Thursday, July 05, 2007

Mike Press Addressing the Faithful

Freedomjamstart provided this firsthand account:

Well whoopee folks. Thank you so much dearest Vern for convincing the FAA to limit the Partial Eclipse to DAY VFR under 18 000'. The FAA was reluctant, but Vern saved the day...

[Mike leaps up, hoists Sherri in the air]

Gimme a V (for VFR)

Gimme a E (for Eclipse…)

[the crowd roars]

Gimme a R (for resale value)

Gimme a N (for New Mexico’s taxpayers)

What does it spell……VERN, VERN VERN…

[Mike's now jumping around in his Tutu with the Pom Poms waving…should have shaved his legs though...Crowd is going crazy, behind Vern on the wall the sales ticker just hit 3200 sold]

[Once Ken and the faithful calm back down, Mike gets serious...]

I have looked into Vern's soul, and here is a man I can trust!

I thought I wanted to take a business trip to close a deal, but as usual JetIncomplete helped me understand the error of my wilful ways.

Sherri was right, I didn’t really have an important meeting in ??, what I really needed was a good dose of Alabama Cholesterol.

Hiring soothsayers and palm readers is an incredible disruptive technology, another first for PartialEclipse (Reagan was in politics by then, not business, so he doesn't count).

This AD is really the greatest thing. I was always afraid of the landing flare of the Partial Eclipse with partially full tanks, but now I can be sure of nice empty tanks on all 300 mile legs. What a great design. What a lovely plane. I love Vern. Everything is fantastic.

The ramp guy was a lovely guy. He invited all his friends to see the plane.

[Sales ticker clicks over to 3208...Crowd roars]

This stop saved us quite a bit of money. Jet A was $3.15 a gallon, but the Ramp guy's Mum worked at Macdonalds, and sold me the used cooking oil for only .50c a gallon. Wow. that is great. I love my AD. I love my plane. I love Vern.

[Mike's pom poms are really flying here...Vern's on his Blackberry checking the IPO timer].

You can be sure that I will be getting Jet InComplete to plan all destinations based on fuel price. Hell, I can finally do that extended tour of the Middle East and Venezuela!

Another thing I really love to bits about flying my jet VFR is the view. I love gazing out the window at the ground going past. That's why I am soo happy that I get new windows every 300H's.

Vern is great.

Vern is wonderful!

We love Vern.

Having Window LRU's that never need cleaning is such a disruptive technology.

Vern is a genius.

I love Vern!

I love my Partial Eclipse.

83 comments:

Stan Blankenship said...

Trust me, he's not looking into her soul.

Stan Blankenship said...

From a vendor involved in the avionics circle jerk now known as Avio NG:

"Their (Eclipse) requirements were/are constantly changing. We were/are designing toward a moving target and, at the same time, having to update all the documentation and redo all the testing."

From wikipedia - The term "circle jerk" is sometimes used as a vulgar metaphor. It can refer to a situation, often in the workplace, politics or academia, where people are stroking each other's ego without producing anything of value.

mirage00 said...

Stan... what can I say? Your lack of original thoughts confirms what most here believe about you.

I remain amused

double 00

mirage00 said...

"Their (Eclipse) requirements were/are constantly changing. We were/are designing toward a moving target and, at the same time, having to update all the documentation and redo all the testing."

Oh yeah, another one of your reliable sources.

From a reliable airplane manufacturer.."Stan, oh yeah he never shuts up about the Lear from 30 years ago. I ask him what has he done lately? I say move on, your livin in the past man"

See Stan, we can all just say stuff.

I remain amused

double 00

mirage00 said...

Thanks for coming forward. Whether you worked 5 years ago at Eclipse and not presently is irrelevant to the EJ22 story. Everything, AND I MEAN EVERYTHING, I have heard before from alternate sources at varouis stages over the years. It would be kinda coincidental to make up these claims over the years from different sources. Don't let the faithful try to break down your credibility. After all, we're all online and a handle can be staged, which has been demonstrated here several times by the same individual. The beauty of the blog is that honest people can speak honestly without being restrained by "gag orders" or individuals with the "small man" complex. This industry is too small.

Now this is what I call a "Circle Jerk". With some kisses thrown in.

I remain amused

double 00

gadfly said...

Double Nothing

'Just so you know, the word got out about the needed "ballast" from the people that were asked to supply the "ballast", long before I knew much else about the "little jet". To learn of an "aircraft" that couldn't stand on its feet, with, or without its engine(s) was a new one to me. And that, just prior to a public showing of the "little bird(?). That's when I began asking serious questions . . . and have yet to receive direct answers.

So, bear with us, who seriously want to know the truth about something that directly, and indirectly, affects all of us, who make a living in the aircraft industries.

gadfly

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

flightguy said... Redtail, If Eclipse hasn't changed that much since the the original engine changes then someone at Eclipse produced an airframe modification program that no one needed

The point was that the overall weight considerations have not changed that much, Certainly not 400 pounds worth. IF ballast was needed for some reason, it was not for the reasons that mouse is implying.

flightguy said... Mouse, Whether you worked 5 years ago at Eclipse and not presently is irrelevant.

Maybe it's irrelevant to you. But development anecdotes of five years ago have little to do with production of today. The point here is that mouse is not relating the WHOLE story, and he knows it.

