factois, quotes, etc. to make his point.

Why ? Because he cannot make any TRUTHFUL points for the POS. THERE ARE NONE.

It can barely fly, much less compete with ANYTHING close to it's class.

If eowhatever would remove HIS brown lipstick, or any other "owner", maybe we'll get some truth, not the usual, "well, we leased it back. I'll get it someday."

Shane Price said...

I'm going to guess something and see where it goes.

I 'guess' that, like Whytech and a couple of others around here the current aircraft of choice is a turboprop single. People with a reasonable level of disposable income who choose to fly themselves around in a bigger, faster, longer range bird that a Cessna 172. No that there is anything wrong with the 172, its just that, well, a PC-12 (for instance) is bigger, faster and has a longer range...

Anyway, having made an assumption about what people fly, I'm going to make another one. The reason a number of these people are 'here' is to observe and possibly decide what to purchase next. Or, if they have made a decision, use the blog to mull that over and possibly make a move to a different queue.

What has me thinking along these lines is the earlier post by Real Planes. Also, in part its what got me here in the first place. I fancy something to cross the pond with, but other than a SJ30 (good range, too expensive, questions over the company) I have drawn a blank.

Its 1730NM from SNN to anywhere worthwhile, almost all of it over the Atlantic. Maybe its not a light twin I'm looking for, but in a single, that's an awful long way over water.

Any suggestions are most welcome.

And Ken, will you stop spewing estimated costs which are based on an estimated airplane. Please. Its just annoying.

Thank you.

Shane

Real planes for real life said...

Re: ‘Direct Operating Expenses’ and ‘Total costs’

Dear Ken,

Earlier today you wrote:

“Here are three planes and what I found were their per-mile operating expenses:

Direct Operating Expenses:

Eclipse: $1.35
Mustang: $2.13
CJ2: $3.94

Total costs:

Eclipse: $2.70
Mustang: $4.08
CJ2: $6.45”



This information was furnished by you in a manner which would lead a reader to infer that you believe the above information is true and correct.

I kindly asked if you could furnish the assumptions and details behind these calculations so we can all examine them.


In response you said:

“I can't. It's copyrighted material that I massaged to better fit my particular situation.”


I am disappointed in your response.

While Conklin and de Decker might have a valid copyright on a particular expression of an idea, i.e. their report in their format, they do not have any copyright protection on the underlying data. The facts are the facts and copyrights don’t extend to facts. In other words, you are allowed to cite the assumptions and data that were used to generate the assertions that you made derived from their reports. I would like to read your support for the representation that the Eclipse has a ‘Direct Operating Expense’ of $1.35 per mile versus a figure of $2.13 per mile for the Mustang. You further represented that the Eclipse has ‘Total Costs’ of $2.70 per mile versus the Mustang at $4.08 per mile. Please provide the requested support for your post.

As you know, the Eclipse data used by Conklin and de Decker may have been furnished to them by Eclipse Aviation and Cessna Aircraft, the respective manufacturers. This makes the implied ‘comparison’ you set forth even more important.

Therefore, I would re-iterate my request that you support the basis for your assertions of the relative ‘Direct Operating Expenses’ and ‘Total Costs’ re: the Eclipse and the Mustang. Please share all assumptions including but not limited to hours of utilization per year, avg. stage length, block speed, altitude, fuel consumption, engine reserves, airframe parts and labor, capital costs, depreciation, insurance, salaries, etc.

I suspect many on this blog would be interested in your answer and could follow the math.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Regards,

Real -

redtail said...

WT said: In case you hadnt noticed, this blog has the word "critic" in the title.

Thanks for setting the world straight on that!

Frankie said: If eowhatever would remove HIS brown lipstick, or any other "owner", maybe we'll get some truth

Truth? You can't handle the truth!

WhyTech said...

Shane said:

"Its 1730NM from SNN to anywhere worthwhile, almost all of it over the Atlantic. Maybe its not a light twin I'm looking for, but in a single, that's an awful long way over water.

Any suggestions are most welcome."

This is something I have been looking at as well - not so much for crossing the pond, but for crossing the U.S. My (admittedly limited) research seems to indicate that there is not currently a sutiable choice for this mission if you also require two turbine engines, adequate short-term and long-term support, single pilot certification, and a purchase price well below $6mm.

The closest I have been able to find so far is the CJ3 and this will not consistently do coast to coast westbound with the conservative reserves I require; and of course, at $8mm for a new one delivered in 2009, this is even more expensive than the SJ30.

It seems that one needs to get into an acft like the G150, or similar, to get the range. And these start around $12mm, and are not single pilot certified.

Perhaps others have some alternative ideas?

WT

Ken Meyer said...

real planes wrote,

"they do not have any copyright protection on the underlying data. The facts are the facts and copyrights don’t extend to facts."

Could be. Honestly I do not know if the data they present comprise a selected and analyzed compilation of figures (which would be protected) or simply a regurgitation of raw data (which would not be protected).

Either way, these people are trying to make a buck on the effort they put into accumulating raw data from multiple sources, analyzing it, and presenting it to customers for use in deciding which expensive plane to buy. Who am I to come along and shortcut them by giving away for free the very information they're trying to sell?

Go to the website I linked, and spend a few bucks. I'm confident that you will find the information very enlightening.

Ken

Shane Price said...

WT,

Thanks for confirming my own, limited research. I have hopes for the PC-12 NG, but not even a whisper on range yet. And it will of course be a single. There are rumours about a smaller one, but it can hardly be available for 3 years or more.

When you say the CJ3 is marginal for your coast to coast trips, are you concerned about being forced to loiter around at destination? At present, I would be happy to stop in Halifax or Gandor. SNN is not the busiest place in the world either.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Ken,

Thank you for not repeating those numbers. Again.

However, you make the mistake of implying that the basis for your assumptions are 'mulitple sources'

At present how can there be 'multiple sources' for the current, E499.5? Eclipse has imposed some Mafia like 'omerta' on the few people who have paid for(but not flown away in) this version. Mike Press has, to be fair, produced a number of reports but all seem to be missing key bits of the puzzle.

And, since no one has flown a E500T(uesday) yet, how is there even a single data source for it?

I might as well declare that my secret VLRJ offering (the PaddyWagon,TM) with its poteen powered ramjets will cross the Atlantic in 55 minutes, all for the cost of a pint of Guiness.

Prove me wrong. Until my 'secret' idea fails to fly, you can't.

No one can PROVE you are right about Eclipse.

Until something close to what was promised actually flies. Which we all hope will happen by Tuesday.

Shane

Black Tulip said...

RealPlanes,

I'll drop you an email about getting together with WhyTech.

Black Tulip

WhyTech said...

Shane said:

"I have hopes for the PC-12 NG, but not even a whisper on range yet."

There is quite a bit of info available on the PC-12 NG (aka PC-12/47E), but not readily accesible to the public. The engine has been tweaked for a bit more power and speed, but also a bit more fuel flow, so the range is not meaningfully different from the current version. I can email a fairly comprehensive white paper on the airplane if you can tell me how to get it to you.

Shane also said:

"When you say the CJ3 is marginal for your coast to coast trips, are you concerned about being forced to loiter around at destination?"

Yes, or to divert to an unintended point. In general, I consider NBAA reserves to be inadequate to deal with compound, unanticipated events, such as wx down and an airframe emergency. My flying is strictly for fun and personal transportation, so I choose to have generous safety margins.

In addition, it looks like the CJ3 would need a tailwind to make it coast to coast westbound - happens, but not often enough. Perhaps cj3driver can comment further.

WT

WhyTech said...

BT said:

"I'll drop you an email about getting together with WhyTech."

I can seem to find an email address in the profile - any pointers?

Thanks,

WT

Black Tulip said...

Whytech,

I found it under 'About Me' for 'Real planes for real life'.

Black Tulip

airtaximan said...

Ken said:
"these people are trying to make a buck on the effort they put into accumulating raw data from multiple sources, analyzing it, and presenting it to customers for use in deciding which expensive plane to buy"...

Soooo, you are protecting E-clips! They are trying to make a buck by presenting raw data to customers!

Too bad, they should try using their plane - duh! They can't...yet...maybe... its only been 9 years and $1.X billion... wait a little longer...you'll see -

But until then, we alwasy have the data they are presenting.

Thanks.

airtaximan said...

I hope along with the new V-tail 4-place single, e-clips uses the letters TT in the naming convention.
As in the EA350TT
stands for...

This Time...

Stan Blankenship said...

ATM,

It remains to be seen if Eclipse is working on another airplane and whether it will be introduced at Oshkosh. But I have been thinking on what might make sense.

By now, it should be obvious to everyone the 500 is not going to have the production volume previously announced. But I suspect Eclipse has high volume contracts on the two most expensive vendor items, the engines (Pratt) and the wings (Fuji).

Gotta use them for something, so why not down size the fuselage to a non-cabin class 4-place, eliminate the tip tanks and produce an airplane with higher performance and better efficiency for guys like Ken, which is where the real market for the Eclipse actually exists.

Use the existing wing, engine and landing gear and some form of the avionics suite.

Reducing the gross weight would reduce the wing loading and increase the thrust to weight which would give the airplane better high altitude performance.

While they won't be able to build this airplane for any less than the 500, it would have some get up and go that would put it into a market segment all by itself and easily out perform any of the single engine VLF's now in work.

Black Tulip said...

Stan,

Your post is very interesting. A LEGO type aircraft assembled from the best components of the previous design. Think vastly updated Paris Jet. As you have suggested, shed as much weight as possible to get the wings to do their stuff. Minimize the wetted area and the aircraft could really go somewhere.

Black Tulip

WhyTech said...

Stan said:

"While they won't be able to build this airplane for any less than the 500,"

Any guesses on *realistic* prices and unit volume of such an acft?

WT

Shane Price said...

WT,

Many thanks for your kind offer. A PDF would be great. I've just activated the address in my profile, but for a limited time only.

Shane

Stan Blankenship said...

WT,

Price...between a Mustang and a D-Jet or TheJet (Cirrus).

Shane Price said...

Stan,

I guess Eclipse would need to retool the 'woks' to reduce the size of the aircraft much. In an earlier post we had lots of fun working out how much the stir frying was actually worth. The Faithful insisted that it was the key to high volume.

New wok, at this stage, to produce an aircraft with a low(ish) margin? I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.

My gut tells me the only way forward, in the real world, for Eclipse is to go for a bigger design. Then, try to keep costs under control, by squeezing the suppliers. Microsoft are a legend in the industry for cost cutting at every turn. Mr. Raburn knows this.

When you try to cut costs, suppliers are faced with diffcult choice. Stay in, in the hope of getting some of your money back, or get out and take the financial hit up front.

So, bully Fuji into a bigger wing, and twist P&W's arm for more thrust. At the same price...

Now you can continue to 'produce' the E500, possibly with a reduced final spec but put resources into the E650. Some of the faithful will follow Vern up the value chain, as they are already sold on Eclipse anyway.

Put it another way. In the software business, no one makes money out of the 'Limited Edition' versions. They are clearly there to draw the crowds in for the 'Premium' products.

That's my read. And, for this weekend, my lot.

Thanks to WT in particular, and everyone else who has participated.

Shane

airtaximan said...

Stan:

"While they won't be able to build this airplane for any less than the 500"... BUT
...they can CLAIM they can...that's the critical part.

- They have no case left for the 500, Stan. The $1.5 million plane requires BIG volume - it’s GONE. Suppliers are basing their prices on "rational" numbers, now...and there's NOTHING left of this business case. Once the price is adjusted for the real volume, ball game over. The plane becomes Mustang=priced and even Ken would fold. OK, maybe not Ken...but everyone, else. The taxi guys, well, they will just have to live with it - the program will be gone - unless...

-lotsa commonality (BS, but in the press this looks good, for a while)
-short development/cert timetable (BS, but in the press this looks good for a while)
-low, low price, to juice up the volume story (BS, but in the press this looks good fro a while).

- long enough to get more deposits, more progress payments, and new financing.

Stan, I'm glad you are beginning to see the light, or should I say darkness, here.

Who knows about the new plane? I'm just trying to find the way they are going to try to remain in business... like I said, the 500 is dead. There's no business case left, and the jig is up regarding the true volume for this dodo bird. It cannot work.

I'm thinking, just like engine-II and aviong - there will be some BS that will be the excuse to continue....

Look for the e-xcuse at Oshkosh 2007. Say V for Victory!

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"They have no case left for the 500, Stan. The $1.5 million plane requires BIG volume - it’s GONE."

That's just just your wishful thinking coming through again.

An equally possible point of view is that DayJet, Linear Air and the others wind up hugely successful and cannot get their hands on Eclipse 500's fast enough to suit their needs. Independent operators wind up forced into a corner because the Eclipse allows their competition to provide a better service at a much lower price. Guys like AT reluctantly give up business when the passengers fade away.

Eclipse Aviation expands the line to five 8-hour shifts per day, and cranks out 2500 planes per year. AirTaximan winds up fastening plastic side panels in his new job working for Eclipse.

Come to think of it, that's more likely than the scenario you described, AT :)

Ken

Metal Guy said...

Maybe AirTaximan can glue the interior panels better :)

I actually, as much as I dislike Eclipse, think that a smaller, single engine jet would be the smartest move they could make at this point in the game. They have based their entire business model on high volume, which is much more consistent with a smaller, cheaper jet. Just take one of everything from the E499.5 and build an E199.5. It’s also more consistent with an accelerated BS delivery schedule just to keep everyone happy.

If the air taxi model takes off, Mustang will be in great shape. Sorry, I see no rational reason to think that Eclipse can keep up, given their extensive track record of not keeping up.

Real planes for real life said...

Re: ‘Direct Operating Expenses’ and ‘Total costs’ Part II

Dear Ken,

I have a concern that you may be disingenuous in some of the information you are posting.

Earlier today you wrote:

“Here are three planes and what I found were their per-mile operating expenses:

Direct Operating Expenses:

Eclipse: $1.35
Mustang: $2.13
CJ2: $3.94

Total costs:

Eclipse: $2.70
Mustang: $4.08
CJ2: $6.45”


As I said before, this information was furnished by you in a manner which would lead a reader to infer that you believe the above information is true and correct.

