Friday, August 10, 2007

Their Turn to Make Funny

Dateline 2077.

A recent archeological dig discovered a plethora of extinct dinosaurs. Seventy years ago life came to an abrupt end in the Wichita plains. It is believe that a new generation of VLJs filled the air and stopped sunlight from reaching the surface in the Wichita Valley. Unfortunately, the dinosaurs were unable to adapt and perished. Scientist on the scene discovered a number of new species not previously documented.

Stanosaurus- a old lumbering dinosaur that was unable develop the tools necessary for modern survival. Scientist discovered that with the feeble mind of this dinosaur was unable to produce precision tools necessary to survive. Holes in the ground prove that the dinosaur was unable to build with precision.

Gunnerraptor- Closely associated with the ancient VELOCIRAPTOR. Mean and snarly. The Gunnerraptor was believed to jump from pack to pack and then attack veraciously when he had a sudden change of mind. Recent evidence suggest that the gunnerraptor suffered from Schizophrenia.

CJ3driverodon- Similar to Pterodactylus. This dinosaur was be felled by the inability to efficiently move from place to place. While fast for its size the sheer resources needed to maintain the CJ3driverodon drove it to extinction.

Moussarus- Nasty, quick to pounce and highly opinionated. The Moussarus left the herd five years before extinction but believed he had inside information anyway.

Billygoatomimus-known for long moaning rants with no connection to the concerns of the herd. This dinosaur is believed to have lived through two ice ages.

Airtaxisaurus- Initially thought to be mobile and flexible but failed to adapt and stuck to its old ways. Scientist surmised this was one of the first dinosaurs to become extinct.

Nice work alexa...

451 comments:

1 – 200 of 451   Newer›   Newest»
bill e. goat said...

Hey, let's start this thread off a bit more positively! Nice weekend ahead for all I hope!

bill e. goat said...

"Billygoatomimus-known for long moaning rants with no connection to the concerns of the herd. This dinosaur is believed to have lived through two ice ages".

Actually, it's been three "business cycles" in aviation, but sometimes it does feel cronologically more like three ice ages...
-------------------------

Black Tulip said...

Raise the deflector shields, Captain, there's incoming humor from The Faithful's Starship. Oh, that one was pretty good but still only a mosquito bite.

As I was saying, Captain,few products become obsolete before they are widely distributed. The Eclipse 500 runs this risk.

Black Tulip

Stan Blankenship said...

Redtail - I think goat has the right idea.

Stan Blankenship said...

Redtail - If you have followed the blog for any length of time, you should know that needling is OK, name calling is not.

redtail said...

gunner said... I simply can't stand bullies and have never lost to one yet....have I

gunner, but you have bullied. You are the "bully" of this playground (not to call you any names). You post with absolutes and exaggerations that have little basis in fact. Your sarcasm and attacks show your insecurity of being wrong. In order to give yourself any credibility, you had to post that you did not order one D-Jet, but three. Yeah, right. One for you, one for your girlfriend, and one for the readers of the blog and your triple-oversized ego. (No name calling, lest I get edited)

WhyTech said...

sixromeo said:

"I thanked you privately a while back, but wanted to do so "publicly" as well. "

I second the motion. BT, with subtle but penetrating insight, recently referred to this blog as a playground. Many lessons in life to be learned here that have nothing to do with E-clips or aviation at all!

WT

fred said...

alexa ...

1.490.000 for position ???

how come in 12 nanoseconds , i found one at 1.450.000 ???

if 40.000 US$ means nothing for you , i can allways send you my bank-details ....! ;-))

the fact is :

it's simply under factory price , which is not really a good sign of credibility ..... and as well means E.A.corp. is going to fight with competitors AND early positions holders .... really not a good sign (sorry !)

if they loose money and producing long awaited and promised aircrafts = it's already bad ...

if they have to loose money to fullfill orders for others to resale under factory price =very weird situation !!!

EclipseBlogger said...

Fred said... it's simply under factory price , which is not really a good sign of credibility ...

It's really not under factory list if you consider that the position holder is receiving his deposit and equity premium up front. When you buy one of these positions, you not only repay the seller his paid costs (deposit), but also his accumulated profits. The risk you now assume as the buyer, is the advanced payment to the seller and the possibility of Eclipse not producing. You are also losing interest on those dollars until Eclipse delivers. Is the cost/risk really under list? I think not.

bill e. goat said...

Fred,
The $40K price difference you are seeing is for the riveted-vs-stir welded models.

(Duct tape version also available :)

Gunner said...

Hotdog confirmed for us that Cash Flow is the immediate survival issue at EAC. Yet we know that a significant number of jets will be coming off the line as a cash flow negative (assuming vendors get paid).

I hope no-one would argue that you can build this jet at $995K cost plus inflation. (I submit that they won't even cover variable costs at that number). It's reasonable to assume that the Deposits (and Progress Payments?) have long since been spent, other than minimal deposit money in escrow. Even these were probably released with the January "Mission Accomplished" celebration of invoicing.

So, where's all this money gonna come from? The only alternatives I see are:

- Selling another couple thousand positions. Not likely.

- Tapping the next few hundred position holders for Progress Payments. Problematic, as you then start to cut into the guys who have contracted at Full Price. They have nothing to lose by demanding a refund.

- Tapping some huge Treasury War Chest. Perhaps it exists. I doubt it.

- Going back to the Capital Markets; "We missed it by that much".

This last is clearly the most likely avenue, but one has to wonder just how much red ink the Markets can bear on this venture; and just how many, as yet unbuilt aircraft contracts, were penned in that same red ink.

Early Depositers and Dayjet aircraft: How much of a shortfall has to be digested in getting those planes out? Certainly a couple hundred mil. Could it be a half a Billion?

Big numbers.
Gunner

fred said...

eclipseblogger ...

yes , i understand well ...

but today factory price is higher !!
so what is the point, in capitalistics terms , to sell something UNDER the price of buying directly from factory ???

this is what's really weird , if i am not a position holder , i can either buy directly from factory ($1,719,942.60 USD )

or

make a d├ępositor happy and eventually allowing him to sleep at night if i pay $1.450.000 USD

the risk being the same in each cases =if E.A.corp . go bankrupt before they can deliver my order !

don't you think it's a weird situation ???

if E.A.corp . is not getting new orders , they will pack theirs bags , in order to do so , fed-up depositors (or blunt speculators) have to sell theirs positions first...

if those sell for less than i could buy from factory , it jeopardize the bizz-model itself ...

making the risk even greater !!

Billy e goat , you have a nice sens of humor ...

EclipseBlogger said...

Fred said... yes , i understand well ... but today factory price is higher !! so what is the point, in capitalistics terms , to sell something UNDER the price of buying directly from factory ???

No, I don't think you do. The invoice price might be less, but the buyer has much more at risk. He's paying the $155,000 deposit to the seller, he's paying the seller's profit to the seller, in this case about $300,000. Plus, if delivery is project to be within six months, he must pay the 60% progress payment to Eclipse. About the only thing he hasn't paid is the CPI adjustment to Eclipse. That's a lot of cash up front, about $1M, just to purchase a place in line. Paying Eclipse the $155,000 deposit on a new contract starts to look a lot better, if you are willing to wait.

airtaximan said...

shut my computer, watched the tube with one of my kids, went to sleep.

got up, drove to the airport, turned my computer on, checked the blog...

BIG LAUGH!

Alexa: thanks - nice one!

Just so you remember, E-clips is not a more modern aircraft compared to many other busines jets. Some dinasauers are producing much better and more modern business jets, today. They are just not smaller, lighter or priced cheaper.

airtaximan said...

EB,

seems like the greatest risk is waiting...well all things considered, it might just be taking the plane now...

witing, taking the plane now... I guess I would just not place any deposit and wait a year and see what transpires. In any case, unless you buy a plane from "EO-insert-resale-tail-number-here" and take the immediate risk of all the IOU's, unknow quality issues, companybusiness reality risks, you might as well wait.

If they ever eat into the back log, it could be a good sign, and then you can just buy a plane with some real confidence in what the company and plane will really look like.

Otherwise, there are a whole lot of unknowns at this point.

Unless you just ask Ken... according to HIM, there are no unknowns with e-clips... major issues with all other companies.

planet-ex said...

Anyone catch this in the August 8th, ABQ Tribune?

"We're going to be to the waste industry what Eclipse (Aviation) is to the aviation industry," Whitlock said."

Waste - Aviation...does one industry want to be associated with the other...or vice versa?

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"Unless you just ask Ken... according to HIM, there are no unknowns with e-clips... major issues with all other companies."

Hmmm. Perhaps you are embellishing again?

Show me the post where I said "there are no unknowns with Eclipse." I'll bet you can't

What is it with you naysayers? The truth is never good enough for you; you always have to exaggerate, fabricate and prevaricate.

Facts and data--that's how proponents make their points. "The Eclipse costs $xxx to operate." Or, "the Eclipse goes xxx KTAS." Or, "it will take you from San Diego to Pheonix for xxx dollars less than a Mustang."

But too often, it seems the naysayers are reduced to schoolyard bullying, name-calling, and outright lying.

Pity you can't make your points with facts. But that, in itself, tells people something, doesn't it?

Ken

fred said...

yes Eb....

whatever you do with E.A.corp. , you put yourself at greater and greater risks times passing by ....

starts to look like thermonuclear war ...
the only way to win = not to play at all ...!!

but if i understood correctly your post ...

so it's 1.450.000 + 1.000.000 = 2.450.000 USD (?!)

well sorry but an other 200.000 and i can buy a mustang !!!

Cessna is having a service-plant in western-europ , so no problem = if they don't deliver , i can have the facility seized ....!!

after all buying a mustang is finally much safer and allmost cheaper ....!! :-))

airtaximan said...

OK, Ken... here's your chance.

Please list the E-clips unknowns according to Ken Meyer.

... THIS should be good.

PS. you have never agreed to any of these, only posted your detailed concerns regarding the other companies in the industry, their products and the unknowns associatd wtith them. If you dislike my characterization of your opinion regarding e-clips and risk, I suggest you change yur posts and the way you defend e-clips. It appears to us all that you do not see the risks.

Ken Meyer said...

fred wrote,

"an other 200.000 and i can buy a mustang !!!"

Sorry; that's incorrect. The price of the Mustang is not $2,650,000. Your number is way off. Do the math right, and it comes out very close to $3 million for a new Mustang.

The value equation is one big reason why there are so many Eclipse orders. You can bid on an Eclipse today at the Eclipse Auction Site--the winning bid of 10 is right now less than $1.8 million--if you win you'll be flying it next week at more than $1.2 million saving from the true price of a Mustang (and at that price, the Eclipse includes options).

Ken

hummer said...

Ken
This auction is for a lot of IOUs.
Suggest to Eclipse an auction when
this is complete of a current (with all mods completed to date, etc.) to determine what the true value is of a current EA500.
P.S. Auctions can be fixed or rigged.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Hummer,

Currently the Auction price is inline with the Secondary Market of airplanes that are ready for delivery.

Gunner said...