Godfly said... To learn of an "aircraft" that couldn't stand on its feet, with, or without its engine(s) was a new one to me.

I guess you are not as well verse in aviation as you claim. Until all systems are installed in their proper positions, the standing CG could be all over the place. I guess the 50 year old design of Bonanzas, or just about any other aircraft, just suck since you have to add nose ballast when you remove the engine, or else IT FALLS ON IT'S ASS. And you call yourself an A&P. You probably never even removed an engine. Shame on you.

gadfly said...

Redfeathers

You got me that time. I forgot that the "pitot tube" had probably not yet been mounted on the front end of the aerioplane . . . and of course all that electrical "TV" looking type stuff to show the driver where to point the steering wheel, while driving up in the sky".

Yep, 'you sure got me that time.

gadfly

gadfly said...

Had the man responded in a polite manner, we could have discussed whether or not an aircraft, prepared for public display, had its (rear) engines mounted, at the time. If not, the aircraft should have needed even “less” forward ballast (if any). Four hundred pounds seems quite excessive . . . at the time, I did not get an actual number, only that Eclipse needed some big blocks of aluminum, cut by “water-jet”, post haste. (Shucks, I would have thought blocks of lead would have been easier to obtain, and easier to hide from the viewing public. Even “scrap iron” would have cut the size down by over two thirds. But on second thought, the “aluminum” would have looked like “it belonged”.)

Usually (but not always, obviously), an aircraft has a large enough “foot print” to remain “upright”, even with an engine or two removed. The fact that a “ready-to-fly-rear-engine- aircraft” should need additional ballast up front prompted me to seek further information. It didn’t seem logical that an aircraft, near ready to fly, should require a support for its tail, until the pilot and co-pilot are firmly strapped into their seats, and getting ready for take-off.

Gathering further information began to seem like pulling “hen’s teeth” . . . information that should be readily available to any enquiring mind, from any honest company. Even today, the “CG” range seems to be some deep dark secret . . . but then, that’s just an impression that I seem to have. (Who knows, maybe the little jet has a “sliding weight”, somewhere under the floor, to trim the thing prior to landing . . . or maybe that’s the reason for the additional pilot, to move fore or aft for pitch control.) Hey, with this little jet, I’m beginning to think anything is possible.

But then, I am totally ignorant of all this aerodynamic stuff . . . and we’ll just have to wait and see what happens in the next few weeks.

gadfly

redtail said...

Gadfly said... But then, I am totally ignorant of all this aerodynamic stuff

You're forgiven.

Gunner said...

Gad-
Spot on. I suspect Redtail might have been in such a frenzy to get some talking points in over mouse's statements that he didn't have time to read that the ballast was placed in the NOSE.

Without engines installed, that would only exacerbate any balance problems. Ahh, but WITH those rear engines installed on an aircraft originally designed for 150lbs worth of Williams power-plants? Yep, I see where nose ballast just might have become necessary to show the plane off until such time as a BandAid was developed.

As to the next few weeks, I doubt those will tell us any more about Le Petit's weight and CG issues than the last few. Even Mike Press is relegated to offering primers on VFR filing, take-off and flight following. Think the Depositors are gonna see any more "transparency" today than yesterday? Think again.
Gunner

paul said...

When I was working at E-cuse I saw the weights. May be a zero fuel thing. A B-727 should not be taxied pax-less without 7,000 lbs in each tank, I know I did it. It was pulling wheelies all the way to the hangar.
Just curious, do the purchase agreements carry any penalties if the E-cuse does not meet performance specs?

Stan Blankenship said...

paul,

A copy of the Eclipse P.A. (well technically, they call it a Deposit Agreement since they reserve the right to shuffle serial numbers around) is available at:

www.eclipsecritic.net

gadfly said...

paul

Watch out, now! If it’s a requirement that the plane can’t be taxied without fuel in the tanks, and the little jet goes dry, sooner or later, some poor Eclipse owner is going to get stranded up there somewhere, with “IFR” conditions coming in, and with empty tanks he’ll have to stay up there all day . . . dodging clouds, until someone comes along to get him down.

gadfly

paul said...

OK, a minimum fuel load, smart ass.
As I said 72s require 21,000 total to be taxied empty.

bill e. goat said...

Hi Paul,
Thanks for your observations on the min fuel considerations.
I think Gadfly was agreeing with you, and expressing his concern that it could complicate an operators life until IFR capablility is established.

Out of range CG? 400 # of ballast required in the nose? (Maybe it didn't have enough water in the air data tubes?! Just kidding to the owners-in-waiting).

Okay, so what's up with the fix? (I'm sure it isn't too big of deal- odd that it wasn't "discovered" until lately. Another IOU to the FAA? Another conspiracy? Another twist of Vernian intrigue?
In otherwords, what the heck is up? Thanks.

paul said...

The deposit agreement states that a refund is possible if "guaranteed performance specifications" are not met. Where are these specs spelled out? It seems alot of depoistors have an out.

gadfly said...

paul

We (all United employees) got to see the very first 727, at ORD. With all the "Fowler" flaps, slats, "Krueger flaps", etc., . . . we figured they could do 'just about anything . . . but never considered doing "wheelies". But that is no surprise! And now we learn the Eclipse has thought of it, too. (And I thought it was a "mistake".)

gadfly

Stan Blankenship said...

paul,

Same document, Exhibit A.