You refused to explain the basis of your calculations, much to my disappointment.

Then you wrote later…..

“Go to the website I linked, and spend a few bucks. I'm confident that you will find the information very enlightening.”

Good advice, Ken. So I spent ‘a few bucks’ and look what Conklin and de Decker says…..(and it is enlightening)…..

As of report date 7/15/07

Total Direct Costs per nm:

Eclipse: $2.10
Mustang: $2.38


Total costs with Depreciation per nm:

Eclipse: $4.00
Mustang: $5.06


Total costs without Depreciation per nm:

Eclipse: $3.13
Mustang: $3.58

Total costs without Depreciation per seat nm:

Eclipse: $.78
Mustang: $.72

I will footnote that C&D has modeled the depreciation at 10% per annum for both the Eclipse and the Mustang. If one or the other should prove to hold it’s value better, then you would need to adjust the TCs which include depreciation for a better estimate of retained value.

Ken, I must say that I feel you need to defend your earlier figures, which you implied were from C&D. There is a significant gap between what you wrote and what I found. As I suspected, the Mustang is much closer in costs to those of the Eclipse (as reported by C&D) than you implied. In fact, C&D reports the Mustang is more efficient on a per seat NM basis. Now that is interesting.....

I look forward to the courtesy of a reply.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Regards,

Real -

bill e. goat said...

Lots of talk about operating and total cost per mile. I note Real Planes for Real Life has posted an interesting analysis, showing a set of figures, suggesting Eclipse is closer to Mustang than I expected.

But, I don't believe it reflects the cost of acquisition or financing. It does have a set of number for depreciation, but I suspect these are legitimately based on "current prices", not the buy-in price Ken and many others have; in which case there will probably be substantial (?dramatic?) APPRECIATION, probably enough to offset operating expenses completely for a couple of years or so. (If Eclipse stays in business, and probably even if they don't but are taken over- but that's another topic all together).
--------------------------
Metal guy makes interesting observations about Yugo vs Toyota. Instead, is this Hyundai vs Toyota? Don't know.

(Might point out that Eclipse v Mustang seems more like Geo Metro vs Corolla. Metro sold pretty well, and was a good value, and performed it's intended roll well. Owners were satisfied, and would concede it didn't have the "pizazz" or resale value of the Corolla, but they didn't care- it suited their needs).
----------------------
9Z noted:
"If you follow the oil market at all and subscribe to the "peak oil" theory, or if you just look at the refining capacity worldwide for JetA, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that JetA is going to get more expensive in the future. A LOT more expensive. Same with avgas. This is going to put a damper on all flying. Bye bye inefficient air taxi business, hello Prius".

Goat: While the press is giddy with reports of Anna Nicole's paternity test and the quoters (excuse me, they used to be called reporters) read conflicting press releases, the current administration's antagonization of well, pretty much the rest of the world, and Russia in particular has gone unreported.

One outcome of this is, Russia is getting chummy with China, and selling them oil. This will help China continue to expand economically, and the cash infusion will help Russia compete in the arms race Bush the Boy is recklessly engaging in (also unreported by the media "quoters").

In turn, expect to see China buying modernized Russian military equipment. In the short term, the Chinese buying Russian oil will help us keep Arab oil, (that we done bought with two wars now). So, although the potential is there, and I think it has already had an effect, I don't expect the "peak oil" thing to get much worse soon- India and South American industrialization, may accelerate that, but I think that's still 20 years off.

By then, China and Russia will both be fully armed with modern weaponry, Russian and Chinese oil demand will be even higher, and it will indeed be a big time crisis, that price inflation will not remedy.

The "good" news, ah, well, I hope attention to global warming will get energy consumption under control, perhaps mitigating oil price ascension somewhat.

(I had a discussion with a engine guy not too long ago, about the environmental effects of Concorde supersonic flight. He said while not insignificant, a far greater concern is the cumulative environmental effects of operating- at any speed- above 37K. He proceeded to whip a lot of science on me, and I pretended to understand it. Maybe some others out there are better versed and could enlighten us).

Sorry to bore you with all that.
--------------------------
Frank Castle, the real one, points out: The E-500 is currently less-than-fully useful (in somewhat more emphatic terms).

He also mentions the "bogus FAA BS "certification", to which I generally concur, particularly in light of the switch in avionics vendors. I suspect there is some teeth grinding amongst the FAA over this shenanigan, and I feel it is not in Eclipse's long term interest to be producing "sub spec" aircraft, even with IOU's for free future upgrades- this strange interlude is, well, just plain strange.

bill e. goat said...

ATM,
You crafty devil- has Vern been whispering sweet somethings in your ear???

Straight from the horse's, well, you decide which end:

Jan 17, 2007, Av Week:
http://tinyurl.com/35w585

(Re: "the introduction of the single-engine personal light jet, or PLJ....)

"The concept of the personal light jet makes sense. I believe there could be a very large market for the right single-engine jet, but not if it's dumbed down. It would have to cruise at least 300 KTAS and fly as high as 35,000 feet occasionally to escape the weather. And it will have to be priced close to a $1million or lower to be viable," proclaimed Vern Raburn, founder, chairman and CEO of Eclipse Aviation in Albuquerque, N.M. The Eclipse 500 is the aircraft that started the VLJ movement".

Ah, another proclamation. Excuse me, I must go have a movement of my own (I mean, a moment alone).

cj3driver said...

WT,

The performance of the CJ3 exceeds the published Cessna Flight planning Guide in almost every aspect. The no wind range is just over 1,900 nm 850 lbs reserve. Speed is 405 Kts at FL450 at 740 lbs per hr. at MCT. Near the end of the trip (light) same speed but 680 lbs per hr.

Here are some actual flights (Air miles)

89nm 370 lbs and :19 min. VFR

187 nm 780 lbs :37 min VFR

344 nm 1,015 :58 min FL450

1186 nm 2,580 lbs 3:10 FL450

1920 nm 3,890 lbs 5:12 FL450



P.S. Ken,

Since we are both obviously interested in performance numbers, I will qualify the above figures.

1. These are actual flights made in MY aircraft which I own and operate privately.

2. Its very rare to get direct routing, climbs or descents.

3. The TOW varies. I quite often ferry fuel and round trip.

4. The miles are “air miles: from the Proline readout. This is not ground miles, so are calculated “through the air”

cj3driver said...

RE: Eclipse vs. Mustang and Ken’s numbers
:
Real said (to Ken);

“… I look forward to the courtesy of a reply.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Regards,

Real -…”

Real,

Good luck. Try not to get frustrated. Just remember, ….you are not the one with the money on the line. You can always get an Eclipse later. Plenty to choose from. They go on sale next Tuesday.

fred said...

bill e goat ..

i found your post quite interresting ....

but for your knowledge : believe or no to believe in hubbert king theory of peak oil is one point ...

but some are facts : the russians do not need "cash infusions" , in fact their budget is making an excedent every year , since quite a few years .... (well in fact they do save the oil money profits on a spécial budget line , and it's growing by some 6 billions US$ .....a month ...:-)) just because they are the world's N°1 of oil exporter , now... )

china is already getting trained with russian army ...

experts say russia is going to stop exporting oil in 2015 ( pessimists say 2012 , optimists say 2018 , consensus =2015) not for any reasons they are bad or like to play with other's needs for energy ; just because they will probably eat and burn what they are producing now then....(anyone knowing russia should know how wastefull russian dev. has been since ages .... one exemple : only newer flats has any kind of energetic efficiency , as for the old flats = usually it's overheated and rarelly insulated (if a #"soviet#" flat is not somewhere 24/25° [75F°/77F°] in the midst of winter most russians would tell you it's too cold , but they keep a little window open to get fresh air even if it's -30° outside [-22F°]!!!)

and then there is politics going in the play , i wouldnt trust too much the american(sorry , bush's) policy of encircling russia ... (ukrain is a political faillure , georgia is very shaky...)

as for "arab" oil (arab is not the good word = a big chunk of oil lies in Iran , which is not an arab country ....)
iran is unreacheable for the present time (they sell most of production to china , anyway...)

i would be very careful , irak seems to be in the mess for another decade ...(with a production just a fraction of what it used to be , and if no peace inside the country = no investments in oil production unless even more troops are sent...)

Saudi arabia is a strange case = the saoudi familly (rulers of the country) depends on american troops to remain in power , american troops protect the oil supply , some see there a good reason why the estimated stocks of saoudi oil seems to be ""self-replenishing" over the years .... when oil will be finished (or close to be ) american troops will go , and the rulers will be thrown out of power very soon after ......!!!

i really very much doubt about fossil energies to be less consumed in the next few years , it wouldn't be acknoledged as being fair by develloping countries (where most can only afford cheap and energy unefficient means of transportation , and they are right , we develloped countries , took the best part of creating the climate and global warming problems by making us richs , now we ask poors to remain poors because we have been careless in the past ??!!)

so , i wouldn't say it's going to be an other 20 years with oil ....

i am almost certain it will be on for the next 50 years to come ....

the real question would be more something like :

" at what price oil will be sold then....!!"

as the cheap oil days are finished , the price for anything made out of fossil energy will dramaticilly increase in the future to some extents that cannot be forseen now !!

Real planes for real life said...

Dear Whytech and Black Tulip,

It would be great to see you both for lunch. I look forward to receiving your e-mail or suggest a way I can contact you. This week looks pretty available.

Regards,

Real -

Black Tulip said...

Real Planes,

Sent you an email yesterday and just resent it.

Black Tulip

WhyTech said...

REal Planes said:

"I look forward to receiving your e-mail"

Also sent yesterday will send again.

WT

Ken Meyer said...

real planes wrote,

"I must say that I feel you need to defend your earlier figures, which you implied were from C&D."

I think I said I started with those numbers and adjusted them to suit my circumstances. You should do that, too--I think it's the only way to arrive at a meaningful figure for your particular situation.

For instance, I don't use a crew or have catering expenses, so I removed those. The fuel flows were wrong, and I corrected them. There were other adjustments.

On fixed expenses, I look at the cost of capital--whatever money I put into an aircraft is money that isn't earning anything for me in an investment.

The per mile fixed expenses hinge on how many miles you fly. The Mustang is about $1.3 million more upfront than the Eclipse. Assuming a modest return rate for investment dollars of 6%, a hull rate of 1.5%, and annual flight miles of 50,000, the Mustang costs $1.95 more every single mile in those two fixed expenses alone. If you fly 200,000 miles per year, the higher cost of capital and insurance drops to "just" 49 cents per mile.

As to using per-seat costs, Conklin and deDecker says the Mustang holds 5 passengers plus a pilot and the Eclipse holds 4 plus a pilot. As you well know, neither aircraft can do that and fly a max range flight. The Mustang, for instance, can only carry 600 lbs with full fuel. The Eclipse is even worse in that regard.

Aside from that limitation, it seems to me that per-seat costs are only a factor if you're running an airline. I have to pay for the whole plane whether I fill the seats or not. If per-seat costs are very important, it's probably better to look at a 747 :)

Ken

EclipseOwner387 said...

Ken,

Sounds like you did your homework!

Well done.

airsafetyman said...

I enjoy this blog immensely, but someone needs to remind Stan that the early Learjets had a horrendous accident rate. I think the Eclipse is a deeply flawed design for a number of reasons, which got me thnking about what constitutes a safe operation for an aircraft used for business. To my mind it would be an aircraft with enough speed, range, payload and room for passengers and their baggage, reliable avionics, adaquate systems back-ups, good engine-out capability, and most importantly, TWO highly-trained, well-rested professional pilots up front. I think these micro-jets, flown single pilot by non-professional pilots will be a disaster.

airtaximan said...

Ken:

You make some good points in your last few posts... I must agree. (scary, huh?)

- The 747 is cheaper, on a per seat basis than a mini-jet of any kind.

- If Linear, Pogo, Dayjet, et als are successful using little jets, they may require many, many of them.

- A couple of questions, for you?
1- How long before Dayjet and the rest ramp up their service operations so that they can purchase 2500 e-clips jets and put them into operation? Dayjet says their requirements for the first 3 years are MAX 300. Linear and the rest have bought a few dozen here and there... So, when e-clips runs out of orders in a year or two... Say 500 per year (I know, BS... but heck, that's what they need to break even...), and your dream sceanrio coems true - -how long to ramp to 2500 per year, so E-clips can begin eating away at the massive hole they have created?

2- Regarding the BIGGER is cheaper by the seat example of the 747... How come e-clips is making as smaller plane, next? That is...if that's what they have produced with your progress-payment money? Aren't they smart enough (as smart as YOU) to produce a larger aircraft for the taxi market... one with lower per-seat (Dayjet) economics that helps their only large market? The one you say is required to deliver VOLUME to enable the low price?

Ken: how does all this come together? It sounds nice...like the LRUs, progress-payments, fixes, Ngs, performance numbers, upgrades-that-are-redesigns-and- repairs, designed for high cycle, yadayadayada??

Take off the virtual reality glasses, and provide a vision, based in reality, about how you reconcile your 747 vs. 2500 Dayjets per year statement... and provide a clue as to how e-clips bridges the lack of orders until the air taxi guys get going - if they can...

Thanks

Stan Blankenship said...

airsafetyman,

No need to remind Stan about the accident history of the Lear Jets and Learjets.

Several years ago I went thru the records and counted the number of people killed in these airplanes and the number totaled close to three dozen that I personally knew.

At the time, my wife worked in marketing with me and knew most of them as well. Every now and then something will remind us of one of the unfortunate pilots and the subject is brought up.

Steve Baylor is a good example. My first ride in a Lear was the delivery of 23-012 to Johhny von Neuman, the VW dealer in seven Western States. Steve was Johnny's pilot, a handsome guy whose dream was to act in soap operas. Met his California mother...she was gracious, tan and attractive, the way a California mom was supposed to be.

Steve flew into the side of a Swiss mountain while flying single pilot from Geneva to Basel for maintenance.

One does not ever forget these things.

Stan Blankenship said...

The EAA is showing a 07:30 am press breakfast Monday 7/23 at the Eclipse exhibit.

