Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Eclipse 'Greenest' Airplane?

NBAA

September 24, 2007

Russ Niles AVwebEditor-in-Chief

Eclipse Aviation says it's setting the standard for environmental impact with its Eclipse 500. CEO Vern Raburn told a news conference at the National Business Aviation Association convention that on (his) scale of 30, his company's jet is a perfect 30 in environmental impact. He said he invites comparisons on key indicators of environmental responsibility and he's confident the 500 will prevail. Raburn said that in terms of fuel consumption, emissions, hazardous materials and recyclability, the 500 is "already green." Raburn's also defended his product against critics.

Raburn said the process of creating the company and getting the airplane certified was more difficult than he planned and he accepted responsibility for the various setbacks. But he said the company continues to be the target of unfair criticism. He was particularly upset by the suggestion of a well-known writer in an influential magazine that Eclipse's single-engine concept jet might be safer at lower altitudes than its projected ceiling of 41,000 feet in case the engine fails and isn't able to supply air for pressurization.

"I'm tired of this kind of crap being thrown around by people who ought to know better," he said. In response to a question from a reporter, Raburn said that he no longer makes predictions about production schedules and timelines. "I'm always wrong," he said.

Thanks to niner zulu for keeping the blog informed as to what is being said.

215 comments:

1 – 200 of 215   Newer›   Newest»
Gunner said...

"Raburn said that in terms [snip] recyclability, the 500 is 'already green.' "
I'm not touchin' that line. Biting my tongue to control the giggles, but that's as far as I go.

" 'I'm always wrong,' he said."
Somebody must have slipped a dose of scopalamine into the Atlanta water supply. ;-)
Gunner

Redtail said...

Gunner, that comment wasn't that profound they you had to move it from the bottom of the previous thread. It just screams, "Look at me! Look at me! I have three D-Jets on order!"

paul said...

Redtail:
What the f*** are you blathering about? If you have nothing to contribute shut up.

Gunner said...

RT-
Did you know that studies have proven the things that anger us most are the things we know to be true?

Truth hurts.
Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

When was the last time Jack Pelton or Christian Dries or Duncan Koerbel complained about 'undue' criticism and other 'crap' to the media?

Just curious.

Surely the near-legendary google skills of the sect-of-the-politics-of-personal-destruction from the Church of Flyantology can come up with some similar whining from 'other' similar CEO's.

gadfly said...

If Vern is correct about Eclipse being “green”, it must be “gangrene” . . . not a good sign. And maybe time to consider “Hospice”.

Sometime back we noticed the “paint job” and noticed signs of “melanoma” . . . and that was not good . . . but the patient was clearly in denial (and I don’t mean a river in Egypt). Various vital organs have been to the lab . . . and indications of malignancy were present. And now the very top expert is declaring that the patient is “green” . . . one wonders just how far this “denial” thing can go.

Oh well, there is often a time of apparent recovery . . . the patient goes into“remission” . . . and lasts for enough time to give hope to the “faithful”.

Please be kind to the closest of kin . . . they may find it most difficult to endure the final days. (But they’ll fight tooth and nail over the terms of the Will!)

Time seems to have a healing influence . . . and even the next of kin may, someday, find themselves flying in a “Hondajet” or (forbid the thought) a “Mustang”.

gadfly

(Maybe if we had Hilarious Clinton’s “Health Care”, everything would turn out absolutely “sweetness and light” . . . and maybe not!)

hummer said...

Must be the faithful are in ATL and are not available to counter the critics here. Maybe they are reaping the green from a different perspective. Anyway. . . .
here is a "green" prediction:
Within 6 months the Eclipse EA500 will be certified Single Pilot,
Part 135 aircraft operation.
A really huge step to profitability and further cost justify the aircraft.
Critics: read it and weep
Two pilots are a deal breaker.

gadfly said...

hummer

Most of what you say is true. ‘Just keep on “humming” . . . like I said, there is a time of “remission” when the patient appears to be in recovery mode.

You said, “read it and weep”. I agree. Some folks who had high hopes will be sorely disappointed. In fact, even among the “critics”, there are many (of us) who wanted the little jet to succeed . . . but not by “deceit” and claims that could not be supported by reality.

For me, personally, I hate liars. In fact, if someone lies to me, I will probably never trust them again. And this entire exercise seems to be a series of lies. Mistakes are one thing, but bald-face liars are (to quote you) a “deal breaker”.

And that, my friend, is my firm personal opinion!

gadfly

hummer said...