"if you win you'll be flying it next week"

That's wrong. You need to be trained an signed off before you can fly the plane.

Let's "keep it real".
Gunner

EclipseBlogger said...

Fred said... but if i understood correctly your post ... so it's 1.450.000 + 1.000.000 = 2.450.000 USD (?!)

What we have here, is a failure to communicate (Cool Hand Luke)

No, it's not $2.45M. You pay $1M to the seller, and $450K to Eclipse at delivery based on the projected schedule. If the schedule slips, you owe Eclipse a little more for the additon time of CPI.

hummer said...

E0387
No. . .there are a lot of mods and fixes happening quicky in Florida to bring their fleet up to Part 135.
The aircraft currently being auctioned does not reflect these hardware and software changes.

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"You need to be trained an signed off before you can fly the plane."

That's not quite right. I've flown the Eclipse, and I'm not signed off. My guess is the new owner will almost certainly fly S/N 38 next week for its acceptance flight.

Ken

hummer said...

EO 3867
See "Post Delivery" performance mods
as shown on the site. (view here)
What would make it even more interesting (fair, valuable) is to
specify (legally) when the type training can and will occur.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Hummer,

I stand by my statement. I don't think you understood my comment. The SN38 is just like any other airplane coming out of the factory that is ready for delivery and the price is inline with those others from Eclipse that are for sale/been sold. I have been very active in this area as you probably are aware. In other words, these ready for delivery have similar IOU's. (BTW, Pitot issue is basically a non-issue now.)

hummer said...

EO 387
And finally, my point is the difference between a "toy" and
a "working" aircraft. Part 135
make this distinction.

airtaximan said...

Hummer,

what post delivery mods (no link...)

how do you know about this?

What did you think about the Dayjet presentation?

EclipseOwner387 said...

Hummer,

Have you flown in one of these "toys?"

hummer said...

EO 387
No. . .I went up in a Piper Cub once.

Gunner said...

Sorry, Ken, but that niggle deserves a response.

Except in VernWorld, when a company rep tells us we can be "flying" our new plane next week, it's assumed that they're talking untethered flight; PIC stuff; weekend in the Bahamas with just the wife and kids.

I doubt most people think it means, you can do a test flight and log it as "Dual Received" then wait months to be able to get actual training and sign off. After all, the purpose of owning a plane is to go where you want when you want; having a picture of it doesn't quite make it for most of us.

Just "Keeping It Real".
Gunner

hummer said...

EO387
Not to be rude, but where a lot of things are happening for me is the view in Flordia. Ed is desparately trying to get certification as you know. Big changes are happening both in hardware and software to get him compliant. Owners and position holders will be greatly affected by the outcome, speed and conditions of this event. So upon certification, maybe Ken can recommend to Eclipse to put up a 135 (Florida certified) with the current mods, specs, etc. to see what a 'working" aircraft is worth along with a firm (not promised) type rating date.

ATM: I've been doing some checking and am promised an analysis by someone a whole smarted than I concerning this
link. When I get it an digest it, I'll let you know. Something
I don't wish to put on this site.
Is there a way to PM anyone here?

EclipseOwner387 said...

Hummer,

That is what I thought. Anyway, SN28 that I have a contract to be SOLD (should close Moday latest) without Part 135 option gives me the data to say what I am saying. I have also flown in the toy. Basically my point is I do not believe the auction price is fixed or rigged and if it is then it is currently demostrating what I KNOW to be a market clearing price for that airplane in the secondary market. Other influences in this price that could push it higher are:

Direct from Eclipse
Eclipse Dollars
Part 135 (IOU)

Gunner said...

Hummer-
No way to PM on GoogleBlog.

You all are welcome to use my site for that. Register at http://thefiringine.com using a hotmail or yahoo address, if you'd like. Share your Screen Names here and PM away.

Of course, it's probably simpler just to create a hotmail account and post that here.
Gunner

hummer said...

EO387
What I meant and should be clarified by the auction being "fixed or rigged" is that "special" considerations can be promised by Eclipse that substantially effect the current price. For example, if type training and certification is four months from now. .. does it have a value as per the auctioned aircraft. Are all speed mods and current mods completed on his aircraft? What about any other promises concerning the Part 135 certification. Will that be made immediately or fall in line AFTER the folks in Ill. and Mass. are satisfied. I believed they purchased Part 135 aircraft and as of today, they have great press reviews but no one is flying for hire. Florida is performing lots of trips and let's hope that their insurance company is monitoring "sharing expenses" flights. If anything happens on any of these flight the lawyers will have a field day.

ExEclipser said...

Interesting. The auction, with 6 hours to go, is above list price now.

I guess there IS value in the little jet.

You can have perceived and calculated value, but what it ultimately comes down to is that the plane will sell for what people are willing to pay for it.

In this case, the value of the Eclipse 500 is currently $44,000 more than what the list price is - with 6 hours to go.

WhyTech said...

exe said:

"the plane will sell for what people are willing to pay for it."

The question is "Which people?" I am interested to know who the buyer is and what connection he may have to E-clips, if any. If this is a totally arms length transaction, then there is merit to your statement.

WT

ExEclipser said...

Hummer - it takes quite a bit of FAA wrangling to fly Part 135.

DayJet on FlightAware.com (Note: They go by DJSxxx, where xxx is the first three numbers of the N-Number, ie: DJS119 = N119DJ) has been flying in the FL370 area (And mostly filing /W) and several planes have been jogging around Florida as well has hopping to and from Washington Dulles. This is presumably for regulatory proving runs. I say you'll see revenue service in 2-4 weeks.

LinearAir is doing the same thing. It'll be fun to see who carries the first paying passenger.

bill e. goat said...

Fun with numbers...

Let's say the average sales price for the next, ah, batch of airplanes is around $1.2M, being as these are mostly early orders.

Seems like I read the Vernster raked in $225M from 60% deposits lately? (Correct me if I'm way off- I thought I read this a few days ago).

W-e-l-l, you know where this is going.

$225M / ($1.2M x 0.6) = 312 airplanes, ah in the next six months. Make that next three or four months, as I'm sure the shakedown happened a while back.

Hmmmm, I think Vern better hire a LOT of production workers in the next few weeks.

ExEclipser said...

WhyTech - You're basing your theory on completely hypothetical possibilities.

They buyer is presumably part of the Eclipse Buyers Auction Club and could have been accumulating "Eclipse Dollars" for half a decade. Who knows if those Eclipse Dollars are worth $100 or $100,000.

I would hope that since the auction is being run by eBay, there would be a level of integrity that would have to be adhered to. EBay is prominent (could probably buy Eclipse), and doesn't want their reputation tarnished.

gadfly said...

Serious question, for anyone who has flown the little jet, or has first-hand knowledge of its flight characteristics:

If the plane has been properly "trimmed out", and the "auto-pilot" has been dis-engaged, . . . then put into a turn, or a non-"straight-and-level" attitude, if the pilot takes his hands and feet off the controls, will the plane come back to "straight-and-level" on its own? In other words, is the plane inherently stable, or does it require "hands on" (and/or autopilot) 100 percent of the time?

This is not a trick question, and I don't need someone to "play games with words". The "intent" of the question is clear enough for a good answer.

Most small aircraft are designed so that in an emergency situation, if the pilot is disoriented, for whatever reason, he can take hands and feet off the controls, and save his own life by allowing the plane to, at least, level out, as he plans for the next option. Over the years, too many pilots have gone into a graveyard spin, because they trusted their own senses, rather than their instruments. And, if instruments should fail, the plane, itself, can often be its own savior.

gadfly

EclipseBlogger said...

Whytech said... The question is "Which people?" I am interested to know who the buyer is and what connection he may have to E-clips, if any. If this is a totally arms length transaction, then there is merit to your statement.

I can see it already. Now we will have to do a background check on the purchaser, see his tax returns for the last three years, audit his bank accounts, and interview all his family members and pets. No matter what the outcome of the auction, there will be those that shout "shill", "stunt", "cheat".

WhyTech said...

exe said:

"I would hope that since the auction is being run by eBay, there would be a level of integrity"

eBay and integrity in the same sentence?

Here's the story: it is in E-clips best interest to have the "right" outcome from this acution, and there are a number of ways in which they could "manage" to this result. You are right in stating that this is a hypothetical possibility so far. We'll see (maybe).

WT

WhyTech said...

eb said:

"No matter what the outcome of the auction, there will be those that shout "shill", "stunt", "cheat".

Any idea why this might happen?

WT

ExEclipser said...

From what I know, it can be trimmed to fly straight and level.

There were problems early on with trim effectiveness, but they've been worked out through the flight test program.

This info is just from what I know being around them, not flying them.

hummer said...

exclipser
Thanks
Do you know the call signs for North American, Lineair or Jet Alliance?

EclipseBlogger said...

Gadfly said... If the plane has been properly "trimmed out", and the "auto-pilot" has been dis-engaged, . . . then put into a turn, or a non-"straight-and-level" attitude, if the pilot takes his hands and feet off the controls, will the plane come back to "straight-and-level" on its own?

I think you're are confusing a few issues. Hands off, the plane should return to it's "trimmed attitude", not straight and level. The plane doesn't know it's in a turn.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Gadfly,


An airplane said to be inherently stable will


ANSWER: require less effort to control.

An inherently stable airplane will usually return to the original condition of flight (except when in a bank) if disturbed by a force such as air turbulence.
Thus, an inherently stable airplane will require less effort to control than an inherently unstable one

EclipseOwner387 said...

Hummer,

My understanding is this plane will be sold as if you had the position originally with no special circumstances. No aeromods. No part 135 ready. You will fall in line like any other position holder for those.

EclipseOwner387 said...

One negative of the auction and the reason I am not "playing" is that there is a $500 fee to play. You put up $5k but Eclipse will keep 500 bucks if you are the loser. Not a lot of money but I assume I will lose so why throw away 500 dollars. I could use that go get a $100 hamburger somewhere.

WhyTech said...

gadfly said:

"Over the years, too many pilots have gone into a graveyard spin"

Gad,

It has been demonstrated that many single engine (but by no means all) acft will recover from a spin if the pilot removes all control inputs and power; this does not mean to straight and level, just no longer yawing, and requiring additional pilot input to get to straight and level. A graveyard *spiral* is not a spin and will likely continue to develop in most acft with no pilot corrective control inputs.

Anyone know anything about the spin characteristics of the E-clips? IIRC recovery is not required to be demonstrated for certification, but perhaps the test pilots gathered some data anyhow.

WT

sparky said...

EO.

Would I then be correct in assuming it would cost me $500 just for the honor of bidding on the aircraft, win or lose?

could someone explain the "value proposition" of this to me?

hummer said...

EO387
Thanks for the clarification.
Would you please define "position holder"?
Owner, Speculator, Owner/Operator,
On Hand Eclipse (refused acceptance by deposit holder or failed to pay the second payment) European, Fleet Operator, Other.
Are you really, really saying to me that everyone takes a number and is serviced in that order?

EclipseOwner387 said...

Sparky,

Isn't that what I said? My southern accent must really be hard to understand.

ExEclipser said...