I wonder if a blogger can get a press pass, or perhaps they can issue a blogger pass.

flightguy said...

Did anyone else read the Dayjet article in Aviation Week? (Gearing Up For Launch)Unfortunately, I could not provide the link due to subscriptions. A few bullets from the article:

-Customers must weigh in at check-in.
-Eclipse deliveries have been "a little rough"
-Initially 74 squawks, noW ave. of 30 upon delivery.
-Dispatch rate of 75%, based upon the minute.
-Dayjet "may" expand beyond Florida.
-Max of 50 AC for '07.

There is nothing like your biggest customer bashing you. OUCH, ECLIPSE THAT IS GOTTA HURT!!

mouse said...

Ken,

Way to go! You completely destroyed all credibility of the Conklin & DeDecker data. Cessna and Eclipse each submitted their data and the value of the C&D reports is that it is directly from that data. When you go changing fuel burns and other costs, etc you invalidate the data that Cessna and Eclipse provided.

Your data is as bogus as your storyline now. Any other history you'd like to re-write? At least you are consistant with how you spend/waste your money...

Shane Price said...

Stan,

Thanks for your insight into the reason flight safety is so important. I'm sure most of us feel your pain, despite the passage of so many years.

May they rest in peace.

Shane

421Jockey said...

Flightguy,

If you won't publish the quote, at least get it right.

You said "-Eclipse deliveries have been "a little rough"", but that was not the quote.

He was describing the fit and finish of the first few aircraft when he said, "As the newer Eclipse aircraft arrive, Iacobucci says he can see an improvement in quality of finish, with the first arrivals having been “a little rough.”

Let's keep to the actual quotes and not interpret them to our own desires.

flightguy said...

Ya, that made a difference. They only have a few. Did I hit a nerve?

Ken Meyer said...

mouse wrote,

"When you go changing fuel burns and other costs, etc you invalidate the data that Cessna and Eclipse provided."

The Conklin and de Decker formulation for fuel burn is:

"Block Fuel + 15% divided by Flight Time.
Jets = a 600 nm trip
Turboprop = a 300 nm trip
Pistons = a 200 mile trip
Helicopters = a 50 nm trip
Cruise speeds reflect typical power settings for particular aircraft make/model (Intermediate, High Speed Cruise)"

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, they got the fuel flow wrong when they consulted the Eclipse AFM. Interestingly enough, they got it wrong for the Mustang, too. Applying the exact same conditions (600 nm trip, same altitude, etc) to both, C & D overestimated Eclipse fuel burn and underestimated Mustang fuel burn. That's one reason why the unadjusted DOC numbers came out so close.

I do agree that's the sort of mistake that shouldn't have been made, but heck that's why you doublecheck the data.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

At wrote,

"Take off the virtual reality glasses, and provide a vision, based in reality, about how you reconcile your 747 vs. 2500 Dayjets per year statement..."

I think probably you don't actually fully understand the DayJet model. Their model hinges on flights with one or two passengers (only). Anybody can do that today in a CJ3 or a Learjet, but not without charging a lot (and even then many are only making money because there is an owner involved who is willing to lose money to get a writeoff).

Ed Iacobucci put it this way in a recent interview: "What you really want is an aircraft that has the lowest cost per mile to operate; that gives the highest probability of making money when you get a second or third passenger. The Eclipse being a small airplane is the most cost effective. Leg break even is 1.3 passengers. If zero, we don’t fly. If one, we nearly break even. If 2 we’re making money. Therefore the risk is reduced."

So, what they need for their model is lots of inexpensive cost-effective aircraft rather than a few large aircraft. Once you get into larger aircraft, their model would only work if they can fill them, but their research says that's not going to happen on the routes they fly.

Ken

bill e. goat said...

Okay, how exciting was YOUR day at work today...???

While poking around the internet, to research Airsafetyman's observations, I came across this great link regarding the early days at Learjet. Fascinating read!

Even more fun! Read to the end, and discover who the author is- none other than our own Blogmeister, Stan Blankenship!!

Man, what exciting, dynamic times those must have been!!

Lear Early Days

(Well, I sharpened some pencils and went to a meeting at work today... :)

airtaximan said...

Ken:

Just because Ed backed into a number that sounds good for the e-500, does not mean it makes sense for any market.

SATSair is doing very well... and they have a smaller plane. Its a prop, and its "older" technology.

Why do you think the Dayjet model (which now includes per-jet... er, I mean charter, or whatever they like to rename charter) at $2,000 per hour. Same with POGO... Linear, etc.

If the market was so well aligned with the Dayjet model, and the economics were so fabulous, why conventional charter at conventional jet prices?

Your point about the 747 was more accurate. Problem is, you need some pretty nifty computer systems to do this without a schedule.

I thought they had this?

If so. why charter.

You see Ken, the nice little world you seem to believe in, really is more complex than the stories you are being told.

Probably off by as much as the production scedules you were told were realistic, or the original pricing for the e-500, or the performance, or ...

Well... you've heard it 1,000 times already. Somehow, it fails to sink in, though!

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

Eclipse had an ad in the Wichita Sunday paper looking for all flavors of engineers, aircraft technicians and aircraft painters.

Eclipse will participate in a job fair here on the 18th.

Unlike their recruitment ad of several months ago, there was no mention of stock options.

Couple this the recent reports of another $400m private placement, reports of a possible new airplane and well, who knows?

Perhaps we all will this time next week.

airtaximan said...

Stan:

MORE Painters? I thought they set the record for painting already - 51 hours???

Wasn't this from a few weasel-grams ago? Now I'm worried. I based my whole projection for deliveries on painting at 51 hours.

I'm very surprised that they would be hiring MORE production workers. At last count, they had around 1200 employees with 400 on the non-manufacturing floor...right?

And with this, they produced around 25 planes in about a year.
(Scratch, scratch, scratch...) What's up? Something seems a little awry?

I know, they heard Ken, and I'm wrong. It’s a 747 they are tackling next - -not a smaller plane.

Back to the drawing board... I mean monitor. There's no bigger dinosaur than BOEING...right?

Oshkosh should be fun - how are they going to get that huge airliner in the tent? It might be so big; it blocks the Beach Boys...

Naw, I think they'll go after their new nemesis - Epic.

Weems like a slug fest is brewing -the Apple guy vs. the Microsoft guy.

I can see the commercials on TV now:

Vern claiming his plane will be fixed by tech support right away, claiming 400 of them in the non-factory in ABQ - tears rolling down his glasses...while Schramek claims his planes are so easy to build - anyone can do it in their garage.

I'm glad the dinosaurs are being replaced. Anyone see the profit statements by all the airframers these days - e-clips excluded of course - they are non-airframers.

Metal Guy said...

I know I brought this up before, but never really got an answer:

Assumptions:
Number of employees = 1,000
Average salary = $60,000
Burn rate per year = $60 M

Selling price point = $1.3 M
Production break even = 500 per year (per eclipse)
Profit per aircraft required to set break even point = $120,000

Total invested in cash = $1.5 B-B-B-Billion

Number of aircraft required for Eclipse to break even = 12,500

And this model assumes no operating expenses other than salary.

Someone tell me where I went wrong…

FlightCenter said...

The new FAA numbers are out.

They show 1 aircraft delivered in January, 1 in April, 8 in May, 6 in June and 3 so far in July, for a total of 19 aircraft. Up three from last week's data.

They show 1 aircraft issued a CofA in December, 4 in March, 6 in April, 10 in May, 7 in June and none so far in July, for a total of 28 aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates. Up 4 from last week's data.

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

Serial #20 and #21 show as delivered to DayJet on 7/12/2007. According to these records, that would be DayJet's 4th and 5th aircraft.

Lloyd and Ken stated that serial #20 was delivered on 5/31/2007. FAA records show that the CofA was issued on 5/26 and 5/29 for #20 and #21.

fred said...

metalguy ...

no you're not wrong , it just doesn't work ...!

even if the breakevenpoint is 500 as a total and not as per year ...

it is just not possible with thoses datas !!!

i really don't think EA is going to reach N° 500 anytime , they will be bankrupt ,gone out of buisness or dropping the project before !

wrote this before , but it seems to make a perfect point for inflating the order-book by some fantasies order ...

unless they rise price tag quite a bit , just no-way it can work ...

so after that the real question would be = would a jet for something close to mustang price , but only a portion of capabillities and no spare place for luggages ???

(it can be a very good thing to leave mother-in-law on the tarmac !! :-)) while saying to your wife : "sorry honey , it was going where we're supposed to go or taking your mother !!! " :-)) )

WhyTech said...

9Z said:

"Fergie. Black Eyed Peas. Gwen Stefani. Rascal Flatts. Brooks & Dunn."

Who?

WT

airsafetyman said...

Stan,

Thanks for owning up to the Learjet's early problems. The early history vividly demonstrates the concept of "unintended consequences". The Lear was a wonderful airplane, kind of like an F-104 for civilians, but was it wasn't a reliable or safe airplane for the tasks it was asked to do. Enter the Eclipse. Not only is the airplane design and construction questionable, the idea that they will be flown by non-professional pilots without a co-pilot makes my hair stand up on end. Much of the accident rate reduction over the past several yeears is directly attritutable to the crew co-ordination concepts and cockpit resource management. Now in one swoop, designers are throwing out 1/2 the crew, by means of a loophole in the regulations? There are a lot of corporate flight departments that fly SP jets and King Airs, which only require one pilot, but ALL the one I am aware of routinely use two pilots. The other aspect of this that troubles me is the idea that a successful lawyer or doctor or businessman can fly hard IFR safely. Think about it. No one goes to the chief pilot of a large corporate flight department and asks him to to argue a legal case or do open-heart surgery on a child in his spare time. Why would the reverse work? It doesn't. Having said that I am sure many, if not all, of the owner pilots could make wonderful, skilled professional pilots.

Ken Meyer said...

fred wrote,

"would a jet for something close to mustang price , but only a portion of capabillities and no spare place for luggages ???"

You bring up an interesting point.

The Eclipse has a pretty decent baggage area (for a small plane anyway) at the rear bulkhead. It is 26 cubic feet. The Mustang's total interior storage is just 6 cubic feet on top of the toilet, however the Mustang has considerable external storage in the nose and tail.

I happen to like having my baggage inside the pressure hull. I don't like my stuff freezing, and I've had several episodes where storing baggage in the unpressurized area of my plane resulted in a sticky, gooey mess due to my wife's lotions and liquids leaking. And it's nice to be able to get into your bag if you need something.

So my preference is for the interior storage of the Eclipse over the exterior storage of the Mustang. The best thing would be to get both, but small planes always have some compromises.

Ken

FlightCenter said...

Ken,

It has been a couple months since I looked into this, but the last time we were discussing baggage area, my research showed that the baggage area was reduced from 26 cubic feet to 16 cubic feet.

If I recall correctly, this happened when Eclipse switched from BAE Systems as their avionics provider and Eclipse was forced to use up some of the original baggage area for the less integrated avionics from FreeFlight Systems, Crossbow Technology, Harco Laboratories, Meggitt Avionics, and Autronics.

Metal Guy said...

Ken,
You're good with numbers – can you put together a straw-man business model to determine the number of aircraft they have to sell to break even?

Use whatever production rate you fancy.

Thanks in advance!

Ken Meyer said...

airsafetyman wrote,

"Enter the Eclipse. Not only is the airplane design and construction questionable, the idea that they will be flown by non-professional pilots without a co-pilot makes my hair stand up on end. Much of the accident rate reduction over the past several yeears is directly attritutable to the crew co-ordination concepts and cockpit resource management."

Have you actually looked at the statistics for single pilot owner-operated jets? I think you'd be surprised.

Flying Magazine did a nice review of this very question in November, 2006. Some of the conclusions:

1. Pilots transitioning from high performance piston twins are much safer in owner-operated single pilot jets than in their piston twins. That's right, Flying Magazine concluded, "it is clear that going from piston to jet is good for pilot health."

2. "It is safe to say that, if you could get accurate hour numbers, single-pilot jets would come out a whole lot better than piston airplanes and not as good as jets flown by a professional crew."

3. "Some express concern about relatively inexperienced pilots flying at high altitude. There has not been a single CJ wreck related to flying high."

The latter is important because the Eclipse has approach speeds and landing speeds less than many piston twins--it's the altitude structure that's the biggest difference.

The NBAA also data supporting the point that owner-operated single-pilot jets simply do not have a high accident rate. The accident rate is, of course, not as good as professionally-crewed jets, but it isn't nearly as bad as piston planes or even turboprops.

So unless we want to require that all planes be operated by 2 professional pilots, focusing your concern on the VLJs is focusing where the problem does not exist. The evidence is that single-pilot jets simply don't have a very high accident rate.

Look at it from another point of view--if I lose an engine in my piston twin, I have a lot things I have to do right, and even then I'll get maybe 250 ft/min climbrate. Lose an engine in the Eclipse, and there is nothing I have to do, and I'll have about 900 ft/min. The plane has lower workload, terrific weather avoidance gear, known-icing, the ability to readily climb over weather, excess power to carry ice if you stumble into it, and terrain & traffic avoidance (you have to order those). It has a lot of features to keep pilots out of trouble, and an AFM-specified training requirement that will get pilots in simulators every single year. From that point of view, of course the pilot will be safer in a VLJ than in his old piston twin!


Ken

frederick ,j.p.h.b. said...

yes , ken ...

i do like to have my stuff in pressurized bulk me too ...

flying very often in commercial , since the "liquid explosives B.S" (thanks the britts...) did happen , it is very difficult to carry bottles of wine with you and about as difficult to have them stored in pressurized compartment without some $$$ ...!!!

but nonetheless , i was pointing out that to maintain EA alive , price tag for E500 would be closer to mustang tag , without the spare room ....!

Ken Meyer said...

flightcenter wrote,

"the last time we were discussing baggage area, my research showed that the baggage area was reduced from 26 cubic feet to 16 cubic feet."

I hadn't heard that, but you're right--it's right there in the AFM. Thanks for the correction.

This diagram from the AFM shows the relative baggage space, which looks to be plenty for my purposes.

Ken

airsafetyman said...