Gadfly
Put down your rocks.
"To err is human; to forgive is
Divine"
Alexander Pope

gadfly said...

hummer

No, I don't carry rocks in my pocket, nor do I have a dog in this fight. In fact, I would rather make friends with an enemy than continue some silly argument. Some excellent friends are the result of earlier arguments . . . but I won't go there just now (except one of my very best friends, a fellow machinist in a "model shop", was at one time a Nazi . . . a visit in a hospital opened up a relationship that I consider very special).

'Nough said! Carry on!

gadfly

Gunner said...

Hummer-
I respect your input here greatly. But I think your view is becoming a bit myopic.

I mean no offense by that, but you seem to base your prediction of Eclipse viability on whether they can deliver a jet that fits your particular air taxi concept. That's an awfully big leap of faith.

This company continues to hemorrhage financially with no sign of any event on the horizon that promises to turn the river of red to black. They have yet to pay down IOU's for:

- Spent Deposits
- Squandered Progress Payments
- Subsidized Prices (perhaps as much as four years of production worth, given the ramp up progress)
- Remanning aircraft
- Firing up Training Centers and Programs
- Developing and Certifying an Avionics Suite
- FIKI

At the same time, they have to ramp up production on aircraft that will produce marginal (at best) cash flow, due to the Progress Payments having been spent; at the same time they have to figure out how create positive cash flow at the current price. Vern now says the Break Even is 600 planes per year; but then he says, "I'm always wrong".

History agrees with his second assessment.

Finally, the reality of what this aircraft can do is setting in and competition is really heating up. Even The Faithful have started to compare it to a faster, higher flying version of a 50 year old piston twin with those spinning things up front. This hardly points toward a revolution in aviation....and, for Eclipse to succeed, it HAS to be revolutionary. Vern has gambled the entire company on that issue.

To assume that they're out of the woods if they can just get Single Pilot 135 certification is really a stretch.
Gunner

Black Dog said...

gadfly said


Time seems to have a healing influence . . . and even the next of kin may, someday, find themselves flying in a “Hondajet” or (forbid the thought) a “Mustang”.

You may be right Gadfly but time is something Eclipse does not have.
Having been inside the nuts,bolts and frames of this kite during construction it is nothing different to any other airframe other than very thin and as such a bitch to make as nothing stays where you put it! your drills have to be very sharp or you push the mateing part away and produce oval holes even when the parts are clamped.
Stir fried welding is nothing but a novel way of joining a frame to a skin is it faster? once the set up has been done and if the m/c don't break, probably but I've seen 2 German women rivet a butt joint on a A320 tube mate up in Hamberg in a day!

But back to time, Eclipse have missed the boat if they could have been where they are now a year ago they may have made a major impact as it is other VLJ players are now coming to market, the price of fuel can only go one way as for a European market forget it.
Like it or not Aviation is a rich mans game and 1.6 million bucks in 2003 dollar or whatever is a lot of cash for the majority of people and if the air taxi market doesn't cut it who is going to buy it?

airsafetyman said...

"Two pilots are a deal breaker."

Why? Both pilots are paid starvation wages anyway. Kids take these jobs in the hope of flying an airliner or real corporate jet for a reputable company someday.

hummer said...

Gunner
My position is real simple:
Without Airtaxi Eclipse will not
make it. Therefore, anything that
enhances part 135 is a plus; anything that detracks makes it less viable.

Airsafetyman: Not in this instance.
Everything inside Eclipse: weight,
fuel, space is at a premium. A second pilot will not work. .period.

Gadfly. . Rocks. . .something like casting the first stone.

Gunner said...

Hummer said:
"Without Airtaxi Eclipse will not
make it."


Well said and agreed. But that hardly supports a conclusion that SP Part 135 Certification makes Air Taxi viable. Air Taxi will survive or fail in spite of Eclipse. If it thrives (which I highly doubt), Eclipse must make the next hurdle by dominating that market. Unlike every one of their competitors, they simply need that many orders to succeed.

There are so many questions regarding the EA-50X, compared to its competition, this is hardly a given:

- Public acceptance of the size and space
- Safety Record and Perception
- Durability
- Maintenance costs
- Resale Value

Eclipse's ability to dominate this market is hardly a forgone conclusion based on a few hundred thousand price point and a few gallons of JetA per trip.

Long road ahead. Those positioned to succeed will be able go the distance. Can Eclipse? I don't know. I highly doubt it, though.

Gunner

hummer said...