Gunner said...

Bill E-
The Faithful get their panties wadded quite nicely just over facts; let's not give them fiction to fret about.

I don't think anyone is saying the current incarnation of the EA-50X requires 500lbs ballast; they were talking about some point in the past. Of course, if you're gonna fly it alone, you might do well to get a Bull Mastiff. Last I heard, it'll require 80lbs ballast in the co-pilot seat.
Gunner

bill e. goat said...

Gunner- thanks for the correction. Mouse- what was up with 400# in the nose- if the engines were missing, that would help, not hinder, a too-far aft CG.

M00- if this is the same episode mentioned some months ago- as I remember the posts it happened last summer- then Mouse has been at Eclipse within the past year- not 5 years ago.

Regarding too far aft c.g.'s:

I "know a guy" (actually, I do know him- not an urban legand) who flew F-106's. At civilian airports, he noticed that DC-9's could back themselves away from a gate with thrust reversers.

When eventually confronted with a situation where he needed a ground tug for a "push back" (equipment parked too close), he decided to let gravity work in his favor and roll backwards. It worked in his favor until he hit the brakes. Wheelie in reverse. Tailstrike with damage. No more rolling backwards. Got to meet important (if rather animated) people. He retired as a Col. (No, he didn't get demoted from Gen.).

Some folks are golden. Vern seems to have a similar "golden charm" when it comes to finance.

paul said...

The trick to not setting the -9 on it's tail when powering back is to never touch the brakes until rolling foward.
Speaking of performance guarantees, one of the reasons McDonell whent TU is because the MD-11 didn't meet it's performance specs allowing the airlines to bail on their orders.
American got a few and promptly sold them to Fed Ex.

gadfly said...

Goat

The time frame was "years" ago, and the engines were "present" (Williams, I believe . . . but wasn't taking notes at the time . . . didn't, then, realize anything special). We needed some abrasive water-jet cutting of CRES (Corrosion REsistant Steel . . . "Stainless Steel") for a certain project, and the subject of the "little jet" came up in the discussion of "how thick of material can be cut". All innocent conversation, at the time, . . . nothing more. And, at that time, no specific weight was mentioned . . . only a reference to a significant amount of "counterweight".

So, in all fairness to the "faithful", let's not allow this to get out of hand.

Once they get a handle on "Exhibit A" in the thing they signed, they have enough grief for which to seek counsel . . . both legal and psychological.

gadfly

(Six months before delivery? . . . defined by Eclipse? . . . really? . . . that could be “forever”! And who is looking out for the customer?)

paul said...

Check out footnote "b". FIKI supposed to be certified within one year of aircraft certification.
How much time do they have left?

Eric said...

Paul, it depends on whether the clock starting ticking when they got the provisional TC or the full TC.

bill e. goat said...

Hi Gadfly,
Thanks for the correction.

Speaking of "golden" folks- I've been perusing the links Stan has provided by the monthly links.

Toyota:
"Another Burt Rutan Proof of Concept airplane... Aviation Week reported the prototype had twice the expected drag. Cruise speed was 128 kts and they were expecting 168 kts"

Gunner said...

Eric-
The clock starts ticking when Eclipse pushes the start/stop button. Just as meeting performance guarantees is defined by Eclipse fiat (witness the surreal nature of the infamous ABQ-GNV "proving run").

Such is the lot of the Depositors in waiting....and waiting....and waiting.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

...and so, depositors begin to request their money back...and they get what?

This IS the joke.

Any word gets out that a refund or a few have been demanded, and its all over in a second - just like a run on a bank or a stock market crash or a tech bubble bursting.

Same situation. Firm grip, empty bag, lots of anxiety.

mirage00 said...

Any word gets out that a refund or a few have been demanded, and its all over in a second - just like a run on a bank or a stock market crash or a tech bubble bursting.

Ummmmmm no, not really.

I remain amused

double 00

Gunner said...

Mirage-
Yup, you're right. This company couldn't possibly have financial problems; its history of integrity runs too deep and its reputation for fiscal responsibility is simply legend. Just look at the Free Pop and Color Copies Conservation Initiatives.

Can anyone spell Modern Aviation's E-N-R-O-N? Enjoy your stock options. ;-)

Now I'm amused, too. In fact, I'm breakin' up, over here.
Gunner

bill e. goat said...

The, ah, "patience" of the depositors is, um, "commendable".

It does reflect Eclipse's unique, ah, er, I flinch to say it, "value position" in the market.

Simply, for the money, there isn't anything out there that will do what Eclipse promises to do.

Whether Eclipse will do what Eclipse promises to do, well, um, ah, er...

But, if you're not in a hurry, it's the only game in town for $1.6 M-ish. And WAY the only game in town for $1.2M-ish, (if you got in for that, and Vern lets you stay in for that).

So far anyway. At least for a twin. (Ken rightly points out that for equal money, everyone would prefer a twin).

So, patience is a virtue, at least if you got in early, and Vern doesn't make staying around too painful.

Why the deep pocket investors keep sticking around, and why the BOD let Vern keep sticking around, are the big questions to me...

------------------------
...I suppose Eclipse isn't quite "in the game" just yet- still warming up. It's sort of like baseball, where all the players are out stretching, and waiting for the national anthem.