Ken,

What I am saying is that if you want to be as safe as possible with yourself and your family either hire two professional pilots or become one yourself and hire a qualified full-time copilot. As for the accident rate of VLJs being better than owner-flown twins that is like saying the Treblant has a better accident rate than the Yugo. Since many, if not most, of the existing SPs are regularly flown with two pilots how do they come up with a meaningful accident rate? Just what makes you think you can fly your Eclipse safely single-pilot in very poor weather, while every respected corporate flight department I know of puts two crew in their King Airs?

Ken Meyer said...

frederick wrote,

"i was pointing out that to maintain EA alive , price tag for E500 would be closer to mustang tag"

I suspect it will be closer to the Mustang pretty soon. But let's say it goes up to $2 million--it would still represent an unprecedented value proposition in comparison to the other planes at the price point (single turboprop Meridian vs twin turbofan Eclipse).

And Mustang has been rising too, you know. They just went up another $100K, so the next available delivery is, IIRC, right at $3 million.

I notice a lot of people seem to enjoy guessing what Eclipse has to do in order to be successful. I don't give that much thought myself. We don't have nearly the data we'd need to make that judgment, and doing it without data is preaching in a vacuum.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

airsafetyman wrote,

"Just what makes you think you can fly your Eclipse safely single-pilot in very poor weather, while every respected corporate flight department I know of puts two crew in their King Airs?"

You mean aside from the fact that I've been flying single-pilot in weather in a less-capable aircraft safely for years? :)

That said, I tend to fly a 2-pilot crew, and we simulator train to professional standards.

But I think you're fundamentally mistaken if you believe there is something magic or unique about small jets that makes them unflyable by non-professional pilots or by pilots flying alone.

If your point is that all airplanes are safer with two professional pilots at the controls, I think that's right. But it's not unique to SP Jets or VLJs, so why bark up the VLJ tree? Why not just lobby the FAA to ban anybody from flying without a professional co-pilot? You believe in it that strongly?

On the question of single pilot vs multi-pilot jet safety, everybody should read the Flying Magazine article.

Ken

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"I don't give that much thought myself."

You'll be giving this a lot of thought if Eclipse goes under and you are left with an orphan.

WT

airsafetyman said...

Ken,

While you may have survived flying single-pilot IFR all these years, don't kid yourself or your family that you were doing it safely. Turbine aircraft, as opposed to turboprops, have traditionally required two pilots (exceptions noted), for very good reasons and have enjoyed a very low accident rate. Now comes the VLJ and because of the PAC-MAN avionics and other goodies, the co-pilot is not required? What happens, Stan, when ATC has a problem, the weather deteriorates, and the bits and pieces of the Eclipse Video Game start going tits-up at the same time? You have an airplane that can't fly through a heavy dew right now and you are talking, in an earlier post, about carrying a load of ice? You have an unproven airframe with questionable avionics and back-ups, that has severe performance shortcomings and you don't need help in the cockpit? Because?

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Ken wrote...The plane has lower workload, terrific weather avoidance gear, known-icing, the ability to readily climb over weather, excess power to carry ice if you stumble into it.

Yep you have right here folks, it is Tueday, and Ken has just certified the Partial eclipse for known icing.

Three cheers for Ken!

Ken Meyer said...

airsafetyman wrote,

"You have an unproven airframe with questionable avionics and back-ups, that has severe performance shortcomings and you don't need help in the cockpit? Because?"

You're talking from emotion (not to mention that your sentence had 3 premises that are all unproven). I'm saying look at the data.

Single pilot flying wasn't invented for the Eclipse. There are plenty of data available to tell us what sort of safety to expect from these planes. The data suggest that the safety record will be better than it is for owner-flown piston and turboprop planes, but not as good as jet aircraft operated by a 2-pilot professional crew.

So what? Are you suggesting that we should ban single-pilot flying because we could improve aviation's safety record by doing that? How much safety is enough?

The turboprop accident rate is 1.29 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours. The jet accident rate is 0.12 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Perhaps we should simply ban all turboprops to improve general aviation safety?

After all, "if it will save just one life, it would be worth it," right? :)

Ken

fred said...

yes ken ...!

but as an eco-analyst , i tend to prefer 80% of something to 100% of nothing ...!! ;-))

or in the matter of EA , you're right we are all preaching in the vaccum , some when they say EA is doomed , some others stating range or op-costs ....!!

but as i wrote , teh bizz-plan of EA seems to be a little overstretched ...

i suppose you know your murphy's laws , you can build the most brilliant plan , there is always that little tiny bit getting in the way ....

as far as i know EA seems to be planning ONLY on perfect conditions (which NEVER occurs...)

so the result = 3M US$ (for me 2€ and small change...) versus 2 M US$ ( a big 1.5 M €) where 3M stands for something you can finally expect to have fully working before year 3000 and can eventually be resold later OR something which remain a big question mark (really working ? specs? performances? prices?op-costs? maintenance? resale value?)

who said peace of mind has aprice ???

airsafetyman said...

Ken,

I don't think the VLJs should be certified for single-pilot operation. Period. I think the FAA should also revisit the certification of some other aircraft, such as the MU-2, in which I have a lot of time, and REQUIRE two pilots as a part of that airplane's Type Certificate. Sure, there is a place for single-pilot operation; there is NO PLACE for single-pilot serious IFR operation in a piston single or twin, turboprop single or twin, or turbofan single or twin. If you want to fly your Eclipse around VFR single-pilot to get your $1,000 hamburger ($10,000 hamburger?) have fun.

FlightCenter said...

Anyone flying a new airplane to them, is going to have a higher accident rate than that same person flying an aircraft they have come to know over 500 or 1,000 hours of flying.

I have to believe that there will be a higher accident rate for the Eclipse 500s (or any other VLJ) for the first couple years while the new pilots are learning how to fly this particular aircraft.

A lot of folks will blame the avionics, the company, the pilots, the training, but it will be very difficult to sort out how much is just learning to fly an new airplane from the theories.

cj3driver said...

One must merely look at insurance quotes to assemble the risk quotient in aviation. When I first received a type rating in the CJ (as crew), my insurance rate was over $50,000 per year. This was for $2 Million hull and $1 mil smooth. This is over 2% of the value of the hull. Now, My premium is close to $40,000 per year, $6 million hull $5M smooth and single pilot operation. This equates to .06% of the hull value. And, I’m sure the rate would be substantially lower if I did not operate single pilot.

According to my broker, the main difference? 1600 hrs with 500 turboprop vs. 2600 hrs and 1000 in type, ATP. The other is the operating history of the type of aircraft. The other is the value. As the value increases, the rate (as a percent) goes down for this type.

I will also add, I just got a quote on a $600K JetRanger and the total premium is more than the CJ3 for 10% of the hull coverage!

The insurance rate I am currently paying on the CJ3 is less, as a percentage, than the policy I paid on, for the 172 I began flying in.

It would be interesting to find out the difference in premium for a Mustang vs. Eclipse. Next time I talk to my insurance guy, I will find out and report back.

andy said...

ASM
Define serious IFR. I for one thank god that we live in a country that I can define my limits and the risks I am willing to take,not the goverment.
And yes I cancel flights to avoid what I consider serious IFR.

airsafetyman said...

Just the standard ILS minimums of a 200 foot ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility for the approach. 1/2 mile visibility to taxi-out; 1/4 to take off.

cj3driver said...

Ken,

I tend to agree with your assessment of single pilot operations, jet vs. piston twin/single turbo prop. Thanks for posting the “Flying” link. I don’t remember reading that article.

I flew a Mirage then a JetProp for a few years, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, especially the JetProp. But when it comes to hard IFR, bad weather, and high traffic areas, I feel much safer and more confident with not only my personal skills, but the systems and capabilities of the CJ3. This definitely comes with experience and training. The advantage of a strait wing provides arrival approach speeds very similar to most high performance singles. However, without a thorough understanding of systems, proficiency training and prudent judgment, it doesn’t matter if you are in a piston single or a jet, the risk is inherent.

One must establish personal minimums and use good judgment when considering single pilot operations. This type of operation is not for everybody. But, for me, If the question is Jet vs. piston twin/single turboprop, I choose the latter.

WhyTech said...

cj3driver said:

"I will also add, I just got a quote on a $600K JetRanger and the total premium is more than the CJ3 for 10% of the hull coverage"

I have been "shopping" for helicopters and insurance as well. I am a newly rated helicopter pilot and found that coverage on the Jet Ranger was substantially more expensive than on an Enstrom 480B (also 5 seats, RR 250 series turbine). If I could buy coverage on the JR at all, it would be around 7% of hull value, and the 480B around 4.5% with no problem getting coverage from AIG through Enstrom's captive insurance program. I am told that this is mostly due to the differences in flying qualities and accident history. I started out to buy a Jet Ranger and wound up buying a 480B for multiple reasons. Now have about 70 hours in the 480 and am quite pleased with this choice.

WT

WhyTech said...

cj3driver said:

"One must establish personal minimums and use good judgment when considering single pilot operations."

This is absolutely fundamental. I advocate taking this even further and model the management/operation of my acft along Part 135 lines, with frequent, rigorous, high qualitly training, and operating in accordance with a Flight Operations Manual which spells out not only personal minimums, but a wide range of safety policies and considerations. Have found that a proactive approach to developing a safety mindset pays great dividends, actually makes flying more fun, and is well received by insurance companies.



WT

Gunner said...

AirSafetyMan-
Your point is well taken; but Andy's moreso. By your own logic, it would probably make more sense to ban GA altogether and to prohibit people from driving cars between locations serviced by bus or train. One man's "safety" is another man's "Nanny State"....it just depends on whether you choose to impose your line on the next guy. For myself, I'd prefer to let Darwin draw it.

Interesting aside: lost my right engine on takeoff at daybreak, today. Actually, it was an intentional shutdown due to a runaway throttle; and I let it go until I'd reached pattern altitude and turned downwind.

While the Baron is a lot more forgiving in SEO flight than some other piston twins (especially with the left engine intact), I'd forgotten just how "exhilarating" a non-sim single engine landing can be.

On the ground, in personal debrief, I was pretty proud of my reactions and the landing.

Then I recalled a few days ago, when I rotated in 0/0 visibility for the first time in a very long time. Today was a pretty wrote exercise compared to the same situation with no airport to return to; the throttle cable linkage just picked a better time to expire than Mr. Murphy would have preferred.

Complacency kills. Time for some recurrent training. ;-)
Gunner

WhyTech said...

gunner said:

"I rotated in 0/0 visibility"

Dont turn around - Darwin is right behind you! :-)

WT

airsafetyman said...

Gunner,

I am not for "banning" general aviation. I think the best flight operations in the world are the leading general aviation corporate flight departments. The second best would be several USAF and Navy flight operations units. the airlines are a train wreck waiting to happen in my opinion. I am just saying we need to look at what works safety-wise and what doesn't. What doesn't, in my opinion and I hope I am wrong, is flying this VLJ Eclipse single pilot IFR.

Shane Price said...

Gentlemen,

There have been a couple of posts that mention that well know Irishman, Mr. Murphy. As you all know, Murphy's Law states:-

'If it can go wrong, it will'

Is anyone familiar with O'Toole's Law?

'Murphy was an optimist'

Shane

andy said...

ASM,
I don't understand why a VLJ would be less safe than Gun Man's Baron.
What do you base your opinion on?
Pattern speeds are the same within a couple of Knots.
SEO is much simpler and SEO climb rates are much better.
Where's the beef?

andy said...

Shane,
I thought it was that it will go wrong at the worst possible moment.

flightguy said...

I see all the interest from Hanscom Field. This from AIN Alerts-

Linear Air Buys Early Eclipse Slot
Charter operator Linear Air has 30 Eclipse 500s on order, with first deliveries scheduled for September, but the company bought an earlier serial number aircraft (S/N 16) that recently became available. “We jumped on it,” said William Herp, president and CEO. “This constitutes a watershed moment in our three-year history.” Linear Air was formed to test the VLJ charter concept using Cessna Caravans, which offer similar operating economics. Two Linear pilots have earned Eclipse type ratings and will fly the jet to Linear Air’s headquarters at Hanscom Field in Concord, Mass., following installation of a third ADI to meet Part 135 requirements. Herp said that after more pilot training, FAA demonstrations and 25 hours of proving runs, Linear Air’s first Eclipse 500 should begin commercial service in mid-August. Herp is hoping that his Eclipse’s pitot/AOA probe will be replaced with the new probe that Eclipse has submitted for FAA approval and that the VFR-only restriction will have been lifted by the time his airplane is ready to enter commercial service.

cj3driver said...

Ken said:

“…And Mustang (price) has been rising too, you know. They just went up another $100K, so the next available delivery is, IIRC, right at $3 million...
...I notice a lot of people seem to enjoy guessing what Eclipse has to do in order to be successful. I don't give that much thought myself. We don't have nearly the data we'd need to make that judgment, and doing it without data is preaching in a vacuum…”


Ken,

And this doesn’t raise a red flag to you? Eclipse futures have consitantly FALLEN in the last six months. On controller, there are advertised prices as much as 150K LOWER than the factory cost and with serial numbers in the 200’s. And, … this is the asking price, who knows what they actually sell for.

IMO the financial well-being and stability of the company far outweighs the imaginary 50%... make that 45% … make that 35% (soon to be 15-20% or less), lower operating costs than the competition. If I were an investor (deposit holder) in EA, the business model used to create the viability of the company would be of utmost importance and concern to me at the moment. This company needs to sell and produce 500 planes per year to make a profit. Many E500 positions have been on the market, for several months, at less than factory pricing. Today, Right now. This minute.

We do not have to “guess” that the company needs volume, in order to make a profit at this price. In addition, the company has to do this volume, year after year at a price that is, and will continue to be, substantially higher than what is available today.

Eclipse will need to sell more than 2 airplanes every single business day of the year in order to sustain profitability at this price, …for the foreseeable future. I assure you that this is not even remotely happening today, even at the substantially reduced price. Just ask Mike Press. He proclaims he has brokered more deals than anyone, and I am quite sure it was not anywhere close to 500 units last year. Certainly no where near two per day, at $1.9 million a copy. That a lot of twin-jets.