I'm not aware that any spin testing was ever performed. Again, that's just my recollection. There is a stick pusher, so I think the idea is that the plane won't get you get into a stall (required for a spin).

Capt'n EO: You're right. Plane should returned to trimmed position, not necessarily straight and level. Also, knew about the $5K, but not the $500. Sounds like Eclipse. Sheesh.

gadfly said...

EB and/or EO387

Do me the favor of "correcting my question", and then apply it to the Eclipse 500 and provide a direct answer . . . please!

Thank you!

gadfly

WhyTech said...

I said:

"but perhaps the test pilots gathered some data anyhow."

Thinking about it a bit more, this is unlikely. Most acft with aft mounted engines and a T tail would likely be quite difficult or impossible to recover from a developed spin. Even test pilots would not likely want to find out.

WT

EclipseOwner387 said...

Hummer,

You are serviced in order. Yes. If a SN gets delivered before another it is because that aircraft got finished sooner. (i.e. less squawks)

Did the DJ planes get some priority? A little but for obvious reasons. Priority in fixes/training (maybe) but not in production.

EclipseBlogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EclipseOwner387 said...

Gad,


I think whytech indirectly corrected your your question and EXECLIPSER answered it.

I don't know. I would assume it is an inherently stable airplane but I really don't know.

EclipseBlogger said...

Gadfly, Yes, the airplane flies hands off. There was a video of one of the rap tests to demonstrate this. I'll have to look for it.

hummer said...

EO387
Thank you
Gadfly
Does a turnip truck have "dynamic stability"?

ExEclipser said...

Some more notes from the Auction FAQs:

Eclipse Dollars are accrued by people who joined the Bidder's Club between 2000 and 2002. They accrue at a rate of $1000 per month. At that rate, the current value of Eclipse Dollars can be anywhere between $60K & $87K.

Don't know if the current bidder is part of the 2000-2002 class of the Bidder's Club. I guess there's no real way of knowing. But if he was, then he has up to an $87K advantage over anyone who joined in the last 5 years.

By the way, the $500 is a "Processing Fee". No doubtedly to process one building's Coke machine for a day...

EclipseOwner387 said...

Hummer,

Most of my info on what goes on is from combing the market looking for buying/selling opportunities. Very few airplanes get refused by deposit holders- I only know one that was rumored thus far and Eclipse took care of them (if even a true story.) I am sure it has happened but most of the time the position holder finds a buyer in the secondary market (using Mike Press,Brandon Carlson, etc) and walks away with a nice profit. I don't believe SN38 was a refused order. Eclipse planned on having auctions early on in the process.

EclipseOwner387 said...

hummer said...
EO387
Thank you
Gadfly
Does a turnip truck have "dynamic stability"?





Is Hummer and Gadfly the same people? I am confused.

ExEclipser said...

Hummer - I don't know the other call signs (I could never figure out the flight test ones, either - they used ECL5 for the aircraft type, but I can never seem to find them).

LinearAir's N-Number is N15ND, but it's last filed flight plan activity was 9 days ago.

ExEclipser said...

A bit more looking and Linear Air files its flights using tail number, not fleet identification. A quick look revealed that one of their Caravans N501LA is registered to AirDialog LLC - I believe that the Eclipse is also registered under that name. So, can't track the fleet at Linear like you can DayJet.

gadfly said...

EB

Thank you for your direct answer. Let me push it just a little further, to make your answer "clear". Does "hands off" mean that if the "trimmed flight" is disrupted by turbulence, etc., and the auto-pilot is disengaged, and smoother air is encountered, the plane will return to its former "trimmed flight" (without pilot input)?

Notice, the plane in this scenario is not even in a "standard rate turn", has not (yet) entered a spin, nor has it become "inverted", nor "stalled" (although many aircraft can recover, on their own, from these extreme conditions).

Take, for instance, a Piper J3(. . . or even a Cessna 150). If "trimmed", it will, by itself, recover from almost anything known to man. On the other hand, very few high-performance aircraft can be allowed to "fly on their own" for even a split second, without going into a "death spiral" or similar. Those planes, usually military, will only fly by computer.

'Waiting to read your answer.

Thanks.

gadfly

(Sometimes I have great sympathy with my dentist . . . getting direct answers is often like pulling teeth.)

Ken Meyer said...

gadfly wrote,

"Do me the favor of "correcting my question", and then apply it to the Eclipse 500 and provide a direct answer . . . please!"

They don't need to.

It's all in FAR 23.171 thru 23.181--the plane must demonstrate both static and dynamic stability in order to be certified.

Where are all the blog's aircraft "experts?"

Ken

EclipseOwner387 said...

Gadfly,

The problem is your lack of understanding of what you are asking. No offense. EB/EXE aswered it. The Eclipse is inherently stable. A trimmed Cessna 150 in a bank and hit with turbulence would NOT recover to straight and level. It would continue the bank. I think this is true for any airplane I have flown. Cirrus, Piper Malibu, Cessna 172/182. But if you think a Cessna 150 hands off is safe like an Wing Leveling autopilot you are greatly mistaken

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

Gadfly said... Does "hands off" mean that if the "trimmed flight" is disrupted by turbulence, etc., and the auto-pilot is disengaged, and smoother air is encountered, the plane will return to its former "trimmed flight" (without pilot input)?

That's the basic idea, yes. As I said the plane won't know if it is in a bank and will probably maintain the turn. But, if you are asking will it go nose down increasing speed, or nose up and stall without recovery, then the answer is that won't happen.

Black Tulip said...

ECLIPSE AVIATION ACQUIRES FLIGHTAWARE

Albuquerque, NM – August 10, 2007 – In a surprise announcement today, Vern Raeburn, President & CEO, disclosed that Eclipse had closed a transaction to acquire FlightAware. “This company burst upon the aviation scene in 2005 with its free flight tracking internet site,” said Vern. “FlightAware is the most popular tracking service with over 750,000 tracking requests per day. It receives nearly ten tracking requests per second and serves over 50,000 individuals every day.”

“It has changed the face of flight tracking, just as Eclipse has changed the way people think about very light jets,” continued Vern. “It is only natural that these two great companies combine forces for a brighter day in aviation.” FlightAware has facilities in Houston, Austin and Cambridge.

“We plan no changes in headcount or business strategy,” reassured Vern. “We anticipate nothing but improved service. With my extensive background in software, I have a couple of ideas on how to ‘tweak’ the FlightAware code for an even better display of aircraft aloft over the United States at any one time.”

Black Tulip

ExEclipser said...

Oh boy. Another leading post on the front page of EclipseAviationCritic.blogspot.com.

Another opportunity to reset the posts.

Another opportunity to interrupt conversation with senselessness.

BT: I think Dennis Miller needs you to come home now.

EclipseOwner387 said...

EB,

But if you are trimmed for climb in the Eclipse and you hit some turbulence and the Garmin 496 flies off the windscreen and knocks you out. At that point the Eclipse will try to resume the climb after the turbulence. Eventually it would not be able to maintain the climb and thus would stall and crash to the earth right?

I knew the 496 was a bad idea!

EclipseOwner387 said...

Sparky,

Clarifification. The 500 dollar processing fee is only if you LOSE. Otherwise the full $5000 is applied to the purchase price.

EclipseBlogger said...

EclipseOwner387, the worst part of it would be that without the 496 on the glareshield, the aircraft would now have an aft CG beyond the already narrow range limit.

EclipseOwner387 said...

EB,

Good to have you back! You are a plethora of technical info on the Eclipse. Stay around!!

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken asked "Where are all the blog's aircraft "experts?"

Answer - We got tired of trying to educate the user-faithful community since outside of EO387 none seem that interested in actually learning anything that might create doubt in the wee-jet.

The MU-2 is certified, so is the Malibu, so was the V-Tail Bonanza, so too was the original LearJet, so is the BeechJet 400A, runaway pitchtrim issues and all. So is the 737 with known rudder trim issues. So is the entire Scarebus family with untold issues.

Ken, you and your cohorts the DriveBy Brothers and the easily amused one, not to mention his Vern-ness himself, proudly point to the issues with some of these other aircraft to justify the shortcomings coming from ABQ, failing to recognize the order of magnitude difference due to the numbers produced and the knowledgebase available when those ships were designed - it would be comical if you guys didn't take yourselves so serious.

Certification, even when done well, is not a guarantee something is safe, just try suing an airport that failed to illuminate the proper runway or to have adequate tower personnel on staff. At best Certification is nothing more than putting best practices into play, something Eclipse rejects outright as somehow in conflict with and made obsolete with their 'disruptive' technologies.

They and you have apparently not heard the saying 'those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.'

Then of course there is the endless badgering about what specifically the few brave current former employees or vendors which we are fortunate to have contribute here, did while at Eclipse - this after the fiasco that was the lawsuit against those guys at Aspen Avionics.

Somebody would have to be dumb enough to buy one of these planes to reveal any info that could identify them to Vern and his vultures. EAC is more active in the courts than ACLU.

How much of your deposit money was spent to lose that case Ken?

I'll bet they could have built an airplane or two at least for what they wasted on that.

Not to mention the suits and arbitrations with former vendors, direction to steal intellectual property from vendors they KNEW they were going to fire, etc.

Aerospace is a small industry relatively speaking, less than a million or so employees - these things make it to the watercoolers at the 'dinosaurs' and the 'dinosaurs' just laugh at the folly in ABQ from what I hear from my friends in industry.

The reason we experts don't speak up more Ken is it is a lot like wrestling a pig and should be avoided for the same reasons, you just get dirty, and the pig likes it.

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"Where are all the blog's aircraft "experts?"

In my next life I want to come back as Ken. It must be truly wonderful to know everything and yet to be so humble.

WT

WhyTech said...

EO said:

"I knew the 496 was a bad idea! "

So you really do have a sense of humor!

WT

EclipseOwner387 said...

ColdWet,

I was wondering where you have been! I was about to ask what happened to you and wham! Here you are! Glad to have you back too. I think.

Just kidding. I wish the vendors wouldn't run away but I also am confused why they would put themselves or their project at risk. I do feel like we learn from their insights when presented with a dose of openmindedness. I hope hotdogasaurius comes back and gives us some updates from his perspective from time to time.

WT,

Yes I do have a sense a humor. I believe if it ain't fun then we should stop doing it. Do you have a problem with that? Huh? Do you?

;-D

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Thanks EO, I think you are a standup guy and more than any other 'owner' you understand the real value proposition of the wee-jet, buy low, sell high.

May your trades remain well in the black and the skies above be CAVU!

EclipseOwner387 said...

NewsFlash!

The current winning bidder for the Eclipse Auction is a C. Kubicki with www.cintiunited.com

which is the website for:

Cincinnati United Contractors, Inc.

Any links between this firm and Eclipse?

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"The MU-2 is certified, so is the Malibu, so was the V-Tail Bonanza, so too was the original LearJet, so is the BeechJet 400A, runaway pitchtrim issues and all. So is the 737 with known rudder trim issues. So is the entire Scarebus family with untold issues."

You don't like all those planes?

Every single Airbus is bad? Nobody should fly on a 737? You must have a tough time making airline reservations!