Batter up! (Pretty soon I hope, before this game gets called for rain)! ...Wait a minute, I guess it DOES get called for rain. For now, anyway.

fred said...

##Any word gets out that a refund or a few have been demanded, and its all over in a second - just like a run on a bank or a stock market crash or a tech bubble bursting.

Ummmmmm no, not really.

I remain amused##

mirage000

when i read about eclipse and its total misconception of what is the european market for such a flying pan , i can't help it but to think it's a way to give gullible potential customers a misrepresentation of the would-be success of the E500 ....!!

if you read what i wrote about it , i can understand why you remain amused ....

EA did a big show-off with one of the biggest order for the european market , but the reality differs a little ...

one the firm ordering is a company which has absolutely NO history with transportation as they primary do sell some luxury items for rich peoples ... (if they are already rich , why do they wait for a cheap jet service ??)

the other one hasn't got a clue about planes and air buisness , they job is "financial enginering" whatever it might be ...

i am myself amused when i read about it : this morning i got-up not knowing what to do today , the choices were " should i scracth my back for a while or should i start a jet-service ?? ;-))"

it look like a trick toward believers to make sure they believe that almost-flying-thing is going to be such a brilliant success , no needs to worry about deposit ...!

sorry but the facts are EA is going to break-even with 500 units ...
which means they wont make a cent before then how are they going to pay wages , further dev. ,retrofits ,compensation for blocking planes for retrofitting , furnitures , training stuff and training tutors etc... etc...

they are going to dig a little more in the investor's pocket ?? fine , but it's going to be repaid one way or an other , leading to break-even on a further numbers of sold units ...

and so on !

no way it can work !! may be if the planes were ready to be given for good to customers ( in a different way than handing over a piece of paper and say your plane has to be lock-in here for the next XX weeks)

in this scenario , it would be already hard enough (especially with the US eco. slowing down ...)

with multiple "little problems going to be fixed anytime between now and next decade" sounds really harsh to do ....

redtail said...

Gunner said... I suspect Redtail might have been in such a frenzy to get some talking points in over mouse's statements that he didn't have time to read that the ballast was placed in the NOSE.

I most certainly did. Here is what I said... "Mouse, why don't you tell us the rest of the story... The airframe hasn't changed that much, so either your story is total bull, or there was test equipment installed in the rear cabin, or some installations in the nose or forward cabin had not been completed yet. Well, what was it? I guess those details just slipped your mind since it has been five years since you were there."

I stand by my statement. If there was a reason for ballast, it was because a tail heavy situation was caused by added test equipment in the rear cabin, lack of installations in the nose, or something else that mouse doesn't want to talk about.

I guess it was you and the other little bashers that "jumped the gun" in this case. You're so eager to find something to bash that you didn't even read the post. How typical. Gunner - Shot in the foot again.

redtail said...

Goat said... Why the deep pocket investors keep sticking around, and why the BOD let Vern keep sticking around, are the big questions to me...

I guess it just because you don't have all the facts, you only see what you want to see, and they know something you don't. I'll tell them to give you a call on all future decisions.

Niner Zulu said...

Redtail,
Why are you sticking around? I follow Eclipse's progress fairly closely, and they have not said or done anything which would make me want to purchase one of their aircraft. What do you see that I don't?

Gunner said...

Paycheck

Stan Blankenship said...

9Z,
Stock options. Vern promised to make many employees millionaires.

redtail said...

Niner Zulu said... Redtail, Why are you sticking around? I follow Eclipse's progress fairly closely, and they have not said or done anything which would make me want to purchase one of their aircraft. What do you see that I don't?

Maybe the same thing that about 1000 other purchasers see (that you don't). Perhaps you should open your mind a little more instead of just looking for fault. Don't be afraid. The next time I'm in Washington, I'll stop in.

sparky said...

I know I've asked before, but got no response. Didn't day jet/jetsons use to publicly acknowledge the 1700 orders. every press release I've seen lately lists 239. did they go away?

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

Redtail,

Where are the 1000 owner orders.

According to Euitek Capital there are fewer than 500.

http://www.equitekcapital.com/portfolio.htm

"The value proposition of the Eclipse jet's high-end features and performance combined with extremely low operating costs has generated over 2,200 aircraft orders, including about 500 individual orders and several fleet orders from planned regional air-taxi services."

airtaximan said...

there probably are 1000 individual buyers...

500 initial buyers, who sell their positions or planes "on delivery" to another 500 buyers.

See how this works...

As the fiathful say - "there's a buyer for every seller".

500 planes bought and sold twice before delivery. Once from e-clips, and once from the speculator.

1000. Stop bitching the details.

Ken Meyer said...

flightguy wrote,

"According to Euitek Capital there are fewer than 500."

Probably stale numbers. That could have been written years ago for all anybody knows.

Why do people buy the Eclipse? I just finished a detailed comparison of the cost of operating an Eclipse, a Mustang, and a CJ2. No big surprises, but an answer to your question:

Total Operating Expenses:

CJ2 -- $6.45/nm
Mustang -- $4.08/nm
Eclipse -- $2.93/nm

That's not to mention, of course, that the Mustang costs $1.3 million more than the Eclipse and the CJ2 costs over $4 million more. Plus the Eclipse has some neat features that the others lack.