Regarding the amount of data and “preaching in a vacuum” … maybe you and Vern should take your own advice, … and wait on the actual performance data, derived from a completed and certified aircraft, with actual third party flight reviews, before starting the comparison sermons.

I speak from experience and first hand knowledge, that the operating cost on a 10,700 lb CJ1 and a 14,070 lb CJ3 is almost the same. My guess is that the 6,000 lb Eclipse and an 8,600 lb Mustang will be very close as well.

Gunner said...

Andy-
I think AirSafetyMan has stated that the Baron (all twins, in fact) are unsafe in serious IMC, Single Pilot. I draw the line differently. I'd say they're LESS safe, certainly. But, then, so is going for a walk when compared to barricading yourself in your home.

It's all a cost/benefit issue; the question is, at what point to we ask .gov to start mandating those choices for us? Rhetorical question really. I asked it only to point up that we all have different pet issues as to what we want .gov to regulate, and it always seems to be behaviors that we don't have an interest in engaging ourselves.

Whytech-
I pretty much pride myself on admission of my judgment errors, whether they be on the hunting field or in an airplane. The only people I know who don't make such errors are those who stopped learning years ago; they know only one way to do things and, naturally, it's the "right" way, no matter the outcome.

Is takeoff in 0/0, with a personally owned/flown twin a "judgment error"? I'm not so certain, especially when the issue is localized ground fog to about 400 feet. But it's important that one make the decision based on all the variables. Loosing an engine on takeoff, just a few flights after a 0/0 departure, certainly adds another "data point" to our frame of reference.

My point: certainly it's survivable, without breaking a sweat. But, when one begins to question whether it WAS an error in judgment, it's time for recurrent training. ;-)
Gunner

WhyTech said...

gunner said:

"But, when one begins to question whether it WAS an error in judgment, it's time for recurrent training. ;-)"
gunner,

Its only a judgment error if you think it was. I am OK with letting each pilot decide this for himself. However, I find that not a whole lot of GA pilots make this call in a thoughtful, informed way. (Not you - I know from your posts that you give considerable thought to these things.)

I find the concept of "margin of safety" handy when thinking through these issues. I try to identfy those actions which either increase or decrease the margin of safty and by how much, and try to define how much of a margin I want under various circumstances. When you do a 0/0 takeoff, you give up quite abit of safety margin. Acceptable to some, not to others. I practice 0/0 takeoffs and landings in the sim both for proficiency and confidence building, but regard these as emergency procedures.

I had an incident in my Baron several years ago where I took off on an IFR flight in 500 & 2 conditions. While climbing out, and still visual, I looked at my engine monitors and saw that one bar (cylinder) showed no indication. I elected to remain visual, told the tower I was going to fly the pattern low, and land. No problem, worked out fine. THis got me to thinking about the safety margin in this scenario, and grahpically illustrated for me that TO minimums of 500 & 2 seemed to make a lot of sense when single pilot, and especially in a single engine airplane. This is about the minimum AGL and vis which allow you to remain visual and maneuver to a landing, hopefully on the runway, in the event of a "takeoff event," which may also include a bird strike, flight control failure, fire, thrust reverser failure, and others in addition to engine issues. Once you are IMC, the margin narrows even further as you must then work ATC and fly an approach to somewhere, a challenging task in a wounded airplane for a single pilot in IMC.

Some will howl that this "greatly reduces the utility" of the airplane, and similar comments. Maybe, but I havent found this to be the case in my flying. If I were trying to maintain a tight business travel schedule this way it might be different. In any event, I remind myself that once you become a fatality in an acft accident, there is no trying it again or doing it differently the next time.

Works for me.

I was not intending to critize your judgment - just some dark humor at your expense.:-)

WT

bill e. goat said...

Ken makes an excellent summary of the safety plus's for VLJ's.

Others make valid points about corporate flight departments with two professional crewmembers. But corporate flight departments have the mandate, and budget to enforce, all-weather safety. Companies "can't afford" the risk of a crash, or having the CEO weathered in somewhere, so they buy "industrial duty" equipment.

Personal use fliers "can't afford" the risk of a crash either, but I would argue they are more conservative in planning the out-bound flight, being aware of weather-related vulnerability of the return flight, and this "front end" scrutiny results in corresponding risk reduction.

Ken, please get your wife qualified and make her sit in the right (or left) seat so we can move on!!!

(Just kidding; the discussion is interesting).

IMHO, the E-500 (once it's developed in about a year) will demonstrate with real-world statistics the good points Ken makes, and the E-500 will have a commendable safety record, compared to any other sub-$5M personal use airplane.

One possible fly in the ointment of this rosy projection, is the possible systems maturity issues; Cessna by virtue of pedigree, has not made such a leap as Eclipse has with NO pedigree, the consequences remain to be seen. But I must point out that EVERY clean-sheet airplane has some degree of systems-related issues for the first couple of years. This will probably be an issue to some degree, and there is a correlating tangible risk escalation. But with the well-thought out lengthy flight test program (ah, yeah), the fleet will have more time accrued than typical entry-into service articles usually have.

This will be augmented by the clever "proving runs" Vern has the current owners doing for the next 6 to 12 months.

Until after Avio-NG, FIKI, etc. are incorporated.

Well, until after they are certified and incorporated.

Well, until after they are designed, certified, and incorporated.

gadfly said...

Murphy's Law probably comes from Robert Murphy at Muroc, now named for "Glen Edwards", who died while testing the YB-49.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law

It was said that the "original Murphy's Law" was "misquoted" . . . it figures!

gadfly

(PaperClips, year end: Zero deliveries of promised performance in actual hardware.)

airtaximan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bill e. goat said...

Thanks Gadfly,

Checking the link you provided, and then a little digressing, has lead me to confess perhaps we have been a little judgemental with Vern.

The Wikipedia article has a link to Hanlon's Razor:

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

paul said...

I don't see why people quote Wikipedia. The definitions are provided by anonomous web users not qualified and or educated people.

Shane Price said...

Paul,

In my opinion, Wikipedia is a classical case of Murphy's Law, in action.

It's the ulimate expression of democracy gone mad. The lunatics HAVE taken over the asylum.

Ok, enough Irish blarny for one evening.

Did anyone wonder why Lineair are getting all this exposure?

Is there a problem over at DAYjet?
Perish the thought, did Ed get sense (or even cold feet) at last?

Shane

gadfly said...

paul

Many of the smartest people in my experience did not have "Piled Higher and Deeper" degrees, but did have experience in the real world. And I have worked for most of my life with individuals with degrees, many of whom amaze me with their lack of the basics of human intelligence.

They are not necessarily lacking in education, but often lacking in the practical application thereof.

Wikepedia is open for "experts" to correct the facts at any time. And it is no big thing to track down references, to verify claims made by almost anyone.

In the case of references to "Murphy" and "Muroc", I have had the privilege of knowing people who were actually "there", and give credence to the facts related on Wikepedia.

Should you have better information, you have the privilege of correcting the errors.

gadfly

(That's the beauty of the system.)

airtaximan said...

Regarding the amount of data and “preaching in a vacuum”.

The folks that don't believe everything that comes out of E-clips are preaching, guessing, dealing with a vaccum...

The one who believe are in fact preaching from a toilet.

Case in point: Deliveries... from AIN today.

"In last Thursday’s AINalerts, we incorrectly reported that Eclipse Aviation had delivered 26 jets during the second quarter. In fact, 26 Eclipse 500s received airworthiness certificates and 17 were delivered during the second quarter."

- Ambiguity regarding Deliveries and new definition of Deliveries, noted. Mission accomplished – total confusion. No real info… a joke on the aviation institutions… and a nice Big mess out of what could easily be a basic generally accepted FACT. Delivery.

Ahh… the good old’ days, when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, and a delivery was a delivery… no guesswork, BS, redefinition or sleight of handiwork involved.

The good old’ days, when a jet was a jet, performance was, well, performance instead of prediction and deposits resulted in deliveries – the old fashioned kind- where the planes worked as advertised. Progress payments were directed at progress on an airplane that was purchased, not progress on another design.


I think they are going to call the larger e-clips, the 747-KEN-E… after all; he probably paid for a thousand hours of engineering work on it…

bill e. goat said...

I agree completely with the observations regarding Wikipedia.

Why, I found a gramatical construct problem with this one :).

Stupid Particle Physicists

Ah, where else can someone find "surface" discussion, with:

1) almost endless links to quickly and easily explore further,
2) that are any cheaper,
3) easier to use with the hyperlinks,
4) More encompassing of such an array of subjects,
5) or more accurate due to the frequency of updates (I'll grant there is a tradeoff between depth and breadth of coverage)???

Seriously, I'd really like to know??

We owe an alternative to the uneducated and/or stupid masses (I'm batting 1000!)

bill e. goat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bill e. goat said...

Wikipedia: Or consider the following jibberish with tables that I could have easily compiled in a week myself!

Very Light Jet

Gunner said...

Whytech-
I didn't take your quip critically. But you clearly get my point...when we have judgment questions, it's a good time to train, play out different scenarios (safely) and bounce our judgment questions off our betters. Simple deal.

But you said something that really hits home: "I find the concept of "margin of safety" handy when thinking through these issues.

We think very much alike. I use the term "Degrees of Freedom":
- Flying IMC, lose one degree of freedom

- Flying in the vicinity of active "cumulonimbi", lose one more degree of freedom

- Flying in mountains or over water, lose one more degree of freedom

- Flying at night, lose one more degree of freedom

- Picking up ice, lose one more degree of freedom

- Flying tired, lose a couple degrees of freedom

- Flying an aircraft whose sole function seems to be to line the pockets and stroke the ego of an underachieving megalomaniac, lose between 0 and 5 degrees of freedom; anyone's guess.

But one thing's for certain: Lose enough degrees of freedom and you are simply not coming home; your 15 minutes of fame will be one page in an NTSB report.

Still, we each make these decisions every time we choose to fly anything but perfect daytime VMC. And the Dirty Little Secret is that we make these decisions based on how bad we "need" to be someplace. In my case, I had a magazine cover shoot that was at deadline, so I took off 0/0. Not a good enough excuse for many; perhaps not even good enough for me....but then what is?

In the end, we know we ALL fly in less than ideal conditions.
Gunner

hummer said...

CJ3
If you look carefully, very carefully at the Eclipse for sale on Controller, you will find of the 40 or so for sale that NOT ONE is being sold at a loss to the depositor.
Hell of a lot of them are trying to double or triple their money (deposits) by using today's cost in the calculations. Others state premium considerations. It may get a little more interesting as time goes on, but for now, no panic.

cj3driver said...

Just got my August issue of “Flying” magazine and there is a great VLJ article by Mac McClellan comparing the Lear 23 and the Eclipse 500. A few flattering words about the Mustang, but the commentaries on the Eclipse appear to be taken from our favorite blog. McClellan closes the editorial by saying “… So how can Eclipse do it for that price when other new airplane costs have gone up by 10 times or more in 40 years? There has to be some magic in there somewhere.”

I’m sure Vern is already preparing a letter to the editor in rebuttal.

Gunner said...

cj-
Could you check the Advertiser Index and see if Eclipse is listed?
Gunner

cj3driver said...

Gunner,
Eclipse is not listed as an advertiser "Flying Aug 07"

I guess Eclipse figures the people who read "Flying" already got one.

Gunner said...

I'd have been more impressed if the magazine had published that statement while Eclipse was an active advertiser. Still, better late than never.
Gunner

cj3driver said...

Hummer said;

“…NOT ONE is being sold at a loss to the depositor…”

Hummer,
Some of later positions are being offered at small premiums over the current “base price” as an earlier slot. I do not believe any of these have changed hands. Those people are stuck. There is really no reason why someone would buy one since there are earlier discounted positions, at lower base prices, which would certainly sell first.

The loss for these earlier discounted positions is being taken by Eclipse at the potential loss to other depositors. Don’t forget, It takes 500 per year at $1.5 M to break even, so the units sold at a loss will need to be made up in future years… if the company is to survive.

If current deposit holders are selling at a discount off factory price now, this tells us the market, a year or two out, does not feel there is a value at $1.52 (06 dollars) today. Since this is the case, it’s hard to believe that Eclipse will be able to make the 2 per day sales … now, or in the following years.

The point is that if there aren’t 500 per year being sold (now or in the future) EA will have to raise the price to keep from taking a loss (as they are now) and lower sales and production rates.

The other option for survival will be to offer refunds and raise the price on existing deposit holders. I believe this will be the most likely scenario. They have done it before.

FlightCenter said...

Mac (at Flying) was probably the first journalist to go public as an Eclipse Aviation Critic, and yes, Eclipse was advertising in Flying at the time.

Mac ran an editorial piece which hit most of the points discussed in this blog. He didn't believe the specs on the EJ22, didn't believe Vern could build the E500 for the cost promised, didn't believe he could build it at the weight promised, didn't believe the DOCs, didn't believe he could build as many as he promised, didn't believe the skies would be darkened with E500s.

If I remember correctly, his editorial was published about 9 months before Vern publicly dropped Williams.

Mac was dropped from Vern's Christmas card list, (and advertising budget) shortly thereafter.

The Real Frank Castle said...

"My guess is that the 6,000 lb Eclipse and an 8,600 lb Mustang will be very close as well."

Well, right now it's as close as playing horseshoes in a swamp

It barely compares to any good piston twin. Other than speed.

Ooooooo. That should make it a hit with the redneck buyers, who are just itchin' to buzz some cows !

Real planes for real life said...

Dear Ken,


Have you been or are you currently employed by Eclipse Aviation? Do you, a firm you are employed by, or another member of your family, accept compensation or payment of any kind from Eclipse Aviation?

Have you accepted any payment in kind from Eclipse Aviation for services rendered anywhere, including on his 'blog'.



Regards,

Real -

Ken Meyer said...

Frank wrote,

"It barely compares to any good piston twin. Other than speed."

Frank, I think you're wrong. The Mustang is a good plane. It doesn't barely compare to a piston twin.