That certainly provides an interesting context from which people can assess for themselves the validity of your comments about the Eclipse. Thanks for sharing all that with us.

Ken

WhyTech said...

EO said:

"Do you have a problem with that? Huh? Do you?"

Noop.

WT

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

"You don't like all those planes?

Every single Airbus is bad? Nobody should fly on a 737? You must have a tough time making airline reservations!

That certainly provides an interesting context from which people can assess for themselves the validity of your comments about the Eclipse. Thanks for sharing all that with us."

Since I did not say any of those things Ken, I think everyone else can use it to guage the accuracy or validity of YOUR comments when you parse in such a way.

I have time in many of them as PIC, and have flown as passenger on ALL the others. I did not say they were unsafe, nor did I suggest noone should fly on them.

Frankly, I DO schedule around Scarebus whenever possible, their tails sometimes fall off and they occasionally refuse to do what the pilot tells them to.

You missed my point, either deliberately or out of ingnorance, so let me spell it out for you.

You and Vern and others point to issues with those planes and say 'see, we are just having a little trouble like fill-in-the-blank' only you fail to recognize the thousands of delivered examples and hundreds of millions of flight hours it took to find those faults, rather than the half dozen Eclipse owned wee-jets and couple thousand flight FLIGHT TEST hours it took to uncover issues for the wee-jet.

Try and parse that one Kenny boy.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Ken,

Not to defend the darkside but I think his point is that those certified airplanes had some issues. Certification doesn't mean it is bulletproof. But I will back you up by saying that all those planes are still flying and there is serious questions as to the validity of safety claims. Pilot error is still my belief on the Malibu for instance. I have been told that the Malibu has basically been certified twice! Better pilot training would have/could have avoided the engine issues in the early product. I commend Eclipse for a stringent training program.

EclipseBlogger said...

EclipseOwner387 said... NewsFlash! The current winning bidder for the Eclipse Auction is a C. Kubicki with www.cintiunited.com which is the website for: Cincinnati United Contractors, Inc. Any links between this firm and Eclipse?

Shill! Cheat! Scam! Stunt!

Gunner said...

EO said:
"Cincinnati United Contractors, Inc.

Any links between this firm and Eclipse?"


EO-
Aren't those the guys that build the wing test apparatus that "failed" before they could determine wing load failure?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(kidding)
Gunner

EclipseBlogger said...

It's Vern's cousin's brother-in-law, don't ya know.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

To further expand for the thinking-impaired, I selected those planes for two reason, they have been held up by the faithful as examples of other OEM's having troubles AND because they have all had high-profile accidents.

The MU-2 and Malibu are probably the most tested planes in history due to what are relatively few and far between, but spectacular accidents.

The MU-2 is a very safe plane, when flown within limits by a competent and trained pilot. Same for the Mailbu.

The V-Tail Bonanza's were not inherently unsafe either, they were not operated properly by incompetent pilots who had more money than ability (reminds me of some here, at least from appearances).

Why do so few Scarebus', 737 or BeechJet's crash when there is a trim runaway or other issue? Becasue they are flown by professional, trained, and competent pilots. When these issues are acknowledged, training is changed, the word goes out, and operations are safer for all as a result.

This requires an OEM with the maturity to acknowledge it F'd up, to fess up, make whatever changes are necessary (e.g., structural, training, etc.), and to share those lessons learned openly - characteristics that the toddler from ABQ has shown itself NOT to possess at this time, but which are in ample supply at the geezers in Toulouse, Seattle\Chicago, Wichita, Vero, Savannah, etc.

Eclipse SHOULD have had the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants, making the whole process that much easier, efficient and effiective, but they rejected it, tossed the baby with the bathwater as they say, as they worshipped at the altar of 'disruptive technology'.

There is a reason nature rewards evolution and not unconstrained mutation; one makes for successful change, the other is basically change for changes' sake and results in a lack of compatability and typically a dead-end.

Ken Meyer said...

EO387 wrote,

"Not to defend the darkside but I think his point is that those certified airplanes had some issues. Certification doesn't mean it is bulletproof."

I don't disagree with that. But that wasn't the issue. This all came about, more or less, because Gadfly wanted to know if the Eclipse has static stability. I pointed out that it has to because it passed the tests described in FAR 23.171-181.

Coldwet seems to have taken that as an opportunity to lecture us on how some of the dinosaurs still got things wrong despite certification testing. But, interesting as that might be, it was a totally irrelevant tangent.

Ken

redtail said...

That's what happens with a "hair trigger. Just ask Gunner.

WhyTech said...

Any links between this firm and Eclipse?"

How would one know? You dont expect obvious ones do you?

WT

Ken Meyer said...

There is a new high bidder at $1,823,945.00

Ken

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"I pointed out that it has to because it passed the tests described in FAR 23.171-181."

I envy you, Ken. Everything is so easy in your little corner of the world.

WT

redtail said...

What Ken was saying was that since it was part of the required FAA test spec, it was demonstrated. Let it be. Move on. And, I have to agree with him.

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"I pointed out that it has to because it passed the tests described in FAR 23.171-181."

Ken,

Sometimes the "letter of the law" is not adequate. Here is an example I have more familiarity with than the ones cited here by others. Its the Robinson R22 helicopter. It has been through at least one FAA "recertification" and maybe more. No problem found. Yet, around 200-300 or so people have died in these helos over the years, and few of these due to mechanical problems. One leading casue of fatal accidents is loss of main roto control. The typical scenario is a CFI and a student flying in the students first 0-4 hours of dual. The student makes an unanticipated cyclic input, the man rotor flaps down within two revolutions and whacks off the tail boom before the CFI even knows what happened (its that quick): both occupants die. Robinson says "The acft passed the FAA certification requirements, and is safe when operated withn the approved envelope." All true. However, the approved envelope is so narrow, it leaves no margin of safety in this instance.

The point is that any acft may just barely pass the FAA requirements, but can have a margin of safety that is smaller than operators want or know.

From what I can determine from the aviation "experts, publications, NTSB reports, etc, same is true re V tail Bo, MU-2 and Malibu. A business friend and his wife died in a Malibu breakup accident some years ago. The pilot was experienced, and an aviation company sr. exec. All his fault? Not likely.

WT

EclipseOwner387 said...

WT,

Curious to have more details on the Malibu break up incident. I have studied the Malibu quite intently since it was my first high performance purchase.

EO

gadfly said...

EB

Thank you for your good and direct answer . . . ‘looking forward to the “video”. . . should you find it. Your kindness is recognized, and appreciated.

Ken

You are correct. No-one is required to help to enlighten me with an answer to an honest question. You remind me of an English teacher I had back in high-school . . . she enjoyed putting people down and ridiculing students. Come to think of it, I had a flight instructor with that attitude. Then I discovered he used the method to cover up his own lack of understanding. But even those teachers/instructors taught me how to be a good teacher . . . to always assume a question from a student was meant to receive a good and direct answer. So, I have learned, again, something even from you. I hesitate to “correct you”, but I was enquiring about “dynamic” stability, not “static”. Except for that early demo that required additional counter-weights, we can “assume” the Eclipse got them to stand on their feet . . . while still on the ground.

EO387

To answer your remark about “Hummer” . . . no connection. And, by the way, please forward your statement on to the FAA, to let them know that telling pilots in trouble to “take their hands off the controls” does not save lives (regardless of the many who landed safely after some terrifying experiences, for both them and their passengers . . . and those who did not heed “air traffic control” instructions). Those instructions are probably in the area of “urban legend”.

Your comment, “But, if you are asking will it go nose down increasing speed, or nose up and stall without recovery, then the answer is that won't happen.”, is the type of statement I would get from the chief flight instructor, that although he was one of the best pilots, did not understand the “physics”. And as I would ask you, “why?”, he was unable to give the reasons behind his statements.

And please forgive me for being so stupid as to ask for information. You see, I’m dumb as a brick (or a turnip) . . . but at least I’m “stable”. If I fell off a turnip truck, at least I don’t expect to go into an uncontrolled dive.

gadfly

By the way, I will get the answer(s) to my question. It will take me a little longer, but I will find out the answer. An aircraft with a “short aspect ratio” (re: . . . the fuselage), a wingspan greater than its length (sometimes prone to "yaw"), “heavy” wings (with heavy “wing-tip fuel tanks) and an “effective” forward sweep of the wings(straight leading edge doesn’t count as was explained by Stan, some time back) , may have some serious stability problems, if left to its own devices. ‘Had early pilots of the MU-2, and some other great planes understood the “inherent instability” of their planes, they would be present to share in today’s discussion. Don’t ya’ think? Let's hope that future Eclipse pilots ask many questions, to learn of the "good", the "bad" and the "ugly" of their little toy, before they learn it the hard way.

WhyTech said...

EO,

This accident happened in the early 90's amid a series of Malibu breakups/fatal accidents, which led to at least one and perhaps two FAA "recertifications" of the acft. (I cant recall whether the Malibu or the MU-2 went through the recert two times.)

It been so long ago that I wouldnt want to rely on memory in a group as "discerning" as this one. I'll try to find an authoritative reference.

WT

Ken Meyer said...

gadfly wrote,

"I was enquiring about “dynamic” stability, not “static”."

At the risk of disappointing you again, I have to say, "I don't think so."

You asked,

"If the plane has been properly "trimmed out", and the "auto-pilot" has been dis-engaged, . . . then put into a turn, or a non-"straight-and-level" attitude, if the pilot takes his hands and feet off the controls, will the plane come back to "straight-and-level" on its own? In other words, is the plane inherently stable, or does it require "hands on" (and/or autopilot) 100 percent of the time?"

That's just not a description of dynamic stability (it's not actually a description of static stability either, but I think many of us assumed that's what you were getting at).

Take a peek at this nice summary of the difference between static and dynamic stability. I think it will help you a lot to understand the concepts.

BTW, I apologize if you thought I was ridiculing you with the reference to the FARs. That was not my intention at all--I was trying to tell you where to find a very good answer to your question. If you read FAR 23.171 et seq after the aerodynamics link I pointed you to, I think the whole thing will make perfect sense to you.

Ken

gadfly said...

Ken

That's OK. If you don't wish to answer a "stupid" question with a simple answer, just say so. I'll understand. But forgive me if I do not treat my seventeen grandkids in the same manner.

End of discussion.

gadfly

(Now I'll have to beg your indulgence, as I get back to other low-tech design work and manufacturing, of such things as "perishable" tooling for "jet engines", "vascular surgery", and other trivial matters . . . things of no interest to you. These days, I let professional pilots do all my flying.)

Gunner said...

Gad-
Sometimes we forget who we're talking to and who's asking the question. Case in point:

I've been trying to square away a variation of John Moses Browning's famous semi-auto design for 3 days. It's a Para Ordnance P-13/45.

Anyway, the first shot on a new mag would take a gorilla to touch off; follow ups were normal trigger pull....mostly. Sometimes it wouldn't fire at all; occasionally the trigger wouldn't reset; once, it fired when "tapping" the base of the mag during a malfunction drill; twice it went short-burst full-auto. Not real good for a $2,600 carry gun.