The Eclipse is a very attactive option for the individual owner who wants a jet but doesn't want to put it into charter service in order to defray the high cost of ownership.

Ken

flightguy said...

"Probably stale numbers."

Ya, Ken you are probably right. They are Eclipse's stale numbers.

As far as costs per mile, how about recalculating when JetComplete is fixed and the AC costs actually price out based upon demand.

planet-ex said...

If you go by the date on the TCDS, Eclipse has a little less than 90 days to gain FIKI certification.

TCDS approval date - Sept. 30, 2006

gadfly said...

flightguy

The cost figures are correct . . . for the "PaperClips".

gadfly

flightguy said...

Gadfly,

It's always good to have paper, especially at Osh Kosh. You never know when the TP runs out in the restrooms.

mirage00 said...

Why do people buy the Eclipse? I just finished a detailed comparison of the cost of operating an Eclipse, a Mustang, and a CJ2. No big surprises, but an answer to your question:

Total Operating Expenses:

CJ2 -- $6.45/nm
Mustang -- $4.08/nm
Eclipse -- $2.93/nm


Ken, maybe Stan will post your comparison of costs on his next "copy" blog entry or make an link on his eclipsecritic.net? Then again, probably not, since it favors our little jet.

I remain amused

double 00

cj3driver said...

Ken Said;

"Total Operating Expenses:

CJ2 -- $6.45/nm
Mustang -- $4.08/nm
Eclipse -- $2.93/nm



Has DayJet seen these numbers?

sparky said...

ken,

Care to elaborate on how you came up with those figures?

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3 wrote,

"Has DayJet seen these numbers?"

Beats me, but I'll bet they have their own numbers. Theirs will probably be lower. My numbers assume some expenditures that they won't have.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

sparky wrote,

"ken,

Care to elaborate on how you came up with those figures?"


Sure, but it'll have to be later; busy flying a while :)

Ken

cj3driver said...

"Has DayJet seen these numbers?"

Ken said;

”…Beats me, but I'll bet they have their own numbers. Theirs will probably be lower. My numbers assume some expenditures that they won't have…”

….You mean like mentor pilots?, or do your numbers include two pilots?

sparky said...

CJ3,

don't forget advertising, maintenance personel, dayport upkeep, line personel and the home office. your right ken, when you figure all these in it comes out to $0.01/nm.

I forgot that the eclipse cost of operation is inversely proportional to the amount of people you have to support with it.

Truly revolutionary. Is this with the "original" jetcomplete pricing? if so, wouldn't you agree that the end figure would be misleading seeing as though the company has already stated that thair would be an increase in the pricing structure of the program?

Bonanza Pilot said...

Interesting numbers by Ken...and might be pretty close. I am trying to understand then how dayjet can put three people in the back paying 1 buck a mile...maybe they have some discounts?

Using Mike Presses fuel burn and speed numbers for 17,500 (I don't believe the 265 knots by the way - but lets give him the benefit of the doubt) you would have 75 gallons per hour to do that...or at 4 bucks a gallon 300 bucks an hour....Jet complete was 125 an hour I believe....so lets move that up the 30% or so I was told....about 165 bucks an hour...two pilots at a discounted rate of 50 bucks an hour (I think that is way low..but I figure the true believers will pick one number and call the entire thing false...) So that is 415 bucks to go 265 knots or about 1.57 a mile. Add in the cost of the note on the plane, hangar and what else?

Actually Ken's numbers don't sound that crazy...the crazy part is trying to sell the seat at 1 buck a mile based on those costs.

airtaximan said...

Imagine E-clips has actually developed a smaller single over the last while.

How would the faithful feel knowing that their deposit money and progress payments actually went to developing a new plane, instead of fixing, completing, NG-ing and delivering the one they already paid for?

They are hundreds of planes, (call it around a $half billion behind) in deliveries compared to what they promised when they called the progress-payments...

If they show a new plane, developed during the progress- payment-BURN phase over the last year, the saem period color-copies became a financial drain... and deliveries were dismal, promises regarding schedule were missed, missed again by-a-long-shot...

...how would a faithful depositor who parted with his money, supposedly for progress on HIS/HER plane... FEEL?

I know what their lawyer would say...

Gunner said...

AT-
The Faithful would herald it as a brilliant marketing tactic; a financial stroke of genius.

But, sooner or later, it's not going to be about The Faithful playing with paper airplanes and future promises (as Ken just did by comparing two certified, production aircraft with, (who was it again?)....Moller, still?. Nope, sooner or later, it comes down to non-hobbyists and non-Eclipse salesmen wanting to own a plane that can get them efficiently from Point A to Point B, ON DEMAND.

Shall we talk about Eclipse's record of since Delivery 1, again? 700lbs an hour, 3 people, VFR only. This is not exactly the stuff of Rich Guy and Owner-Operator wet dreams.

Just keep bailing, Oh Ye Faithful; the Promised Jet is surely just over the horizon. Vern said it, I believe it; that's all there is to it.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

G-

Yup, but while Vern's whistling dixie to the faithfull, and they're getting ready for a ho-down... all the while he's used their price of admission to put together a chinese buffet for his other friends.

Who knows, perhaps he'll give them first dibs to switch from the E500 to the E350, for no extra charge.