Indeed, it's a very good plane. It's only problem is that it costs $1.3 million more than the competition and 40% more each and every mile to operate. If it weren't for those facts, it would be a great plane.

I'll bet Cessna wishes the Eclipse didn't exist. Then people would think the Mustang is a GREAT plane, not just a good plane. Nobody would realize that you could get the same performance for $1.3 million less. People would stop saying silly stuff like the Mustang "barely compares to any good piston twin."

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

real wrote,

"Have you been or are you currently employed by Eclipse Aviation?"

No, but it's a good point--you're really asking if I have an axe to grind like Stan, CJ3, plastic, gunner, and so many of the other naysayers.

I think that's a point that is very often overlooked here--most ever naysayer has an axe to grind. Maybe they got fired by Eclipse. Or maybe Eclipse didn't kowtow to them when they went to contract. Or maybe they've already bought a high-priced Citation and don't like the idea that people can get jet performance for a fraction of the price. For every name on the blog, there's a story, and most of them are twisted, writhing, painful stories. Eclipse has a loyal following of supporters. But they've also left behind a wake of unhappy castasides who like to gather here and commiserate together.

But have no fear--the best is yet to come. With every success the company posts, the writhing only gets worse and worse. One can only imagine the pain the naysayers will be going through after Eclipse sells hundreds and hundreds of the little wonder jet that all these folks predicted would never come to market.

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken Meyer said:
"it would still represent an unprecedented value proposition"

Ken,
I don't mean to pick; I really don't. But you are insistent upon providing an unimaginably target rich environment. ;-)

Real companies make deals, Ken. They offer you something they produce today in return for your money....today. Aging female drug addicts make "propositions"; well them and Vern.

A "proposition" is a promise of goods to come for your commitment, right now. It's not an exchange; it's not a deal. It's...well...it's the whispered promise from a darkened alley as you pass by. It's the stuff that a 19 year old sailor trips to, after one too many Ouzos. It's how guys come home from a night on the town with fake Rolex's and/or the Clap.

So, please, for the sake of your own bruised credibility, just stop parroting Vernisms like "value proposition". You've been doing this since he mentioned the term for the second time. It carries you no further than it carried him....less far, in fact, due to the lack of originality and fervor.

Do yourself a favor. Be your own man. That includes choosing your own words and arguments, rather than regurgitating the Eclipse Spin Machine time warp reality.
Gunner

thebigriper said...

The Wikipedia references led me on an interesting journey into the historical realm of aircraft development. Particularly unsuccessful aircraft. There have been a lot of aircraft that had spectacular yet short lives. One of the most entertaining stories was about Dr. William Whitney Christmas. He apparently designed and flew some airplanes but is better known for the one that didn't really fly. The Christmas Bullet design managed to kill two pilots before they quit trying. It seems that Dr. Christmas believed that airplane wings should be flexible and flap like a bird's wings to be most efficient. The stories about the good Doctor leads one to believe that he was a lot more successful at raising money than he was at fielding useful aircraft. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Let's hope history only partially repeats itself.

Ken Meyer said...

gunner misfired,

"A "proposition" is a promise of goods to come for your commitment, right now. It's not an exchange; it's not a deal. It's...well...it's the whispered promise from a darkened alley as you pass by."

Oh, that's silly, Rich. Aren't you somehow involved in the writing profession? One would never guess it from your apparent misunderstanding of American idioms. You need to look up the meaning of "customer value proposition." You can find it right here:

"A customer value proposition is the sum total of benefits a customer is promised to receive in return for his or her custom and the associated payment (or other value transfer).

In simple words value proposition is what the customer gets for what the customer pays.

Therefore a company's value proposition is evaluated on two broad dimensions with multiple subsets.

(I) Relative Performance - what a customer gets relative to competitors (II) Price - which consist of the payment he/she makes to acquire the product or service and the access cost.

A customer value proposition is being promised by a company's marketing and sales efforts and then fulfilled by its delivery and customer service processes."


Eclipse represents an extraordinary value proposition because it offers the performance of a Mustang at a 45% discount upfront and 40% discount ongoing. That's a good value in my book. And I'm not alone. I'm just one of hundreds of buyers who feel that way. Cessna proudly announced a few weeks ago that they've sold 300 Mustangs. But Eclipse has sold 9 times that number of planes! Why is that? Value Proposition! :)

Ken

paul said...

Ken must post alot of the definitions on Wikipedia.

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

"...Cessna proudly announced a few weeks ago that they've sold 300 Mustangs. But Eclipse has sold 9 times that number of planes!..."

Ken,

You can’t be serious. Do you really think that? 2,700 planes? Sold? Even Eclipse says majority are options.

BTW – Cessna is sold out on Mustangs till 2Q 2010. If you want a new cheaper light jet sooner, you have to buy an Eclipse! … or … you can get an E500 at a discount from one of Vern’s competitors. …. His customers!

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

“…you're really asking if I have an axe to grind like Stan, CJ3, plastic, gunner, and so many of the other naysayers..."

Excuse me Ken … an axe to grind? I resent that, and I am not sure I follow you. I am a Cessna customer, it’s obvious, I do feel the need to defend the dinosaurs when you and/or Vern when you make wild unsubstantiated claims, and then refuse to provide REAL data to back them.

I have never made any statement or inference that I wish the failure of Eclipse. Pointing out my opinion that I don’t see the business model working, or criticizing the management does not constitute a wish/or hope for failure. If your kid is up to bat, you know he’s not that good at it, you don’t hope he strikes out. You might give him some tips, encouragement or just push him to the chess club. You don’t wish the whole team to loose.

“Real” called you on your operating cost numbers. You refuse to answer him and send him/us to Conklin and D, He spends a few bucks to get the data as you suggest, then you proceed to tell him the data is wrong when it doesn’t agree with your numbers. Your post referred him to your source. You sent him there. That’s plain chicken s. Why didn’t you just tell him/us that you think the C&D data is wrong to begin with? I recall a few months ago you were claiming the C&D data was right. Now its wrong.

It’s just like Vern comparing the Eclipse to the TBM Atlanta trip. He knows darn well that trip is not realistic in the E500 and so do you. Then you back it up with more paper claims when the point was an actual trip comparison, not a paper comparison. You surely must know that you can’t get a direct climb out of SoCal, or an efficient decent into the East coast. Much less direct routing. Not by a long shot.

That being said, If it wasn’t for you, Moo, Vern and a few others wild claims and posts, it would not be nearly as interesting here. Throw in a few DayJet articles and it is very entertaining. Maybe not to you… after all, Stan did name this blog “Eclipse Aviation Critic”. And thus, naysayers.

cj3driver said...

Ken said;
(obviously a reference to me)

"…maybe they've already bought a high-priced Citation and don't like the idea that people can get jet performance for a fraction of the price. For every name on the blog, there's a story, and most of them are twisted, writhing, painful stories…”

Ken,

I assure you I am very happy with my CJ3. I could sell my CJ3 for over a million more than what it cost me and buy 4 partial eclipses. The popularity of the CJ3 is evident since the CJ3 is also sold out beyond Eclipse deliveries and the price is over $2 million more than the original offering. In fact I am so happy with the product, have ordered a new one in the interim while I wait for the CJ4. But as you know, the CJ3 is in an entirely different class than the Eclipse.

That said, I believe that the Eclipse will be an excellent stepping stone for future Citation / Phenom / Honda (and others) owners. I thought the JetProp would be the last plane I would purchase, but here I am.

My biggest grip with Vern is his “darkening of the sky’s” volume predictions that have jeopardized our way of life in US general aviation in the form of possible user fees. That and the fact he continues to spew forth mythical operating costs without providing (or allowing) third party reports. I’d really like to see them. The limited reports so far don’t support the claims. ...Oh, and also the bogus(?) order book. .... and less than forthright press releases... and on and on.

I just think one should call a spade a spade. A light jet is a light jet. Those operating costs you tout as REAL have still yet to be seen. And since Eclipse and you are so secretive with the numbers, it rightly creates skepticism.
Vern has a history of over promising and under delivering. Even you can’t deny that. So what makes you think any different now? Please tell us.

I truly am happy that you may get the experience to own a new Jet and do not wish an ill fate for you or any of the Eclipse customers (financially or other). I am certain when/if you get your Eclipse, in a year or two you will want to move up.

The funny thing is, as I have posted before, the CJ3 is my third light jet, and my 7th aircraft that I have moved “up” to over the last 8 years. Believe it or not, most people have asked my opinion when considering a high performance owner/operated aircraft. I’ve been there. You on the other hand seem to want to disregard my opinion as “twisted, writhing, painful”.

I have been and still am in your position. Even though the CJ3 will probably not be my last aircraft, there is nothing currently on the market I would rather have (being a single pilot operator). I still would like more range and a faster plane with lower operating costs.

I liked the SJ30. Higher, faster, farther for less. But the cabin is too small. … and most importantly, the company behind the product is suspect. I’m glad I went the CJ route 4 years ago instead of waiting for the SJ30. I did seriously consider the Eclipse years ago and even took a factory tour before I picked the CJ. You would not believe the number of spreadsheets I have made before making my selection.

I am now going on the record to state that I do not begrudge anyone who burns less fuel, or purchases a plane for less money than mine. In fact I couldn’t encourage it more. Since I have become a pilot, I have enticed and mentored many friends to become pilots and many have. Several have already purchased multiple aircraft since then.

I know that I am very fortunate to own and fly my own jet (I still pinch myself). I hate to see anyone get hurt (financially or other) and this is why I am vocal on Eclipse. It just didn’t make sense in 2000, and it doesn’t make sense today. I could be wrong though. … I was once. … maybe twice. ;)

fred said...

ken ...

you're a "little" wrong ...!!

"the eclipse is costing a 1.3 million$ less and is 40% less to operate..."

i am really sorry to write that but isn't it the "vaccum" you were stating before ??

at the moment , in the line of fire there is a company with a proven track stating "our jet will cost that much and fly for this $/mile "

and an other one stating "our plane is so much better ,the sky will be darkened with our product ..."

needless to say the orderbook looks a bit strange (2700 ?? how many real ? how many options? options with cash déposits ?? for reliable buyers ?? for what market ?? ...)

i am not a cessna fan , neither an EA one ...

but at the moment , it is completely "vaccum" to profess one is better than the other one , the best = Wait and See ...!

but as for already deposit holder , yes i can understand it's kind of stressful to see EA is going just nowhere ...

theirs claims seems to be "vaccum" , theirs market target remain to be made , theirs production rates are to made-up to some kinds of reality standarts ,deliveries are to be made "real" , etc... etc... !

we don't know each other , but i would bet you a lot EA is going to have to raise theirs prices close to what a mustang cost or just go down ...

which is where everything stated about costs and prices IS completely "vaccum" (yes , i do like this word ...)

making the project missing is target (if both planes are about the same for costs , a decent CEO with any kind of guess of future would take the long time etasblished firm or buy the plane from the newby-which-can-go-down-any-minute ??)

i believe if you want to run your bizz smoothly the price difference is not such a big deal (in work , i explain very often to gullible "be carefull with with free stuff , most of times it reveals itself more expensive at end point) as in one case you can always try to get a compensation on order with some others types made by the same company (cessna) or just rely on promises from an empty-handed CEO ??? (empty-handed = if E500 is a faillure , what next??)

off-course , i would like to see an Eclipse 500 beating the competition ... but it doesn't seems to take that path ...anymore ...!

that's why in earlier post , i wrote EA politics seems to be closer to BUZZ and misleading ( i think i wrote something like " new order of 50.000 units from zimbabwe ...)

all of that looks like "radicalism" where some are just trying to put a piece of fact together with an other one (like mike's post about his trip = 500 Miles in 24 hours with a breakdown .....wow , great !! i am just trying to imagine myself flying from Moscow to berlin having to do an emergency landing in a beetroot field somewhere in Poland or even much worse , Belarus , just to get the visa to send a technician require a week ....hope locals are going to be kind enough to give me food and non-contaminated water to survive while waiting....), when some other just keep on reciting the same stuff that made them to buy or deposit...

it's only a question of common senses , and yes i agree , working very often with personns loaded with diplomas , sometimes i am amazed how much bullshitt is goong thru theirs mouths , they are not stupids , they just don't live on the same planet than 99,99% of humanity

(last time i had an argument with a guy out of Harward pointing out what he was saying was NOT real , he anwsered by "reality will have to comply .....")

airsafetyman said...

I have been around aviation long enough to see the whole industry, or large segments of it, thunder down the runway and off the cliff (to mix metaphors) many times. What's thundering down the runway now is Vern's fortune he has sunk into this project. If you read between the lines of his contorted statements the idea seems to be to paint a pretty face on this corpse of a company and sell it before the stink gets too bad. Need a single-engine jet to further bamboozle investors? We got your single-engine jet right here at Oshkosh! If every time you read an article on Eclipse you mentally cross out Vern's name and insert "Jim Bede" it becomes so much clearer.

Gunner said...

Thanks for the customary erroneous parse, Ken. When facts don't "fit your situation", you change the facts; when the English language doesn't fit your empty sales pitch you change the definitions. Vern would be proud of you, though I doubt your Mom would.

"Value Proposition":

1) Describes how an organization WILL differentiate itself to customers, and what particular set of values it WILL deliver.
www.balancedscorecard.biz/Glossary.html

2) In marketing, a value proposition is a statement summarizing the customer targets, competitor targets and the core strategy for how one INTENDS to differentiate one's product from the offerings of competitors.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_proposition

3) A statement of the way a business PROPOSES to use its resources to deliver superior value to its customers.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561534408/value_proposition.html

In other words, you're buying promises and intent only. You can't buy the product; it's not been designed and manufactured yet. You're not buying management competence; it's a Three Stooges comedy. You're not buying track record; it's an aviation industry embarrassment.

Nope, you're buying a husky whisper emanating from a dark alley as you walk buy. "That's the beauty" of the "value proposition" for Vern; another guy like you will be along any minute.