I tried everything I knew....and I know this design pretty well. Finally I called The Guru (an engineer/sight designer/gunsmith/world class shooter). I explained the symptoms and he asked me if it had a trigger over-travel screw installed. "What's that got to do with anything?", I said. "I'm obviously describing a sear engagement problem".

I went on to quote the "book" specs for over travel and began to argue sear angles and over-honing. "Does it have a trigger over travel screw installed?", he repeated patiently.

"Yes, but I just told you...."
"Back the screw off or, better yet, remove it", he interrupted. "Test it and call me later". On closer inspection of the mechanism I realized exactly why the over-travel limit could create each and every one of these symptoms, though it was certainly not "intuitive", given my knowledge state at the time I made that phone call.

Guess what? 300 rounds later and not a hiccup. Sometimes, those of us answering questions forget we should be sitting at the feet of the guys who are ASKING the questions. Gurus and engineering types generally know where their questions are going, when they ask engineering type questions.

Hope yours get answered.
Gunner

gadfly said...

Gunner

Yes, if nothing else, I'm persistant. And on some of your gun subjects, we need to talk . . . about special tooling that we developed that helps "GE" stay a few steps ahead of "P&W". Talk to Stan, if you lost our email, and I'll get back.

The interesting thing is that if we were on friendly terms with the parents of the "little jet", they could share in the benfits. But that might be a stretch.

Who knows!

gadfly

mouse said...

The Phugoid cycle is where the planes nose will drop below the horizon, then climb above the horizon, and so forth, each time more shallow until it stablizes, or at least thats the goal. The cycle is the time between these excursions above and below the horizon (level flight)

The EA-500 is now inherently stable, although initially it had some minor issues in the first airplane.

Six Romeo said...

Gadfly,

One of my high school teachers said, "Don't answer a question with a question." However, I am wondering if you could apply your same dimensional description of the Eclipse to the L-39? I realize it is a stretch, but since Eclipse is specifying it for upset recovery training, I wonder if there might be a link. My apologies if this a silly question.

Thanks. Your thoughts are always a pleasure to read.

hummer said...

FYI
There is an interesting article in Aviation Week, Surprise: Eclipse's Concept Jet.

Ken Meyer said...

The bidding is over. The lucky winner got his Eclipse 500 jet for $1,833,945.00 or approximately $114K over invoice.

I know a few people who envy him and wish they were taking delivery next week.

There were a total of 14 bids for the aircraft.

Ken

hummer said...

Ken
Suggest to Eclipse the auction "The Plane of the Month" which would incorporate each month the latest and newest upgrades and options. It would provide very valuable advertising for the company and keep buyer interest at a peak.
It's a program that has legs.

Six Romeo said...

...taking delivery next week.

Wouldn't that be leaving delivery next week? As in leaving it in ABQ.

bill e. goat said...

Minor points regarding some of the airplanes mentioned a few hours back.

Bonanza V-tail:
good idea (well, a different idea anyway), done wrong. (Unsupported leading edge of tails, spiral instability, flutter-prone flight control system, structural weaknesses. Eventually, overcome, but 20+ years of denial).

Bonanza Safety
-------------------------
MU-2:
Poor handling characteristics. Lower margin of error.
10% + fatality rate.

MU2 Safety
-------------------------
Beechjet 400:
?? Gotta admit, I'm not aware of specific problems, but know Raytheon spent a lot of time and money on it after they bought the design from Mitsubishi.

(Also note, it was designed by Mitsubishi, and I believe it has spoiler-only roll control: like the MU-2).
--------------------------
Early Learjets:
10%+ fatality rate.
--------------------------
Piper Mirage:
"Aviation Week reported that the in-flight breakup of seven Piper Malibu business aircraft was suspected by NTSB to be due to HIRF induced upset of the autopilot system".

NASA TP-2001-210831

(Also, there were some concerns about pitot heat not being used at high altitudes, inadvertent overspeed, resultant structural failure).
--------------------------
Boeing 737 Rudder:
Boeing fought this for years...

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes seven existing airworthiness directives (ADs), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737 series ...This amendment is prompted by FAA determinations that the existing system design architecture is unsafe due to inherent failure modes, including single-jam modes and certain latent failures or jams, which, when combined with a second failure or jam, could cause an uncommanded rudder hardover event and consequent loss of control of the airplane...

Seattle Times 737 Rudder

AD 2002-20-07

AD 2007-02-07 (It just keeps getting better and better...)
-----------------------------
Airbus tail failure:
Designed to sustain maneuvering load deflections in one direction only, not a reversal. Also, poor rudder feel.
---------------------------

The point in all this? Well, I sort of forgot. This blog drives me nuts. Short trip, eh?

Oh yeah- the certification process.

Certification doesn't so much guarantee an airplane is safe, as it does guarantee it is not unsafe.

The difference being, the airplane has been tested against EXPECTED and ANTICIPATED failures.

But the process can not anticipate all failure modes. Although the many fine men and women of the FAA do try.

Moral of the story: even "good" airplanes can have problems.

In the case of the E-500, that the certification process was rammed down their throats of the FAA certification pilots and staff by "executive order" smites of imprudence at best, and flagrant disregard at worst.

===========================
Alexa- a less impertinent ramble, I trust... :0
---------------------------
Gadfly- you started all this!!!

Ken- please comment: in your opinion, does the E-500 handle about as well as a Mustang???

gadfly said...

Six Romeo

Frankly, I’m more familiar with the albatross “bird”. And it would be difficult to find similarities between the “Aero Vodochody L-39 Albatros” and the E500. But from the beginning, the L-39 seems to have gotten most things right . . . especially as a “first jet” for training. Thirty years younger, and $10M richer . . . that would be a blast!

For instance, the wings are “truly straight”, according to average chord. The dimensions happen to be about the same as the E500 . . . but “reversed” (39 feet long, 31 foot span), giving immediately a directional stability . . . think of an “arrow” or “dart”. The ratio of fuselage “length” to “diameter” is immediately in its favor, for speed (low induced drag). Short and pudgy is seldom a good idea . . . in planes, ships, and girls . . . well, short girls are fine . . . I married one. (Our submarine was eleven to one . . . length to beam, and was extremely fast underwater, and stable in typhoons.) At first, it would seem that the heavy wing tanks would be a disadvantage, but they are so close in, that the moment-arm is probably less much less than the Eclipse . . . which, in itself, would not give the “pilot” (trainee) the same feel in recovery.

Somehow, I would think that using it for “upset training” would make the pilot “upset” when he climbed out of the L-39 and into the E500. There’s something wrong with that picture, in my opinion. Why not just use the E500?

At this point, I think I’ll leave further discussions and comments to others. I’m no jet pilot, and arguing about things outside my experience is not my forte. I come here to learn, and not to teach the “experts”.

gadfly

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

six romeo wrote,

"Wouldn't that be leaving delivery next week? As in leaving it in ABQ."

It depends. If the new owner knows somebody with a type rating he can bring it straight home. If he wants, Eclipse will provide him with a pilot to supervise while he flies it home.

If he wants to fly it himself, like any jet, he will need a type rating. If somebody gives me a Citation X next week, I'd have to reserve a training slot at FlightSafety for my training.

The situation with Eclipse isn't any different than that except that the company acknowledges that training isn't immediately available at this moment in time. However, the delay between delivery and available training is getting shorter every week and will soon be insignificant.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

Bill e goat asked,

"Ken- please comment: in your opinion, does the E-500 handle about as well as a Mustang???"

I don't remember any major differences. The Eclipse is much lighter but still handled turbulence pretty well. Roll forces seemed higher in the Eclipse, possibly due to the control design. The Eclipse needs a yaw damper due to its tendency toward Dutch roll without one (reportedly so does the Mustang, but I didn't try flying it without the yaw damper).

Ken

Shane Price said...

Ken,

In the matter of the recent 'auction' can you please define

"....will soon be insignificant"

In English, please. Where I was educated, that phrase means a very, VERY small delta E.

Shane

EclipseOwner387 said...

Gadfly said,

"And, by the way, please forward your statement on to the FAA, to let them know that telling pilots in trouble to “take their hands off the controls” does not save lives (regardless of the many who landed safely after some terrifying experiences, for both them and their passengers . . . and those who did not heed “air traffic control” instructions). Those instructions are probably in the area of “urban legend”."


Hmm. Looks like the senior respected fellow from New Mexico has put words im my mouth. More words in your discertation don't make it right. Go fly an airplane and take your hands off the yoke and then come back to me after you compare it to autopilot. Not even close.

Ken Meyer said...

Shane wrote,

"In the matter of the recent 'auction' can you please define

'....will soon be insignificant'"


Sure. It means "without importance: too small and unimportant to be relevant."

The company says they will soon eliminate the time lag between delivery and training. Naturally, we'll have to wait to see if that actually happens. However, the statistics announced at Oshkosh are encouraging:

80 students completed EST
66 students completed type rating
15 customers in training during Oshkosh
First FTD to go online later this month
First full-motion sim to go online next month

Ken

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

ken ...

yesterday i wrote "with 200.000 more i can buy a mustang "...

off course that was being a joke and i left it that way to see your reaction ..... ;-))

i know very well how much a mustang VS E500 can costs ...

you know sometimes it's quite fun to make a statement just to see the answer (is this bad ??at least it can be funny... )

off course , you had the reaction i thought you would have ...

may be as well i told i am an economic analyst ???

that's probably why i prefer allmost allways to have 80% of something VS to hope for 100% of nothing ...

or in the subject of our interest :
may be E500 will be a brilliant plane in 2 or 3 years , when it wil be all finished , E.A.corp. will have made some profits out of its bizz and will then be able to service all planes ...

for the time being = it' is only a bet on future and odds don't look too good !

Ken Meyer said...

Fred, I respect you for admitting you were being purposely inaccurate in your post. There are others are here that could afford such honesty :)

Ken

airtaximan said...

A few dozen posts ago, Ken took exception with a comment I made, regarding him never acknowledging the risks associated with e-clips.

To which he replied with his panties in a wad, accusing me of embellishing and making things up. He said we'd never find a statement from him like that here.

I explained, and said that it was a fair comment, in light of his defense of e-clips when other bring up risks and his consistent reference to all the other manufacturers’ problems, risks and shortfalls.

(there have been many "last year, I seriously considered buying X, Y, or Z from another company, BUT.... laundry list of problems, risks, etc...")

I said, fair enough: please list the risks as you see them, regarding the e-500.

...we're still waiting, Ken.

I believe this is a BIG opportunity to clear up a "misconception" we all might have here, regarding the die-hards not seeing, acknowledging or understanding the risks with e-clips. I cannot understand why the prolific Ken, would not JUMP at this opportunity?

...we're still waiting....

(perhaps he got stumped and...called Vern:

Ken: Hello, Vern?...er...

Vern: Hold-on Ken... A-n-d-r-e-wwww, if you want me to let you talk to the press EVER again, you're going to have to make sure my car is a lot sparklier... OK, yeah, Ken, what?