If he begins working on certification of the E250, perhaps he can deliver it before the E500 is finished and fixed.

Seriously (hard in this saga, I know) if I paid $million for a jet plane, and I discovered the guy was actually not building and fixing mine, I'd sue his ass and put him in jail for fraud.

But, then again, I know that would be the end of the company. There is probably only 1 person who can continue the money flowing into this fiasco. The guy is a magician at getting more money, and hey, that's rule number 1 in aviation.

"how do you make a small fortune in aviation?"

Start with a large one.

We can all admit, he's blown a few fortunes already with this silly little plane.

hummer said...

bonanza pilot
The number is $1.00 to $4.00 depending on the booking. Figure
2 seats at $3.00 is a more likely scenario. Or 3 seats at $2.00. with one stop.
It will still be very interesting to see how it "flies".
No pun intended.

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

gunner wrote,

"sooner or later, it's not going to be about The Faithful playing with paper airplanes and future promises"

Or about gunner's broken record...

"The Eclipse isn't done yet, so I bought a fully-finished D-Jet...

Tra-la-la-la-la-la-la-la"

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're concerned that Eclipse, despite the type certificate for their plane and the recently-awarded production certificate, hasn't yet produced their aircraft with all the neat features they've promised. And they're right now under a temporary AD. So, how did you resolve your little dilemma? You bought a 100% paper airplane with no type certificate and no particular reason to believe it will ever have one. And if indeed it ever does, it's limited to 25,000 feet, burns more fuel yet flies a lot slower than the plane you're slamming. As incomprehensible as it might be to some; probably it made sense to you.

But haven't you made that pitch enough yet? OK, there are some things still coming before the Eclipse meets contracted specifications. I agree with that. So what; what's your point?

Are you saying they're not going to provide those things? If that's the thrust of your argument, why don't you just say it instead of relying on the moronic "The Eclipse isn't done yet, so I decided to buy an even less-completed airplane instead." I think the argument you keep making (over and over and over and over again) just doesn't make any sense to anybody with a brain. Of course the Eclipse isn't 100% completed. Duh! Did anybody say it was??

Can we keep the conversation moving forward or must you continue to slam everybody over the head again and again with a worthless argument you've already made ad nauseum?

Ken

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

sparky wrote,

"Care to elaborate on how you came up with those figures?"

Sure.

Assumptions:

600 nm trip

Mustang does 310 KTAS block and burns 90 gph block (it actually burns more and the block speed is a little less, but I didn't want to be accused of slanting the numbers at all).

CJ2 does 361 KTAS block and burns 141 gph block. The numbers are from Conklin & deDecker

Eclipse does 307 KTAS block and burns 68 gph block.

Fuel is $4 per gallon.

Engine reserves are from JSSI. I used $206 per hour for the Eclipse for maintenance, parts and engine reserve (choosing to ignore JetComplete pricing altogether since it is currently in flux).

I used C & D figures for insurance, hangar and other expenses common to each aircraft.

Here again are the bottom line figures:

Direct Operating Expenses:

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

Total costs:

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

Anything else you want to know?

The thing you have to understand is that I am an aircraft OWNER. I pay the bills. What the aircraft costs to operate is important to me. Somebody else who just flies the thing can come right up and say, "I think the CJ2 flies faster and higher and carries more." He's probably right. But whoever is saying that is not an aircraft OWNER who actually pays the bills :)

You simply cannot beat the Eclipse for cost-effective jet ownership.

Ken

*math error corrected from previous posting

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

Ken-
You're the only one here that continues to tout my Diamond positions. I haven't brought it up but once, except in response to your rants.

Hmmmmm, why is that?
Here's the differences between you and I:
- I don't speak of the D-Jet as though it's a done deal, certified flying aircraft.

- I don't do Show and Tell for the Class regarding its economies, range or speed. (That would be simply embarrassing to the honor of those that gave me my name.)

- I owned an Eclipse position and walked away, never looking back at the "value proposition" I'd left on the table. I'd have done so, even at your $1MM price....nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin', Ken.

- I don't do business with companies that require its customers to carry its water. How many Diamond, Cessna, Embraer, Honda, SportJet, Elite or Cirrus depositors have we seen with a felt need to dress the part of some other guy's fluff boy? How many Eclipse counterparts?

I rest my case. Rant on, my brother.
Gunner

Gunner said...

ps: Thanks for admitting that the Eclipse, like the Diamond, Cirrus, Embraer and Honda is not finished.


Question on the floor, I think, is why are its depositors being expected to pay for it as though it IS finished? None of these other companies require that.

More specifically, why do you continue to play le bourgeois gentilhomme , schooling all and sundry on the performance accomplishments of a PAPER AIRPLANE?

Nobody else here does that, Ken.
Gunner

cj3driver said...

Speaking of paper airplanes, …. I just got my July issue of BC&A, and there is a letter to the editor from non other than Mr. Eclipse himself, …. No, not Ken Meyer (although the letter could have easily been written by him for style and substance) but, Vern Raburn, Pres & CEO.

The letter was submitted to refute a feature story and flight review from the April ’07 issue which featured a TBM850 on the cover, and contained a six page article on the 850 which proclaimed to be a “VLJ challenger”. The April article featured an ACTUAL trip in the TBM850 from San Diego, CA to Atlanta, GA non-stop.