As to axes to grind, you are one of the few here with a DIRECT financial stake in the future of Eclipse. The remainder are all on the Fathful side with you. So stop lecturing us about Value Propositions and vested interests. That dog just don't hunt.
Gunner

fred said...

by the way ....

tulip became known as a flower in Holland only by some misunderstanding and mistakes :

in the 17th century , a dutch merchant was in trade relation with a turkish guy ...

for the sake of being nice , the turkish sent some tulips bulbs to his dutch collegue ...

the dutch got them and thought it was ognions , a bit surprised the dutch decided to gently fry them and to eat them ...

at the first bite , he found taste was discusting , throw everything on a pile of dung ...

only later everybody was very curious of that beautifull flower no one had seen before ...

why do i write this ?

lots of metaphores with our matter :

the pile of dung could be the money ...

E500 could be the flower ...

so all hopes are not gone , but it looks a bit difficult to succeed !!

may be one day E500 will darken the sky , and then i will be very happy to admit i was wrong ...

but it doesn't sound like it ...!

after all to find a single carat of jewel worth diamond , you have to clear first about 200 tons of rocks and mud ...!!!

WhyTech said...

Ken,

You have almost certainly heard the old story about the Young Bull and the Old Bull. You know, the one in which the Young Bull and Old Bull are standing on a hilltop looking down on a herd of beautiful (to them) cows in the valley below, and the Old Bull offers a few words of profound advice to the Young Bull which will endure through the ages. I am going to take the role of the Old Bull and offer you some advice of similar import.

Your writing style often makes you come across as a rigid, smug, condescending, know-it-all twit, with the result that you destroy your credibility and do great harm to Eclipse’s cause. If this is what you intend, then don’t change a thing. If this is not what you intend (which I suspect and hope is the case), then consider editing your posts to remove the pejorative words and loaded phrases, and to incorporate a touch of humility. This advice, which is based on hard learned lessons over several decades, will serve you well in establishing effective, constructive working relationships going forward.

I know that you didn’t ask for this advice, and it is possible that you will take it as a personal attack, but it is offered sincerely. Sometimes even one’s best friends will not tell them what the desperately need to know. Resist the urge to make an immediate, flaming response – let it “cook” a few days and seek some advice from those you trust. Someday, you will thank me.

WT

AeroObserver said...

Finally -- something of substance to talk about on this blog! WT, so what exactly did the old bull tell the young bull? :-)

WhyTech said...

aeroo said:

"so what exactly did the old bull tell the young bull?"

The two bulls used some crude, insensitive language - this is probably not the right place for a verbatim quote.

WT

Ken Meyer said...

Rich--

I think we're now on the same page with "value proposition." Now we seem to agree it is the value the customer gets for his money. Value is one of the central promises of the Eclipse, and it has been from the start--more plane for less money.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

I see I got everybody's attention with the "axe to grind" comment :)

Judging from the reaction, it must have been somewhere near bedrock truth, eh?

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken said:
"Now we seem to agree it IS the value the customer gets for his money. Value is one of the central PROMISES of the Eclipse"

One has to wonder whether there is a medical term for the inability to separate present reality from future hopes; current availability from promise.

Oh' yeah, there it is. It's called schizophrenia. ;-)
Gunner

Real planes for real life said...

Dear Ken,

Thank you for your partial reply to my questions re: potential ties to Eclipse Aviation.

I wrote:

“Have you been or are you currently employed by Eclipse Aviation? Do you, a firm you are employed by, or another member of your family, accept compensation or payment of any kind from Eclipse Aviation?

Have you accepted any payment in kind from Eclipse Aviation for services rendered anywhere, including on his 'blog'.”

In reply you said:

"Have you been or are you currently employed by Eclipse Aviation?"

No, but it's a good point….”




Ken, I appreciate your confirmation that you are not nor have ever been employed by Eclipse Aviation. Unfortunately, you proceeded to ignore the balance of my questions. I believe that you need to answer the balance of these questions. So I will ask again in the kindest possible way the following unanswered questions, plus a new one:



1.) Do you, a firm you are employed by, or another member of your family, accept compensation or payment of any kind from Eclipse Aviation?

2.) Have you accepted any payment in kind from Eclipse Aviation for services rendered anywhere, including on his 'blog'.

3.) Are you an investor in the equity or debt of Eclipse Aviation? (new question)

I think many readers of this blog deserve to know the answer to these questions.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to the courtesy of a reply.

Regards,

Real –

cj3driver said...

Honestly Ken,

If someone insulted your wife, then you proceed to defend her honor in a civil manner only to be ridiculed with a comment from the attacker such as “Judging from the reaction, it must have been somewhere near bedrock truth, eh?”, how would you respond?

You really need to read WhyTech’s “Old Bull” post again and take some advise.

P.S. I still do not wish an ill fate for you ... but with comments like that ... tempting

fred said...

ken ...

every morning when i wake-up i feel like a billionaire , then i have a look on my bank statements only to understand ,despite my mother's promises (be a good boy in school , you'll become rich ...) , i missed it by that much ....

that the problem with promises , they only bind people whom want to believe them ...
(with a special case for political promises = they only bind peoples pretending to believe them... :-)) )

thing you buy have to have a factual (or downtotheground) value otherwise , drop your plane dream i've got a wonderful castle to sell for less than an E500 .....this beautiful historical mega-castle is build on cloud N° 6 ...!!

tomorrow i ma off to paris to have a demo-flight on a mustang ...
anybody interested by some inside peak ??

cj3driver said...

In Mac’s “Flying” comparison of the Eclipse to the Lear 23, Mac says,

“… the most stunning comparison is in price. Even at $600,000, the Lear Jet was expensive in 1964 compared to the 1.52 million price tag for the Eclipse. I don’t know what inflation adjustments would be appropriate here, but prices have certainly gone up….”

Using this link for CPI adjustments:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

The Lear would be priced at $4,032,619.35 today.

“…There has to be some magic in there somewhere…”

hummer said...

A brief question of type rating.
Suppose I hold a valid a ASMEL commerical & instument with biannial endorsement and a current medical.
I attend Ecipse type rating program with a certified VFR aircraft and pass.
Is the type rating endorsement for the Eclipse given with restriction of VFR Daytime only?
Upon the pitot tube AD being complied with, is the endorsement for the Eclipse type rating changed to unlimited without further testing?
And if a Part 135 check ride is taken now, is a further endorsement and test required after the AD is complied with?
Does the new Avio NG system change any endorsements?
I'm confused.

cj3driver said...

Hummer,

I 99% sure the type rating you receive would not be limited as the plane is. The check rides are usually conducted in VFR conditions. A check ride in a simulator would be the same… AD or not. You would obviously have to comply with the AD in the actual aircraft, but once it is lifted you would be free to utilize the balance of the capabilities of the aircraft.

As for part 135, probably the same.

cj3driver said...

At the original price of $600K, …The Lear 23 in 1964 would be priced at $4,032,619.35 today.

In fact, Learjet’s are still being produced today. The lowest price is the model 40 XR and sells today for around $10 million typically equipped. That would have been about $1.5 million in ’64. About the same price as a dinosaur back then.

According to Mac, The originally announced the first Lear Jet, was to be produced at “unheard of low prices and unprecedented quantities” … less than half the cost of existing manufacturers.

Originally set at $350,000 Lear missed the target by nearly half. Sound familiar? … $837,000 vs. $1,520,000. But the startling difference is the fact that back then, Lear’s $350K original target is the same as $2.4 million today. Eclipse’s original claim of $837K is the same as Lear starting at $150K back in 1962. …less than half the price … of the half price guy.

Time will tell, maybe Eclipse, with deep pocket backing can pull it off. We’ll see. Meanwhile I agree with Mac. Eclipse Aviation Critic. Naysayer central

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

NJ,

Agreed. And as the saying goes 'to finish first, first to you have to finish'.

The software that DAYjet designed may in every respect be the wonder of the age.

But first, the hardware/software combination has to function. Then, the people have to learn how to use it.

Only then will Ed find out if the entire system works.

Oh, and there has to be a market to BUY the service as well.

As I said in an earlier post, I have a wonderful VLRJ (Very Light Ram Jet) idea, which I am confident will cross the Atlantic in under an hour. For less than the cost of a pint of Guiness.

Not sure quite how it will work, just yet....

Shane

cj3driver said...

Shane,

Ed could have proved the software / business side of his model years ago using Cessna Caravans, just like Linear did. There must be a link to Eclipse the public is not aware of.

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

CJ3 wrote,

"Honestly Ken,

If someone insulted your wife, then you proceed to defend her honor in a civil manner only to be ridiculed with a comment from the attacker such as “Judging from the reaction, it must have been somewhere near bedrock truth, eh?”, how would you respond?"


CJ3, everyone is entitled to express their opinion. I don't fault you for expressing yours, and I think it is reasonable to expect that you will coolly and calmly accept mine whether you fully agree with it or not.

It turns out that our opinions differ from time to time. Ho hum. Not much surprise there. I happen to think you and many others here occasionally denigrate the company and the aircraft with comments that do not logically flow from available data. I offered an opinion why that is--I think it is because many here harbor an anti-Eclipse bias. Now, that's not much of a suprise. After all this is the "Eclipse Aviation Critic blog," it is not the "Eclipse Aviation Unbiased Discussion Forum." So I'm okay with the idea that many here are biased against Eclipse. But I said I think you guys are biased against the company.

You apparently have a different opinion. I don't have a problem with that. I doubt readers of the blog do. Indeed, I think people who read the blog appreciate that different points of view are presented here. They wade through the various pieces of information (if occasionally buried in tons of junk), and reach their own conclusions.

What could be wrong with that?

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3 wrote,

"The Lear would be priced at $4,032,619.35 today.

'…There has to be some magic in there somewhere…'"


So it would seem you have, like Mac McClellan, awakened to the great value offered by the Eclipse 500.

But you think that the appropriate response is to condemn rather than commend. I think we should congratulate Eclipse for coming up with a high-performance aircraft at an unheard of price. Remember, that's what they set out to do. And they did it!

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

If you believe Mac thinks the Eclipse is an unprecedented 'value' then I believe you to be a lost cause - that is the single most inane and wholly unsupported thing you have said to date, and that is saying somthing in and of itself.

Mac clearly had and continues to have grave concerns about the company and the plane, as does AOPA, as do many here.

Do you snicker when you type that drivel?

No FIKI
No IMC
17.5 and below
No FMS
No Moving Map
No GPS approaches
Cracking transparencies
And the rest of the hit parade...ad nauseum......

The Wee500 tomorrow jet is not fit to carry the Lear's jockstrap.

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

“…CJ3, everyone is entitled to express their opinion…”

Ken,

...Most certainly… ...and my opinion is, ... you should read Whytech’s “old bull” post again, and take his advise.

Please

Thanks.

Metal Guy said...

I remain baffled by the “value proposition” that is based on complete guesses at operating costs. Going back to my Toyota versus Yugo, the depreciation on the Yugo is horrendous, solely because it has a lower reliability level. After a couple of years, you spend more on maintenance than you do on a new car payment. Therefore, a $10,000 Yugo is worth next to nothing after a few short years. While the Toyota is more up front, the long term maintenance is next to zero.

It’s a well known fact that a Toyotas are a much better “value” than Yugo, even though it costs more up front.

So Ken repeating at nauseum that the Eclipse is a better “value” than the Mustang (or any other aircraft such as the Caravan) is complete nonsense. It’s simply cheaper up front, just like the Yugo.

One of the few data points we have so far is that Eclipse conformed, inspected and tested aircraft delivered have an average of 30 squawks upon delivery.

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3 wrote,

"take his advise."

CJ, I read and endeavor to take to heart everyone's comments.

Ken

P.S. That would be "advice" not "advise" :)

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

“… So it would seem you have, like Mac McClellan, awakened to the great value offered by the Eclipse 500…”

Ken,

You are joking right? … I hope so. Because only 104 Lear 23’s were built over 2 years production. An IPO and future models saved the company. McClellan is pointing out that Lear was unable to produce on the price, the performance, and the volume then, ... and has no reason to believe it could happen now … at half again the price.

When you say:

“…Remember, that's what they set out to do. And they did it!...”

You are only partially correct. I do not believe you have your aircraft yet, and neither do 2,673 other deposit holders. And the current deliveries do not yet meet the promises. And the price? ... well you know the story. I’m sure John DeLorean said “I did it” when the first few cars came off the line, but there is a long way to go before profitability … if ever.

As I have posted before, the early investors who get their jet for $995K are truly getting a great value. No question. I agree with you on that point. Even with IOU’s (as long as they get them). I just don’t see the volume sales at $2 million or more. The market is currently proving me right. We will see in the coming month if it holds to be true.

The critics merely point out their opinions (as do you) and the readers can discard or accept these and formulate their own.

If Eclipse doesn’t get the volume sales and production, 2 per day, every business day, then I don’t see the company surviving without a price increase. Mr. Lear and Mr. DeLorean would probably agree. In my opinion, of course!

cj3driver said...

"... P.S. That would be "advice" not "advise" :) ..."

The "advisory" post script is taken. And, thanks for the smiley face! lol

fred said...

ken ...

i am aware you wrote you're not part of EA or getting paycheck from them ...

but (it's only my opinion , don't get upset...) sometimes you look and sound exactly like EA marketingPolitic = buzz , buzz and buzz ...!

you wrote :
#I think we should congratulate Eclipse for coming up with a high-performance aircraft at an unheard of price.#

???

ok ... , so where are the performance ?? is the performance stated made in very good conditions ? (with the idea thoses won't repeat for the next 100 years...)
what is the final price ?? what is the impact of price on production ?? and on reliability of the firm ? and on its length of survival in an open competition market ?

i presume your writing with a N²0 mask strapped on ??

sound exactly like the buzz EA made and make ....

or if you prefer : the mostly completly stuppid and over-the-top things some american-would-be-artists are making to have peoples talking about them ( pick-up the one you want = B.spears or the other one ( not sure she knows how to spell her own name) Paris concorde , sorry , hilton...)

the simple fact that some are writting about E500 proove the bird is not dead , so either 3 solutions :

1° you're taking the piss out of peoples by writting any kind of fantasies for getting reactions and ultimately make BUZZ around the subject ( if you're getting trained to fly one day and if you have your O² tanks filled-up before , i suggest you check if, by any chances , the guy in charge didn't make a mistake in spelling the letters = O² is quite different from N²O ....)