Ken: er...I sorta said I didn't agree with the statement that I do not agree there are risks associated with e-clips. I think I might have agreed, I mean, that there ARE RISKS...and now, they want me to list them, as I see them. What should I do?

Vern: You did what?!? Click.)

airtaximan said...

Ken: Isn't e-clips supposed to deliver 30 planes or so in August?

bill e. goat said...

Stability and control:
Thanks to Ken for the nice video link yesterday, and his observations regarding relative handling characteristics of the E-500 and Mustang, and many other folks for their contributions on this topic.

Gadfly asked a good question and I think we got a lot of good responses. Sometimes getting an answer is a bit of an iterative process; patience (and perseverence) is a virtue. However I did not detect any attempt to avoid the issue, from anyone.

(Just perhaps not understanding the question...sometimes stating a question is an iterative process too :)

(Whytech had an interesting post regarding the Robinson helo's cutting their own tails off).

AlexA said...

ATM said “Ken: Isn't e-clips supposed to deliver 30 planes or so in August? “

Sorry for jumping in ATM but the answer is yes and no. IIRC Eclipse in the customer breakfast said they would deliver one airplane a day by August. Very ingeniously they left out if that was the beginning of August or the end (I’m sure that was done intentionally). If you take the worst case scenario (end of August) you should see 30 or so aircrafts delivered in September.

Gunner said...

Double-Plus Good
Gunner

airtaximan said...

Hmm... I guess Ken either posted and ran at 8:12 this morning, (my question to him is marked 8:13) or he has a busy flying day trying out every plane in the market that he's seriously considering buying for his wife, or he's calling Vern, or he's trying to find an e-clisp risk to post, or the cat has bitten his little fingers off...

airtaximan said...

Alexa:

I tried this question on HD, to no avail.

Any clue as to the number of planes in production... I'm thinking about the last statements regarding "in production"... it appears as if, there were 57 planes in work since around q-1 2007. Many in work since Q-3 2006, actually.

Anyhow, around 20-30 planes have been delivered so far, right? That leaves around 30 planes of the 57 or so, to be delivered still.

Observation, its taken at least 7 months or so to make these planes.

Observation, what's the big deal about delivering a bunch in one month, after all this time?

Question, which is key: How many planes in work in total today? How many in final stages of assembly?

- this will be intersting -

BTW, if I am a depositor, I would not agree to put up a 60% payment unless my plane was actually in work. Easy to understand why: it takes around 6 months (at best, so far) to make a plane in the e-clips shop. The progress payments are supposed to be called when you can reasonably expect your plane in 6 months.... any call on this money prior to the plane actually being in work, is well, bad faith at this point.

Obviously, bad faith. Not like before where there was plausible deniability: "I had no clue it would take this long, really!"

This time, if they ask for payment without a reasonable expectation of being able to deliver planes, they could end up in deep doo-doo.

(Ken... hint... this is a good risk to put on your list)

Gunner said...

Here's a question for the group:
Few would deny that there are HUNDREDS of EA50X's to be built below cost; some WAY below cost.

Why would the company do this, as opposed to declaring a default on those contracts and refunding the deposits? One might argue that they'll make it up on the "back end" maintenance and the like. Make up to a Million Bucks in losses, per plane? I doubt it.

Others might say this is evidence that Vern is a man of his word; that he honors his contracts. Only two problems with that: 1) Vern has been known to cancel any number of contracts when it suits him 2) It ain't Vern's money. I doubt the investors are real happy about subsidizing several hundred personal jet purchases for complete strangers. Tough way to make profits, that.

So, why continue to deliver aircraft that are causing you to hemorrhage when the short term and long term benefits of a "We just can't afford it" statement are so obvious?

UNLESS the Deposit Agreements contain coercive language that actually forces Eclipse to produce loss-leaders against their better business judgment, the only logical answer I can come up with is that the company simply doesn't have the money to make those refunds. So they're locked into proceeding, even though the consequences of that action are more dire than simple refunds. IF that were the case, they'd be hoping to somehow raise the money to fund these subsidies somewhere down the line.

Question on the floor: From who?
Gunner

WhyTech said...

gunner said:

"the only logical answer I can come up with is that the company simply doesn't have the money to make those refunds"

Gunner,

Remember that profitability and cash flow, while related, are not the same. Even the planes sold below cost will bring in some cash and this is what E-clips is desparate for short-term. This obviously cannot continue forever, but if you need to make the payroll next week, cash, any cash, is king. And you are no doubt right that they dont have the cash to make refunds.

WT

hummer said...

Gunner
Great Point
If you examine Mansfield Asbestos Bankruptcy Case, I believe a judge ruled that the company could file bankruptcy on previous creditors and claims. . .and then sort of start a new with revised products and prices.
The former claims were allowed to the extent of Mansfield's at the time of judgement.
The company then used new products with new prices.

Gunner said...

Whytech-
Of course a start-up is better off taking in "some money" to support a manufacturing line than "no money". But that generally assumes a huge pool of customers; not such a finite demand as for very small, personal jets.

We agree as to the direction of the answer but not, I think, as to the magnitude of the ramifications. Many here, including Ken, confirm that Eclipse was touting 2,100 orders as far back as '01. Given the enormous "Value Proposition" we hear about, it's safe to say the lion's share of those contracts are still in the market (regardless whether the original holder is still around).

Based on that, we can conclude that an ENORMOUS percentage of the personally owned contracts to be filled, will be filled at significant losses.

Is that any way to run a business? Not for long, I think.
Gunner

ps: Hummer-
I don't think this would require a Bankruptcy proceeding. I don't recall my own Eclipse contract, but I simply cannot believe they don't have an escape clause in it.

mouse said...

Gunner,

If you void those early contracts, who would you build the planes for? There aren't really that many buyers out there and Vern would expose his hand showing he doesn't have so many planes sold, with deposits.

He walked right into his own trap..

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

gunner wrote,

"Few would deny that there are HUNDREDS of EA50X's to be built below cost; some WAY below cost."

That's not a matter for opinion. Maybe they are selling below cost and maybe they're not. What is the cost of producing the Eclipse 500?

You sound like a guy who wants to hold an opinion poll on whether it rained yesterday or not. Either it did or it didn't. That you don't happen to know the cost of production and how it relates to the price they're selling at, does not make them matters we can vote on in order to determine.

What is your evidence that the company is actually selling at a loss like your question presupposes?

I will tell you that the company raised the price to existing positionholders once already. Management contacted all of them and simply said, "we have to raise the price, sorry."

If they needed to, Eclipse could certainly do that again. But I think you haven't established yet that they are selling at a loss, let alone that they need to raise the price on existing positionholders. One or both of those may be true, but I don't think we actually know that either is true.

Ken

mouse said...

Ken,

they can't raise the price right now, that might scare away more buyers like you who are looking only at the price.

They need to sell all they can so the new money will pay for the planes they are trying to build today.

They will raise the price, and those whothought they were getting a deal will pay the higher price if they want to take delivery... As soon as they figure out how to build the plane in any kind of volume the price will soar and you will be given the option to pa the new price or go away..

Gunner said...

Ken-
You were the last person I expected to provide a rational answer to a common sense business question. You have not disappointed.

Not everything can be backed up by "hard evidence" Ken; that includes most of the "Value Proposition" you regurgitate for Le Petit.

Much of what we do when we look at a business plan is to use something called Common Sense. Yes, it may be that Eclipse can manufacture the EA-50X at $1.4MM or even $900K.

Common Sense requires that we look at prices from others who are more experienced in this business; managed by aviation professionals; and enjoying a spread of fixed costs over a wide range of products...and we ask, "Why can't they compete?" "If they can, where are they hiding all the windfall profits?"


Stuff like this is straight out of Business Plan Evaluation 101, Ken. I'm as certain you know that as I am that you'll attempt to redirect the conversation straight toward the weeds. It won't make the hard questions go away, though. I promise.
Gunner

planet-ex said...

ken said:
I don't remember any major differences. The Eclipse is much lighter but still handled turbulence pretty well. Roll forces seemed higher in the Eclipse, possibly due to the control design. The Eclipse needs a yaw damper due to its tendency toward Dutch roll without one (reportedly so does the Mustang, but I didn't try flying it without the yaw damper).

Ken


They both have yaw dampers. However, flight with an inoperative yaw damper in the Eclipse is considerably more restricted than with the Mustang.

From the Mustang MMEL:

"(M) May be inoperative provided the flight is conducted at FL 300 or below.

NOTE: Autopilot must be considered inoperative and RVSM is not authorized."

From the Eclipse MMEL:

"(M) May be inoperative provided:
a) Yaw Damper and Autopilot System is deactivated,
b) Aircraft is operated with a crew of two,
c) Stall Warning System and Stick Pusher are operative, and
d) Aircraft is operated at or below 10,000 feet MSL."

Ken Meyer said...

I believe it's 20,000 feet, planet-ex.

Ken

airtaximan said...

"Here's a question for the group:
Few would deny that there are HUNDREDS of EA50X's to be built below cost; some WAY below cost."

only ignorant people would deny this. There have been many documents producing the claim by e-clips regarding how many planes are projected to be needed for volume pricing etc... and break even.

I believe Stand can corroborate that he has seen such documents. They are always "marked" so that they cannot be disseminated.

Many, many of these documents have been circulated to suppliers, and investors. Believe it or not, some included wording like "only 500" or "we could rasie the price only $200,000 if volume is below 750 per year..."

- I expect that at current production rates, the cost of the plane is a very, very high number. Perhaps a rationale for "now's a good time to slow down production" becasue it was so far off the mark that they lost a ton of money on each plane, and until the can reach a MUCH higher number, limiting this YEARS production is probably a good idea.

* then again, perhaps they are in the process of "renegotiating" with the suppliers... and... perhaps there's a single chock full of commoanlity (on paper) that is another e-xcuse for suppliers sticking sround and playng in the sandbox a while longer...

At least we know THIS is not a RISK that Ken would add to his list.

I'm getting a clear picture of his risks, now. Anything e-clips SAYS is a risk might be, otherwise there's no PROOF that ANYTHING is a risk. BTW, this is the opposite of what most people would consider a risk - unknowns ARE risk.

mouse said...

When you look at the cost to build the EA-500 you need to consider the ROI. Look at the price of the airplane and what the initial nvestment was. When you compate the cost of ROI vs. the current price the Eclipse pricing has not kept up with any payback potential. Just the cost of raw materials like aluminum, coke and color copies has gone up more than they raised the prices. CPI is not covering any of these expenses are they?

WhyTech said...

Gunner said:

"Is that any way to run a business? Not for long, I think."

Right. I think that E-clips has a month to month time horizon at the moment.

On a related topic: I have to believe that E-clips has negotiated some kind of stand still agreement with vendors. My guess is that payables are out of sight, and vendors are relying on hope that they will eventually be paid. Likely that E-clips is dribbling out small payments to vendors as a show of good faith to prevent one from breaking ranks and going to court.

WT

Gunner said...

Mouse-
ROI gets to Whytech's issue of cash flow vs profitability. ROI is generally not included in "profit" because, almost by definition, it IS profit.

Debt financing, OTOH, certainly does have to be accounted for in the cost of manufacture.
Gunner

cj3driver said...