The Caption above Vern’s letter reads:

TBM850: A Prop-Driven VLJ Challenger? Really?

Not to be outdone by a pesky turboprop, Vern presents figures for an aircraft “extracted from flight testing of the final configuration” Vern states that the E500 could have “easily” made the same trip non-stop in 4:30 min. and 1498 lbs of fuel at FL410.

Vern went on to tout other “massive enhancements” of the E500’s AvioNG over the TBM, with “advanced technologies” such as FADEC, auto throttles and FMS. “This level of functionality simply cannot be duplicated by the traditional federated systems of the TBM850.”

Vern’s letter then goes on to give other payload/range examples as “the real story” and proclaims “Here are the facts” giving sample trips.

The last sentence Vern ponders “… one may wonder why the two should even be compared.”

KMYF to KPDK is 1640 NM.

There is a full page Eclipse ad on pg 3.

fred said...

ken ..

ok , you're right a mustang is 1.3 M US$ more expensive ....

but you forgott only a some detail : if what you buy is not what you want or thought of it would be (thru unkept promises or tricky marketing)

Even if you pay only ONE buck , it's already TOO expensive ..!!

someone stated it in a post : no way there is 2700 E500 to be sold ....!

it's just a buzz to keep spirit high enough for the taithfull not to get too much worries ...

as vern promised the staff to made them "millionaires" in stocks ...

it looks more and more as the dot.com madness ...

the only one to save their money are the ones running away before it's too late !!!

hummer said...

Ken
How are you going to handle the problem of two pilots?
And perhaps a mentor pilot?

sparky said...

ken wrote:

"Engine reserves are from JSSI. I used $206 per hour for the Eclipse for maintenance, parts and engine reserve (choosing to ignore JetComplete pricing altogether since it is currently in flux)."

seems you also chose to ignore the fact that you havve to replace tires and windsheild every 100 cycles, and side windows every 150 cycles.

Figure those three in and I think your $1.35 is way low by at least half.

Ken Meyer said...

"seems you also chose to ignore the fact that you havve to replace tires and windsheild every 100 cycles, and side windows every 150 cycles."

Why would I include those items when neither is correct?

Ken

bill e. goat said...

Hi Fred,
Regarding Eclipse v Mustang,
Mustang is 1.3$M more, but consider that in terms of percent:

Mustang acquisition cost is (guesstimating $1.6M v $2.7M) 70% higher!

I believe Ken has done objective market research, and believe his numbers are correct for his operating environment:

Operating expense numbers ($1.35 v $2.13) is a 60% higher for Mustang.

Total costs ($2.70 v $4.08) is 50% higher for Mustang.

And if Ken got in on the earlier prices, the resale value PERCENTAGE will be dramatically higher. (This would be a somewhat artificial comparison however, as it includes a disproportionate weighting for "speculation". I think Ken is not one of the speculators, and wants the Eclipse for what it can do for him as a transportation tool, not as a financial tool).

With current pricing, I suspect Eclipse will hold resale value well- if the company survives financially. If not, I suspect it will be acquired, and E-500 production will continue with adult supervision, so it shouldn't affect resale too much after temporary period of uncertainty. (Ah, sort of like the current 5-year period of uncertainty- so far, only shorter).

Critics and skeptics (uh, and haters!) can correctly point out that the E-500 "isn't there yet" on equipment and functionality.

One other percentage that is significant, is the wait! With Vern's fuzzy math on schedule (um, and cost; er, and equipment), I can't propose a number for this one.

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

As an odd observation, I suppose the wait might work to Ken's and 100's of others advantage; if it gives Eclipse time to get all the development and cert work rolled into the production line. The airplane (eventually) delivered might indeed be fully functional.

Critics, skeptics, and haters?
Important to consider where one stands in regard to:
1) E-500
2) Eclipse as a corporation
3) Vern as CEO

I think the "critic" camp here follows that sequence one for one. Except for Vern: all of the above! (Oh be nice! He does provide us with free, if unpredictable*, entertainment. Well, free for those without 10% down).

*Sadly, come to think of it, it IS pretty predicatable. I think everyone is looking forward to some pleasant surprises- eventually).

Gunner said...

Bill E-
I question the assumption that the EA50X will be acquired, if this company goes Tango Uniform. There is nothing revolutionary about the design. It's simply a good looking, tight, entry level jet.

But, from what we've seen in terms of backward progress since the fleet began flying, it may well be a throw-away design; a jet whose ongoing maintenance costs will render it financially unsupportable by the typical owner.

Further, the Owner/Operator demand for this jet seems to be far less than what was being touted just a few months ago. Finally, we've yet to see REAL performance numbers or publicly available tracking, which would indicate that the Company has reasons to hold both close to the vest. Given all that, there may be a real question as to the efficacy of another investor stepping in to support or purchase.

I'm certain Raytheon would have been more than happy to sell the Starship rather than to mothball the feet. That didn't happen.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

Gunner, most of your post is flatout wrong. I don't know how you can hang around here for months without learning some basics about the plane you're slamming:

"There is nothing revolutionary about the design."

Have you read the specs? This is the most computerized, tightly-integrated, workload-reducing aircraft ever produced at any price. Of course it is revolutionary.