Gunner
Thanks for your kind words.
Forget just for a minute what Vern has done wrong. . .set that aside temporarily.
Would it be fair to say that overall Eclipse is moving forward or moving backward?
Could you term it as progress?
Slow, erratic. . .but progress?

hummer said...

Gunner said "dominating the market"
I'm looking a four choices for charter in front of me:

1. Eclipse $1,175/hr

2. King Air $1,100/hr + $250 fuel

3. Lear 35 $2,250/hr + $350 fuel

4. Cessna $3,800/hr + $500 fuel

Fuel is the surcharge in each instance.

Which one would you select with a party of 2 or 3?
Sovereign

Jim Howard said...

Are there other jets certified for single pilot part 135 ops?

Gunner said...

Hummer asks:
"Would it be fair to say that overall Eclipse is moving forward or moving backward?"

OK, here it is with the personalities removed:

The product is such a mess that there's very little that can be done to go "backward" at this point. I mean that with no animus. There is so much left on the table to be done before this jet s finished, it goes without saying most actions will be "progress".

But that denies the Big Picture. Expectations for this jet continue to be lowered, even by those anxiously awaiting delivery. So long as expectations can be lowered, delivering 10 partial jets last month can be touted as "progress".

Sooner or later, as expectations continue to drop, someone finally asks the inevitable question: "What am I supposed to do with this can of beans?".

For my own part, that was definitively answered when The Faithful admitted that the aeromod plane is a 3 person, 800 NM proposition. Without THOUSANDS of Air Taxi orders, that renders demand at @200/year. And that's a death sentence for Eclipse.

Fair enough?
Gunner

gadfly said...

airsafteyman

You are correct about the starvation wages . . . even as an “A&P” many years ago, there was no way I could make a decent living, so went back to what I knew best . . . proto-type machinist, and inventor (another “scary” ambition . . . but in time, successful).

Black Dog

Another time, we could talk about “reverse angle drills” . . . sometimes called “butterfly tips”, to prevent anything but a precision hole (round, and precise) through the thinnest of sheet aluminum . . . but me thinks all of that kind of talk is much too late for the problems of the little jet. My impression is that “others” know more than they really “know”, and will not be convinced otherwise . . . if you get my drift. The bottom line is that you cannot suddenly build an efficient aircraft manufacturing system “by the book”. It takes years of patient teaching/training/learning . . . instilling into a new generation, the skills learned over centuries, and yet the willingness to learn new techniques in the process. It is a combination of the “old” being implemented into the “new”, with a willingness to learn and adapt, without (using a very old expression) throwing out the baby with the bath water.

It would appear that Eclipse has attempted to create a company that is based on “book theory”, without respect for the hard-earned lessons of the past, that must . . . and I emphasize the word, MUST, be passed on from the older generation to the newer generation . . . and all that takes “time”. The Japanese understand that vital principle . . . building for the distant future, rather than a quick profit “next quarter”. Take note of Toyota, and Mazak ( Yamazaki . . . ‘been building machine tools in Florence, Kentucky, for about thirty years).

And “hummer”, yes, I do remember constantly about casting the first stone . . . I’ve had to eat my own words far too many times . . . they don’t taste very good. But lying is an area that scares me greatly . . . and I attempt to avoid it at all costs. Lying is not un-forgivable, but extremely difficult to change, once the pattern is “set”.

gadfly

(That's all the "preaching" for tonight . . . I get to go home now . . . a long day, battling dragons that I wish on none of you. And to think, I could have retired five years ago . . . but what a "bore".)

Gunner said...

Hummer asked:
"Which one would you select with a party of 2 or 3?"

First lets make a HUGE leap of faith that the EA-50X safety record compares to a Lear, Cessna (Mustang, I assume) or KingAir.

Now that I've stacked the deck in Eclipse's favor, here's my answers as an Air Taxi customer:
- If I worked for someone else, the King Air for the room and economy.
- On my own nickel, the Mustang in lean times, the Lear in good times.

Gunner

hummer said...

Gunner
I agree that the patient is sick, needs mouth to mouth and likely not
to survive. It has multiple broken bones, several gsw and if it survives surgery maybe on life support for a while.
But it aint dead. . not yet.
I'm saying live. .
You're convinced he will die.
Hard to say at this moment.
But my guess is as good as yours.

Jim Howard: what country?

Gunner said...

Hummer-
From your lips to God's ear. Just goes to show: sometimes when we think we're on opposite sides of an issue, a rational dialog is all that's required to realize that we're looking at the same ground and simply viewing it slightly different.

Would that there were a dozen more like you supporting Eclipse here. Its image would fare much better, I think.
Gunner

Gunner said...