AlexA said...

CJ3Driver said “There are plenty of positions currently advertized positions for sale at 1.2 base price or less (w/cpi) with high s/n #'s.”

When making this post Alexa, I was responding to your post regarding the majority of existing orders at less than list price. I am aware of the "premimums" being charged by owners above the contract price. The reason for the remark was to show the base prices offered set by Eclipse contracts at the time, not the asking price for those positions.

BTW - How much longer did the tiny Elipsetimites live past the other dino's? There must a small number of these since "Scientist(s) on the scene discovered a number of new species not previously documented."

: )

airtaximan said...

Ken, welcome back. Vern wake up yet?

How come you will not stick up for yourself, and provide a glipse into the risks you see at e-clips aviation and the model-500?

Noodle a bit and please provide a list... or admit I was right and apologize regarding your insulting post, where you emphatically denied...

ATman: "Unless you just ask Ken... according to HIM, there are no unknowns with e-clips... major issues with all other companies."

KEN: "Hmmm. Perhaps you are embellishing again?

Show me the post where I said "there are no unknowns with Eclipse." I'll bet you can't

What is it with you naysayers? The truth is never good enough for you; you always have to exaggerate, fabricate and prevaricate."

Before you name call, and label me a liar, I suggest you remember my trackrecord of accuracy regarding the orderbook and the con-jet. Stand up and be a MAN, Ken... make a list of the risks and unknowns associated with e-clips... post it and show everybody you are willing to be honest and accurate about the plane you are promoting here.

Last chance, and please don't ever say "I bet..." again. Alst time, you chickened out of a $10k bet... on a subject you were also very passionate about denying.

Post your risk/unknowns list...

redtail said...

Gunner said... Why would the company do this, as opposed to declaring a default on those contracts and refunding the deposits?

You'd like that. Then call it unfair business practice by Vern the Omnipotent. Perhaps there is some integrity in the company.

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

Gunner said... Make up to a Million Bucks in losses, per plane? I doubt it.

Poor guess. No basis in fact. Losses, yes. As for degree, you have no idea but find the need to fain intelligence.

-----------------------
Gunner said... Vern has been known to cancel any number of contracts when it suits him

Distortion of facts. Cancelled contracts have always had a reason. You may not agree with them, but there has been a reason.

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

Gunner said... Based on that, we can conclude that an ENORMOUS percentage of the personally owned contracts to be filled, will be filled at significant losses.

Pure speculation. At least you said, "we can conclude", which again means it's purely your guess based on your limited information.

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

Gunner said... UNLESS the Deposit Agreements contain coercive language that actually forces Eclipse to produce loss-leaders against their better business judgment, the only logical answer I can come up with is that the company simply doesn't have the money to make those refunds.

Any customer can void their contract at any time at this point. The aircraft are not being delivered with the features promised in the contract, therefore the customer is not required to accept the aircraft. But, I don't see anyone simply requesting a refund. Do you?

These are just continued Gunner-rants to feed his ego.

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"Before you name call, and label me a liar, I suggest you remember my trackrecord of accuracy"

I don't recall ever saying you were a liar. But, OK, show us that you're not. Show us exactly where I wrote, "there are no unknowns with Eclipse." I'll bet you can't.

Ken

redtail said...

Gunner said... Debt financing, OTOH, certainly does have to be accounted for in the cost of manufacture.

Again you know little about what you speak. The debt has a manditory stock conversion at IPO. Only the interest payout needs be accounted for, the rest is investment dollars.

mouse said...

Atta boy, Ken, way to answer the question and provide your list...

Back to the betting just like Gunner said...

Do you have a list or not? If you don't or won't just say so, and the question won't come up again I'm sure...

Gunner said...

redtail-
I rather expected Ken would attempt to grab the wheel before you. My mistake.

Watch out for those weeds, now. You'll be playing alone and small children can get lost in the weeds.

Short of that, enjoy the scenery.
Gunner

bill e. goat said...

Ahhh, screwy "certification" charade is resolved to my satisfaction by Mouse.

The next screwy question in my mind: Eclipse finance. We're all outsiders* looking in, but hey, that's what scientists do, eh?, dig for knowledge by observation and proposing theories, then look for evidence that either substantiates or refutes the theory?

(*and I suspect that even the "insiders" are more "outside" than they realize, given some of Vern's shenanigans).

Okay, then.

ATM:
"it appears as if, there were 57 planes in work since around q-1 2007. Many in work since Q-3 2006, actually"

Goat:
Right-o. I think clearing out the backlog is how Eclipse might meet "30 deliveries" one month, but how many are actually built in one month- I can't help but think we are a LONG way from 30 being a sustained delivery rate (like, 2008Q3).

Gunner:
I'd quote your previous post for morsels of agreement, but in fact, the ENTIRE thing is a perfect summary of the quandary, and I suggest everyone re-read it-

(Gunner posted it at 9:18 AM, just after ATM's post at 8:58AM, that I quoted from above- on second thought, I suggest everyone re-read ATM's post there too- I agree with it in entirety too).

BOTH OF THESE POSTINGS ARE AMONG THE VERY BEST I HAVE READ IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS.

(Ah, well that came out a bit more emphatically than I intended, and might unintentionally detract from the insightful and unbiased nature of the authors' original postings, but I DO urge everyone to re-read them).
---------------------------

Ken:
"If they needed to, Eclipse could certainly do that (raise prices to current depositors) again. But I think you haven't established yet that they are selling at a loss, let alone that they need to raise the price on existing positionholders. One or both of those may be true, but I don't think we actually know that either is true".

Goat:
Thanks for your comments- I'm fuzzy about what a "contract" with Eclipse is. (I think many vendors would agree!).

I can understand a clause for CPI-adjustment. Or a clause for unavoidable equipment substitution (although that starts to stretch things a bit).

But for Vern to just say, "Hey, we've had you waiting for 4, 5, 6, 7 ... years because we told you price X, but now, I just think I'll jack the price, to oh, whatever I want to".

Well, I just don't get it. Please correct me as to how "whatever I want to" is constrained, if not by "contract"?

------------------------------
I would suspect Cessna has around a 25% "markup" on Mustang; for an original price of $2.7M, that would put cost of manufacture around $2.1M. I suspect the cost of manufacture for Eclipse is about 70% (smaller airplane, lower labor rates, lower cost suppliers in some cases). That means (okay, no proof, just a goat-a-nomic guesstimate; I pledge it really is my humble best attempt, and not just rabid speculation) it costs around $1.5M to PRODUCE an E-500. (Throw in the 25% markup, and that comes out to $2M sustainable delivery price, at least at a Cessna-like rate of around 200/year. (That's about the same profit as 300 E-500's per year at $1.8M).
-------------------------
Full circle: 30 per month? Yeah. I'm not holding my breath. My prediction is still that peak production will be 350/year. That's about 30 per month. I just don't think they'll hit it this year.

WhyTech said...

red posterior said:

"But, I don't see anyone simply requesting a refund."

This HAS to be the eighth wonder of the world!

WT

mouse said...

Just soo eveyone understands the term:

"In Work" means parts have gone into FWS (Stir-Fry). It may be many months before the plane actually begins being built, just that the first two pieces with P/N's have headed down to the FSW building and those 2 parts have been identified on a piece of paper linking them to some work.

Start to finish, like from placing a P.O. to an airplane on the flight line is about 18 months right now... And that's a short timeframe actually, just don't tell Vern. he thinks it should all take about 60 hours...

bill e. goat said...

The blog raced ahead of me while I was doing my cyphering (as Jethro would say- probably a lost insinuation to most here :)- BTW, EO387, I could really use that $50M infrastructure loan for a calculator!).

Anyway, as Gunner pointed out:
"Few would deny that there are HUNDREDS of EA50X's to be built below cost; some WAY below cost".

Many are emphasising Eclipse needs to increase cash flow, but I just don't see how Eclipse "ramping up" production is going to help. Either:

1) they JACK THE PRICE - BY A LOT on those X hundred "teaser" price models.

2) well, there ISN'T any option two...Other than eating MORE loss for the sake of promotion as an "advertising expense".

It seems that Vern's priorities ought to be:
1) DEVELOPE the airplane
2) Sell it AT A PROFIT

I point out, EVERY other manufacturer completes DEVELOPMENT first. Phased improvements, new models, yes. But to recall airplanes to swap avionics suites? Too "disruptive" for me to swallow- this interim delivery stuff is for the birds.

On the other hand, if the "interim" configuration is good enough for DayJet, and ?hundreds? of private operators, why the push for Avio-NG?
---------------------------

I can't help but think it would be more efficient to continue to development with Avidyne, especially when; okay, they're making slow progress; but obviously, it's NOT holding up deliveries!

The Avidyne vs Avio-NG thing is just too wierd. "We divorced, but we're not divorced". Switching vendors, but continuing to buy dozens, ?hundreds? of shipsets from Avidyne? I just don't get it.

Cut-in of Avio-NG this year? Uh, yeah. Right after 30 per month.

WhyTech said...

mouse said:

"he thinks it should all take about 60 hours..."

Allowing for the previously established 51 hours for paint, this leaves 9 hours to build the plane.

WT

mouse said...

Ever wonder why Red Rear, Ken and th lot stay tuned in here, and not start a blog of their own?

Thinks it's because this is the only place they can really find the truth? (Yeah, me too! They won't get the real story anywhere else)

Ken loves to run back to the owners forum and question what he learns from this site.

Just a pity they use this information to further their own false hopes by continuing the myth and justifying their dreams by defending Vern. Vern would'nt piss on them if they were on fire, unless he could call it Phostrex and write it off as an R&D expense... and even then he want to charge them for his runoff and pay the cleaning bill too... Sad, but true.. He was not always a jerk, but time and other peoples money has clouded his head.

Rule #1, Don't get high on your own supply... Ooops, too late!

WhyTech said...

the goat said:

"Cut-in of Avio-NG this year?"

Anyone seen that NG "cut in matrix" Vern mentioned in his letter?

You heard it here first: look for E-clips to deliver order no. 2700 soon and work backwards to the lower numbers in order to boost cash flow (due to the higher prices on later orders).

WT

WhyTech said...

mouse said:

"Vern would'nt piss on them if they were on fire ....."

You now move ahead of ATM and BT in creativity.

WT

EclipseOwner387 said...

Goat,

Eclipse has enough Avidyne sets to equip 133 or 134 airplanes. After that they are out and no more coming. That is my unduerstanding of the situation.

mouse said...

Whytech, the Eclipse build plan calls for rolling out an airplane every 6 hours and 45 minutes... Stop laughing, I'm serious. In June of '02 the last production schedule dictated was 3.5 planes per day...

And lead time was ordered to be "negotiated" to 20 days...

Especially the most experienced vendors began running away backwards...

All this while engineering was making changes hourly, as they still do to this day.

And currently it is still about 180+ days for lead time between engineering and parts receipt by a supplier. The only way it is sped up is to make the part with a local machine shop at about 10-50 times the cost... Look for rate to take a little while :-)

EclipseOwner387 said...