But even if it didn't have all those groundbreaking features--even if it were just a slightly smaller Mustang, it would be revolutionary because it opens jet ownership to the aviation masses.

That you missed that point is amazing.

"a jet whose ongoing maintenance costs will render it financially unsupportable by the typical owner."

Read this detailed paper on the maintenance advantages of the Eclipse 500, learn something about the plane, and then come back and we'll talk some more.

"the Owner/Operator demand for this jet seems to be far less than what was being touted just a few months ago."

Data? I think you make this stuff up. I know of no data to support the contention that there are fewer owner/operators today than previously announced.

Let's talk about the plane, the company, even the awful management (the one point I agree with you on). But let's do it with factual facts, not made-up baloney.

Ken

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

Please, Ken.

You think it's revolutionary; I don't and nothing about the existing PRODUCTION aircraft supports your position.

You think it opens up affordable jet ownership to the masses; I don't and nothing we've seen, other than investor underwriting of costs, supports the current price.

You think it has fabulously low maintenance costs. The company who designs and manufactures it evidently disagrees. They've scrapped the JetComplete pricing and can't seem to come up with new pricing; which tells us that even THEY aren't yet able to predict maintenance costs. Why? Because the plane is still very much in the development stage.

I don't mind you arguing, Ken. I don't even mind the condescension. But my points are based on yesterday's track record and today's reality. Yours are based on the Fairy Tale of Eclipse promises for "Tuesday".
Gunner

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

Hi Gunner,
I’m not sure what would happen in a sell out either. I don’t think there is a snowball's chance in Phoenix in August that Eclipse will ever return to investors the $1.2B or so (if the $400M package went through). Will the investors eventually “drop it like it’s hot” (like a rock in Phoenix is August)?

http://tinyurl.com/23z748

(Vern, you STILL get an F!)

New airplane development and certification are so expensive, once TC and PC are squared away, it would seem to be a compelling acquisition- I would think it would fit nicely into the Raytheon lineup- sort of like how Raytheon did a (very successful) makeover of the troubled Mitsubishi Diamondjet (now 400XP), or Gulfstream did with the immature Galaxy (now G-200). Come to think of it, I think it would fit nicely into Cessna’s lineup as well, maybe go with Garmin to pave the upgrade path to a Mustang?

Along the lines of sell offs, Raytheon is now Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC). I think mothballing the Starship fleet was a prerequisite to making the company attractive for acquisition. (I had heard the 1900 model support and liability had to be addressed too- don’t know what the solution to that was).
If Cessna or Raytheon/HBC did acquire Eclipse, and moved them to Kansas, maybe Vern could come too, with an office in the Wichita zoo- between Baboons and Snakes. (BAAAAAAD on me! That would be cruelty to the other animals I suppose). Or maybe some museum in Kansas has an exhibit on DINOSAURS!!!

(More bad on me!).
I love Vern!
and I love the Eclipse!
Let's rebuild the confidence for Vern's dream!!

bill e. goat said...

Um, can I have green chiles on that burger???

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

Sparky,
Either Mike Press's journal reports are in error, or Ken chooses not to believe them.

Mike did report that tires and windows were needed after 100 cycles.

From Journal # 3
“…I had already coordinated with Eclipse JetComplete to do the 100 cycle windshield replacement in Gainesville. We were going to do it on Monday but because the tires needed checking anyway, I decided to go early at 98 cycles. … They replaced all the windshields in less than 24 hours, put new tires on…”

Don’t forget, Vern also states the Paperclipse will fly 1640 nm and land with reserves. ….It says so right here….

fred said...

billy e goat ....

i am sorry but i have to disagree with you ...!!

have a look on mike press selling website ...

for position /delivery 2008 , price are lower than factory price !
(which means old position are going to be delivered and resold for less than the factory can sell a new one .... which produce a curious situation = if you would want to buy a E500 would buy from factory for 1.8M$ + c.p.i [ i am an expert on monetary mass effects , even if Berkanke says inflation is under control i can assure you it's the joke of the year !] or would buy the same product on a secondary market for 1.4M$ without c.p.i. ??

you see it's a mad situation ! and i suspect EA and Vern to have been completely foolish on the matters for inflating their ego and make the orderbook look good ...)

so , no needs to be extraclever to understand it is already a seller market ....

most of those whom thought a would a good opportunity for making $$ (speculators) are already in for nasty weather ...!!

which leads two conclusion : either E500 is going to be sold for a much higher price (in order to make some profit for the sake of EA)

either EA is going to call for mayday pretty soon ...

why should an other conpany buy out EA ?? to have some kind of liabillity on unkept promises or missing specs or some kind of a hole in the financial making the Grand-Canyon looking for a kinder-garden ???

on mike press report , you can read how great things are ....

but honestly , i do about the same with my bicycle and the bike doesn't cost a million something ...;-)) !!

(ok , i'm kidding , brake faillure can happen ....)

if vern promised to staff to make them millionaire thru stock , believe me E500 , frying-pan or doggy-bags = no problem as long there is enough buzz around it to bring gullible investors ....!!

i wrote it before , seems to me the whole thong is a new "dot.com"
they were going to change the world by revolutionary concept , money was flowing in like rivers , still it didn't change a iota ...

so when something is "revolutionary" always ask yourself a simple question " are peoples stupid enough not to have done it before ??"