2° you wrote that just because you've runt out of arguments and yes it's a good joke ....

3° you really believe what you wrote , apart from brain transplant , i don't know how to help you ...

FreedomsJamtarts said...

I kind of wonder how parts of the training program currently works.

Obviously there is enough performance envelop open to do the basic flight handling, A/C system and circuit work, but navigation system management is a pretty crucial part of operating an A/C in the modern ATC environment.

Since the plane has no moving map, no FMS, no area Nav, etc, how are they doing this part of the syllibus? With the 496?

You can see the instructor in front of his class of Tuesday...

"Guys, Open your draft Avidyne user guides to page 48. You can put a line through the first three paragraphs, but the rest is pretty accurate to what the avidyne equipped plane would do if it would be finished."

"The AVIONG team is nearly finished deciding which format they will use across the seven vendors for the manuals, and as a value proposition to you, the will be sending us a beta version of this disruptive technology next tuesday."

"Okay, to insert a waypoint you pretend to push the cursor button -which isn't activated on the Avidyne, but will be relocated (Don't yet know where) and renamed don't yet know to what) on the AVIONG"

"Then you pretend to select the soft key of the current waypoint after which the new waypoint would be inserted"

"No wait, I forgot you have to pretend to push the softkey next to FLTPLN before you push the cursor to bring up the active flight plan" -(he says while skim reading the draft Avidyne users guide).

"The fuzzy logic of the AVIONG will then create a ten item drop down of the most likely waypoints you might like to insert, at least that is what I heard from the Chelton guy I had a coffee with last week."

"Any questions? Everyone happy? Good! Now I'll get you to do the CBT. We will be using the Garmin 530 trainer I downloaded from the internet. Just pretend it is an AVIONG using the same imagination that lets you pretend that Partial eclipse will be around past next Tuesday"

Stan Blankenship said...

Ken's comment gives rise to one of my all time favorite quotations:

"The human mind has an infinite capacity to rationalize."

fred said...

stan ...

i give you an other one :

Albert Einstein = "only two things have no limits : universe and human stupidity .... i have serious doubts about universe ...! "

mirage00 said...

And for all the "bashers" out there, please keep this in mind when your post contains words but no substance.

"To talk much and arrive nowhere is the same as climbing a tree to catch a fish"

I remain amused!

double 00

fred said...

mirage00...

opinions are not made of "substances"
(remember the dot.com ,almost all had the opinion the world was definitely changed , some schumck called it 'the end of history" as nothing better could happen anymore , they probably forgot about all bad things waiting at the door ....)

and substance does not make truth ...
(remember collin powell showing a little sample of mass destruction weapons at a conference in United Nations headquarters ?? what a joke ...!!)

when ken write " congratulate ...bla bla bla... eclipse ....for such a wonderful flying iron (sorry it's made out in aluminuim ...) "

i have troubles to read "between the lines" does he do it on purpose ? is he trying to persuade himself or others ?? or is that just an opinion ??

you see may be there is no substances in all that ... but at least peoples present theirs opinions...

How about you ?

could you give us some of your "vast" knownledge about how things should be done ??

by something else that "i remain amused " i wrote before = it was one of the last comments from Hermann Goering on the Nazi's era before commiting suicide ....

flightguy said...

"Two Balls"

What fish are you trying to catch?

Ken Meyer said...

The naysayers can't imagine that Eclipse can succeed. But indeed the company is delivering its breakthrough jet at an unheard of price.

That's the value proposition that's upsetting the naysayers. They did not think it was even possible to do what Eclipse has already done. The naysayers suffer a failure of imagination. In the words of Sir Thomas Dewar, "Minds are like parachutes; they only function when open."

Ken

flightguy said...

Value is the difference between what you receive and what you paid. I haven't seen or heard that customers for the E500 are receiving what the paid for let along increase the value proposition. How many open squawks and action items are there? To list them all just takes too much time. When will these nonconforming propsed option items actually be cleared, not promised?

FYI, Eclipse has a selling strategy and not a marketing strategy. They plan to mass produce as much "junk" as they can to whomever they can to keep the price down. That is exactly why all these paper companies have surfaced as depositors. The problem is that there truly is not enough buyers for these planes at the volume that is being "hyped" to keep the price down. There truly is a huge similarity to compare the Eclipse to the Yugo. The disposable plane and the disposable car. -IMO-

fred said...

sorry Ken ...

#The naysayers can't imagine that Eclipse can succeed [here you're right]. But indeed [almost] the company is delivering [almost delivering would be better] its breakthrough[what is breakthrough , sorry english is not my primary language = isn'it something new or bringing something never seen before ???] jet at an unheard of price. [ ach ..! verstanden alles klare ... unheard = no nobody heard it , because nobody knows it yet .....!]#

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"That's the value proposition that's upsetting the naysayers."

Ken,

When all the "nays" netted out, I see two core issues which concern the naysayers:

1. We find Eclipse's business practices to be offensive. This is the really upsetting part.

2. We cannot find sufficient data to support the business model of the Company, mostly the market size and product pricing strategy.

Many of us think that the airplane concept is "coo-el," and believe that if it is finished, there will be a market, but much smaller than projected by Eclipse. I personally would love to fly the airplane, but am unlikely to ever buy one simply because it is just too small in most every respect.

WT

airtaximan said...

2 balls...

Please send your nice quote to Mr. Raburn. Perfect.

"To talk much and arrive nowhere is the same as climbing a tree to catch a fish"

fred said...

whythec...

yes some buisness pratics seems to be odd ....

did eclipse reported that EASA (european FAA , i know europ is far from you , but don't let anybody draw you the wrong picture of this side of the sea ...) is concerned about VLJ flying at same level than commercials but at much lower speeds ?? in already busy skies ?? and that "rumors" says VLJ are not going to be allowed very high levels in order to not-increase the workload of E-atc , making the project of air-taxi even further away of any success ....

sorry for the believers , but it seems that an other "mass-order" going to the sewage .....

Stan Blankenship said...

But Fred,

The air taxi orders are from Turkey, that new, up and coming Eastern European economic dynamo.

Remember, you live in what Rumsfeld called "old Europe" he added "the center of gravity is shifting to the East."

fred said...

sorry i forgot to bring some "substances" in last posts ....!!

EASA believe a typical flight for jetairtaxi would be 50 to 75 minutes ... at lower speeds the VLJ would use a kind of hyperbollic kind of flight path , so so flying at altitudes where JET-a is not burning too fast (to reach a lower fuel cost ) would be almost always in a climb rate or an approch ...making eurocontrol to have to be extra carefull in a sky already packed with commercials , charter and lots of kinds of ryannair (very low priced )

where they say it starts to be difficult to believe is that those air-taxi would have to go from secondary airport to others secondary airport (exactly like ryannair which is flying from middle of nowhere to somewhere even more lost somewhere ) as big airports closer to center have mostly no availlable slots to cater for ONLY 4 pax

and so , it makes VLJ a wonderfull happy few's toys , but as something to build a buisness on = very doubtfull !!

so no real reason to make a fuss in eurocontrol for a concept they believe NOT viable ...!!

at lower levels , VLJ would burn soo much fuel , for buisness it's not making margins wide enough to succeed .... in an market filled-up by commercials or low-price or regular bizz-jet ....

fred said...

stan ...

it doesn't make any difference ...!

eurocontrol is something to be seen as for "geographic" europ not european union ....!!

as for turkey , if EASA say NO , they will obey ...(too much in line for them ...)

as eastern europ : for whatever is not russia , big lack of infrastructure ... i suppose e500 cannot take-off from mud field and cannot land in beetrootfield ??? (ok , i exagarate a bit ....)

and for russia = it's not flashy enough and range is much too short , i am sure e500 or other VLJ would have problems trying to do a moscow/berlin in only one leg , specifically at low levels ...

now to do a moscow /paris take 3 hours (+/-) with a VLJ in a straight line it's more than 4 , if you have to fill the tank on the way add XX minutes ...

no way some bizz-freak in a hurry is going to spend more time for more money for less convenience , i wrote it before europ (both west and east ) are quite different of USA ....!!!

fred said...

stan ...

i forgot rumsfeld is a shrink ...!

he made a mistake in his statement , the center of gravity is shifting closer to him ....!! ;-))

Gunner said...

Ken said:
"The naysayers suffer a failure of imagination."
That's just wrong. The "naysayers" here have embraced the Mustang and Phenom in addition to new jet entries like Honda, Diamond, Cirrus and Elite.

So, they obviously suffer no lack of imagination. But when one of these companies starts to DELIVER an imaginary plane as a finished product, with a few minor "teething pains" to be worked out; when they start making up orders from paper shells, inventing new business models to justify unheard of demand, accelerating progress payments by scam and fueling the drive for User Fees....well, then I think they'll be treated to the same analysis and ultimate incredulity as V-Clips and Moller. Which is as it should be.

I give you credit for having greater "imagination" than Jules Verne, Ken. Vern Raburn, on the other hand, is pure pragmatist....he knows his market. It's guys with too much imagination or too little money to pay for an honest product to fit their needs. That's what makes a great Mark.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

fred wrote,

"at lower levels , VLJ would burn soo much fuel"

I think you'd be surprised what the Eclipse 500 burns in the twenties. It is, by design, relatively fuel efficient below FL300.

Take a typical 400 nm trip. A CJ2 allowed to climb all the way up to FL390 would still use 51% more fuel than an Eclipse held down to FL290!

Therefore, I don't think air taxi operators need to use a parabolic flight path of the sort short-haul airlines like Aloha use. In fact, I seem to recall reading somewhere a DayJet pilot saying that most Dayjet flights would be in the twenties.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"The "naysayers" here have embraced the Mustang and Phenom"

...both, very conventional light jets that expand existing product lines but break no new ground. No imagination required to visualize those.

Ken

Gunner said...

Piss Poor Parse, once again, Ken. Post the rest of the sentence ("in addition to new jet entries like Honda, Diamond, Cirrus and Elite.").

Or did you think potential Eclipse Depositors are really that stupid? You know, you just might be your own worst enemy. With the transparent nature of your parse & spin game, I can only imagine how many potential buyers you've scared off so far. Buyers you desperately NEED to get your plane delivered, let alone finished and non-orphaned.

Please do Carry On.
Gunner

hummer said...

TEXTRON PROFIT RISES 21% ON CESSNA JETS, SHARES SURGE.

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"Piss Poor Parse...(what about) Honda, Diamond, Cirrus and Elite?"

Your mantra against the Eclipse has been "it isn't quite finished yet." So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and figuring even you wouldn't expect anybody to buy the "it isn't done yet" pitch if you applied it to D-Jet, Honda, Cirrus and Elite. So, of course you've "embraced them." When it comes to those jets, there's no "there" there. Nothing to embrace or dislike. Only a dream of something that may one day come to pass. We can ignore all of those for quite some time to come because they are all vaporware.

The only other VLJ that is actually in the hands of customers is the Mustang. Embraer seems close enough that I think it will soon be a real product, too. But while they're both very nice, they are also both very conventional, representing no new territory. Go ahead and embrace them if you wish; I certainly do. But they both lack the workload-reducing safety features of the Eclipse, and neither represents the same level of "value proposition" :)

Ken

flightguy said...

Is that what the Eclipse is a "Value" Jet. The last ValueJet that I remember augured into the Florida Everglades.

paul said...

It amazes me that anyone would accept delivery on a e-cuse.
When I was employed in the airlines I was part of the aircraft acceptance crew that inspected new aircraft from Boeing and MD. If we found a smudge on a bulkhead it was a big deal.
Can you imagine what would have happened if a new B-767 was restricted to 17,000'?
The MD-11 missed it's numbers by 5%, where is McDonell now?

flightguy said...

Unlike a Yugo, there is no room to pull over to the side of the road.

Adam, ATG, Cirrus, Honda, Diamond, and hopefully Epic will take there sweet time to produce the right product the first time. This is unlike what Eclipse is doing to just "deliver" a product. By deliver, I mean pull it out of the shop onto the ramp as quickly as they can.

hummer said...

For all intents and purposes, there is only one VLJ Today.
At the very best, Mustang is three years away for purchase.
I can have an Eclipse in my hanger next week at this time and be type rated by the end of August. With the pitot tube fixed, the Eclipse is very respectable at what it currently has.
(Reference Flight Aware with Press and the Eclipse in California). Does anyone doubt that it will be 135 Certified?
So Cessna can overprice its product and limit it to three years out. But those times will be changing and I'm glad to see it.
Viva La Vern.
Shake them up.
Stick it to the establishment!
BTW
Virgin Air is going to do the same thing to 121 here.
The airlines from India will be offering a $14,000 first class
luxury accomodation India to the US.

Gunner said...

V-Clips has "delivered" nothing more than Honda, Cirrus, Diamond or Elite, Ken. With the notable exception of Invoices, IOU's, tethered leasebacks and VMC/Two Pilot/17K flight capability.

Stop embarrassing the name your parents left you. Your "promised" jet, if finished at all, should be ready about the same time as Epic and Diamond. Until then, you continue to pretend its done.
Gunner

flightguy said...

Viva la Revolucion. That is what every revolution needs. Someone to take a bullet for the cause.

Viva la Revolucion. Ya right.

flightguy said...

I had a friend whom had a very colorful analogy to owning a C-150.

The gist was, you can say you have one, but what good does it do you.

The Eclipse is quickly becoming the same.

Stan Blankenship said...

Robert Mark took a short ride in the Eclipse and has written about his impressions.

www.jetwhine.com

hummer said...

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who know the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triump of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.'
"Citizen in a Republic"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

flightguy said...

Stop the excuses for "stumbling" and the lame quotes to hide behind. Just deliver a plane that does what it is supposed to do. Deliver it when it supposed to be delivered.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Fred, have you looked upGodwin's Law?

mirage00 said...

Stop the excuses for "stumbling" and the lame quotes to hide behind. Just deliver a plane that does what it is supposed to do. Deliver it when it supposed to be delivered.

Soon.... very soon... :)

And then what shall we talk about?

I remain amused.

double 00

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 226   Newer› Newest»