WhyTech said...

"You heard it here first: look for E-clips to deliver order no. 2700 soon and work backwards to the lower numbers in order to boost cash flow (due to the higher prices on later orders)."

WT: That will not happen.

airtaximan said...

Ken:

from your same insulting post- 9:40 AM August 10th...

"But too often, it seems the naysayers are reduced to schoolyard bullying, name-calling, and outright lying."

"Outright lying"

So, I guess YOU DID call me a liar.

Where's your list? Seems like instead of geesing your way past this one, Ken, you should be proud to produce such a list, no? You AGREE there are unknowns and risks... why not write them down, so we can once and for all understand that you are unbiased, open-minded, intelligent and honest.

Where's your list?

(ever get the feeling like someone realizes they have a size 10 shoe which they crammed into their..... well, let's give Ken a BIG e-clips size benefit of the doubt....perhaps he's going to come clean, soon, after all...)

WhyTech said...

EO said:

"WT: That will not happen."

I dont really think so either, however, nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to E-clips.

WT

EclipseOwner387 said...

If anyone is looking to sell their Eclipse I am in the market to buy one.

dcrum@yahoo.com

Prefer SN39 or higher but no higher than SN320.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Interesting thing happened last night. I was online playing poker (bad habit I know) and I strike up a chat with a guy that had a poker name that caught my attention. It made reference to being from the SW. I asked him if he was from Arizona and he said no = New Mexico. I said ABQ? He said yes. I said funny - I own an Eclipse 500 and he said no way. He works there! Been there for two years and loves it. He gave me his email address and stuff. Thanked me for my support. Sounded like he was a non-exec and he said he is not a pilot. I asked him if he was aware of the Critic Blog and he said oh yes. But when I asked more it sounded like he really didn't visit the site. Anyway, a real life employee that seemed happy to be working at Eclipse and wasn't afraid to give me his name and email address.

Pretty wild huh?

How small is this world!!

Gunner said...

EO-
What's he doing gambling on-line. Didn't he get any stock options?
Gunner

airtaximan said...

"Start to finish, like from placing a P.O. to an airplane on the flight line is about 18 months right now... And that's a short timeframe actually, just don't tell Vern. he thinks it should all take about 60 hours..."

If this is true, just shut the lights and go home right now. There's no way in hell to ever get the thing to turn a profit or cash flow positive.

18 months?
What ever happend to the "integrated supply chain" "high performance manufacuring process" and all that jazz... gone by the way side of avio and EJ22? As effective as FSW?

A BIG joke.

The incubation time for a real dinosaur is around 80 days (estimates, but heck, e-clips is no better on this) so, I'm liking the dino label Alexa tagged me with!...

Pretty sad.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Gunner,

Poker is not gambling. It is a skill game.

;-)

We were playing 25/50


cents that is!

Gunner said...

EO said:
"We were playing 25/50
cents that is!


Did he have to use ALL his stock options as collateral? :-D
Gunner

bill e. goat said...

EO387:
"Eclipse has enough Avidyne sets to equip 133 or 134 airplanes. After that they are out and no more coming. That is my unduerstanding of the situation".

Thanks for the info. Seems like that could creat a "pacing item" situation: Deliveries will not exceed 13x until Avio-NG is ready.

This must represent a significant challenge for Eclipse, and would seem to argue in favor of a cautious production ramp-up and delivery schedule, given the schedule risk inherent with avionics development.

airtaximan said...

EO, online gambling for money is illegal in the US.

Careful.

airtaximan said...

bill-e-g:

they would find a way to deliver the plane with the new Avio-NO system.

NO avionics.

Save money, infinate life, no maintenance, and easy upgrade to NG... also, weight savings increasing payload range.

This would be a limited one time offer to around 200 lucky position holders. I won't describe the "position they are holding" on this blog!

EclipseOwner387 said...

ATMAN,

I was in the play money area!

airtaximan said...

EO, you ARE a smart guy.

"If anyone is looking to sell their Eclipse I am in the market to buy one."

If you do not report someone offered to sell his position, I'm sure KEN will delare victory, and assert "there are no position holders willing to sell, anymore. The market for the wonderjet is now a sellers market, the value is going up...there are only buyers, no sellers!".

BRILLIANT!

airtaximan said...

EO:
"I was in the play money area!"

why am I not surprised - the same with airplanes, too? Right?

Kidding of course - I can;t wait to see you buy and sell another one of these at a profit!

hummer said...

EO387
If you find one Part 135 certified and you don't want it, I am in the market to buy one. Please contact me at hummerem@swbell.net.

Gunner said...

EO-
All kidding aside, you just dropped a bombshell on us with the revelation of 130 shipsets available from Avidyne. Yes, I'd seen the number before, but hadn't realized the implications.

Let's reasonably assume the deal was canceled after 20 shipsets were installed. That puts the run-out number at about SN-150, which, according to Eclipse should be delivered sometime October/November.

What does the company do if AvioNextGrift is not certified by then? Another "planned" production slowdown?

Serious issues:
There's a river of red ink flowing out of ABQ to fund daily fixed operations; plus the Service Centers need to be built and funded; plus Training needs to be built and funded; plus the SE LessJet needs funding (bet me!).

The only way to get real funding from production is to hammer out a couple hundred cash-negative hulls and then repeat the January Massacre of Progress Payments all over again.

And I now realize they may not even have the choice between providing those early jets or not; they may actually not have the parts for them. Think Avidyne will come to their rescue and provide a couple more hundred shipsets on the Cheap? I highly doubt it.

This company is facing greater short term risk of extinction than a white-bread college kid in a crack house. And, unfortunately, they own the house!
Gunner

hummer said...

Gunner. .
Look for another auction fast.
Maybe "Jet-of-the-month" with
updates and mods. Maybe a dutch
auction with multiple units?

Gunner said...

Hummer-
They could Auction a couple a week and that's not gonna make a dent in their cash flow shortfall.

But I'm intrigued by your last comment. You really would buy one today if it was Part 135 equipped? Are you willing to share your thoughts on that? If not, I won't bring it up again. EO has his reasons and I wouldn't think to question them; I'm sure you have yours.
Gunner

a37pilot said...

Does anybody know how the aircraft are addressing AD 2007-13-11. I know they announced that the fix was approved, but there is nothing in the AD other than a reference to obtaining an AMOC. Has a service bulletin been issued or what?

EclipseOwner387 said...

Hummer,

WILCO

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

Gunner
Not an EA500 Part 135 equipped; A EA500 PART 135 CERTIFIED. Simply put it becomes a whole lot more valuable proposition. Now I'm probably "small potatoes" compared to EO387, but the offer still stands.
BTW, do you have access to the Shrike 5.56 by Advance Weapon Systems?

EclipseOwner387 said...

A37pilot,

Yes it has been addressed and SB circulated. Numerous planes are fixed and the work is nearly complete.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

A37,

Reports are there is a Service Bulletin that covers removal of the offending parts and installation of new parts which would serve as Alternate Means of Compliance so that owners would not be limited to no IMC without an EAC nanny-pilot on board.

Announced at OPSH I think. SB's are not truly public domain so there may not be an easy way to verify it or read the particulars unless one of the faithful cares to share another Eclipse 'first' for the VLJ market, an SB for lifting the first VLJ AD.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

EO,

Now that you have owned and sold a couple of the wee-jets could you give us your overall opinion of fit and finish and utility, such as it is, with the early aircraft?

How about the 'customer experience'?

Without wanting to damage your ability continue this buy-low sell-high approach (kudo's to you for understanding the real 'value-proposition'), is the wee-jet one that you would ultimately keep and use or is this a stepping stone in your mind to a larger\more capable machine?

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

Actually, there are two MMELs for the EA-500 (same for the CE-510). One MMEL is for Part 91 operation only and the other is for all other operations.

Part 91 Ops - 10,000 ft limitation
All other - 20,000 ft limitation

Look under Part 91 and Small Aircraft to see the two versions.

Practical example - Dayjet would be able to go to 20,000 ft but you'd be limited to 10,000 ft.

Gunner said...

Hummer-
"Access to" as in, might I get one for review? Yes. As in, for purchase? Semi or Full Auto? Probably. (We're talking ARES Defense, not AWS, yes?)

But the question becomes "Why"? There's a reason the FN M249 is called a Squad Automatic Weapon. Ammunition is heavy and these children eat lots of it. Finally, I have real questions as to the reliability & durability of this conversion in a standard M-16 variant.

I can be reached at eclipse@thefiringline.com

Gunner

EclipseOwner387 said...

CWMOR,

The SB was realeased before OSH.

I will tell you it was very hard for me to part with SN28. I fell in love with it but reality set in. I want an Eclipse with Avio NG and AeroMods already on if possible. The fit and finish was fine from where I sat. When I took my acceptance flight I was limited to back seat at the time (AD.)

The paint is still needing some TLC but overall I was satisfied. More importantly I was impressed with how solid it felt (even in the thermals of a summer day in New Mexico air.)

It will be a great airplane to shuttle exeutives of small business from place to place and they will be impressed with the glass cockpit and how quiet it is.

I do want one for me. Just waiting for the right one.

(I was originally planning on keeping 28 but I got an unsolicited offer I couldn't refuse.)

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

planet-ex wrote,

"Part 91 Ops - 10,000 ft limitation
All other - 20,000 ft limitation"


I think that's just a goof; the AFM lists 20,000 feet as the altitude limitation without yaw damper. The FAA caught the goof and fixed it in the new-released revision of the Part 135 MMEL (which used to say 10,000 feet); I assume they'll fix it in Revision 1 of the Part 91 MMEL.

For those watching from afar, what this is all about is that the Eclipse needs an operational yaw damper above 20,000 feet to offset a tendency toward Dutch roll at certain speeds/configurations

Ken

Gunner said...

Boy, between the FAA's errors against Eclipse and the BC&A errors against Eclipse and the BC&A errors in favor of ther Mustang it's little wonder that Ken stands out as the only source of REAL facts on the VLJ industry.

Thanks for catching this latest error, Ken.
Gunner

planet-ex said...

Ken:

However, once you lose the yaw damper, you also have to deactivate the autopilot, stick someone in the right seat and hope your stick shaker and stick pusher haven't also bit the bullet.

Loss of the yaw damper on the EA-500 has a bigger effect than the loss of the yaw damper on the CE-510. Of course, Eclipse could fix the limitation the same way that Lear did, ventral fins.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Gunner,

Do you suppose there is any common source for those glaring FAA, B&CA, AIN, AOPA, Flight Aware and other errors that inexplicably keep painting Eclipse in such an inaccurate and unflattering way?

Could there be a single source or origin for the mis-leading and inaccurate data those bastiges use maybe?

Sounds like a good conspiracy theory to me - Roswell is in New Mexico right?

Ken Meyer said...

planet-ex wrote,

"once you lose the yaw damper, you also have to deactivate the autopilot, stick someone in the right seat and hope your stick shaker and stick pusher haven't also bit the bullet."

The stick pusher is required for flight regardless of whether the yaw damper works or not.

There isn't a stick shaker.

Ken

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 451   Newer› Newest»