For a break:
Second Issue of the Diamond D-Jet Letter has been posted here

Check under the left column (news): Sept 25 '07.

Technical commentary from the likes of Stan, CWMoR, Gad and others would certainly be interesting.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"The Faithful admitted that the aeromod plane is a 3 person, 800 NM proposition."

I can't imagine which of the "faithful" would say that. It's flat out wrong, like so much of what you write.

The Eclipse 500 goes 1300 nm with with 45 minute reserve carrying 714 lbs--that's more than 4 FAA 170-pound people. Not 3. Four. And not 800 nm; 1300 nm.

You're just wrong. Again.

You're starting to look like just another Eclipse hater who misstates things in an attempt to make the plane look bad. What else is new? Boring...

Is the plane so good that you haven't you got anything truthful you can slam the plane with??

Ken

Ringtail said...

Gunner,

I know this is thread creep, but for me, the "deal killer" with single engine jets and turbo-props is their service ceiling. To me, considering all planes in it's price range, the Eclipse is worth all of the headaches and IOUs to have it's service ceiling (and twin engines) when dealing with weather

However, YMMV

Gunner said...

Ken said:
"I can't imagine which of the "faithful" would say that. It's flat out wrong, like so much of what you write."


Why, Ken, your own Ringtail got us into the range I mentioned just yesterday, when he stated:

"We have been around and around with that topic and have concluded that the Eclipse is a 1000 NM plane (plus reserve)."

(Lots closer to my 800 number tan your 1,300 claim. no?). Then, you buttressed his argument when I asked why SN-50 had to make a stop on the 1,100NM trip from ABQ to Atlanta. Your response was to compare it to my Baron and your 340.

Now you want to tell us it "coulda, woulda, mighta, shoulda" made the flight without a fuel stop?

You spend lots of time here, going for the Emotional Appeal, Ken. "This one's a hater; That one's a liar." It wears real thin, in context of your ever changing positions and ever constant personal attacks.

Is there a secret newsletter you read on Vern Emulation? I suggest he's not a very good role model, if you wish to be taken seriously.

Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"You spend lots of time here, going for the Emotional Appeal"

No, Rich. That's your specialty.

Mine is data.

Honest data.

Correct data.

Proven data.

You can try to twist it by saying, "Ken said the plane won't go 1300 nm if you don't fly it at FL 410." That's right. The plane won't go 1300 nm if you don't fly it at FL 410.

Every plane in the world has a specified range at ideal altitude. Every plane in the world gets less than maximum range at suboptimal altitudes.

Is this all news to you or are you just being an ass?

Ken

Gunner said...

RT-
I agree that service ceiling is an issue; evidently not for DayJet, however...look at the Flight Levels they use.

And I don't think it's nearly the issue for owner-pilots that you believe. Here's why:

- How many of us have had big diversions for weather once at altitude? The problem is mainly on take-off and landing....and then, no matter where you're coming from, you have to face the same weather as every other plane out there.

- The higher flight levels are hardly a lock for a jet with the climb performance of the EA-50X. That's been repeatedly demonstrated by jet-jocks here with far more experience than me. (Can't speak for you.)

- Weather avoidance products today, while not eliminating the hazards of weather, have rendered depiction and avoidance capability generations ahead of where it was just a few years ago.

- I recently learned here that, above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be "sucking oxygen" (Ken's word). Ken informs me that "sucking oxygen" is quite passe and to be looked down at as peasant behavior.

So, I think ceiling is an issue; but hardly a universal one to potential customers, be they owner pilots or commercial enterprises.

Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Gunner,

To answer your query re: the D-Jet Flyer - nicely written, good balance of marketing-speak and technical data.

Clearly addresses the very issues one of the Faithful has repeatedly suggested and would seem to make it unlikey but independent verification (in a year or so when the press should be flying a production spec plane) would be nice.

I disagree with the concept of investing in production tooling during R&D, no matter how good you think your design is - it creates significant economic pressure to continue with what might be a marginal design (not making any accusations here about the D-Jet design lest my words be taken out of context and blown out of proportion). Just my $.03 ($.02 adjusted for inflation).

Bifurcated S-ducts have been around since almost the first jet flights. The aerodynamics and such are very well understood and I think the D-Jet Flyer article balances the technical and layman in describing the choice as well as the pros and cons.

The D-Jet is not for me, I do not care for the aesthetics and I believe that in terms of complete, fully functioning aircaft in the ~$1-2M range, a single engine turboprop ala Epic (kit or certified) or a slightly used TBM C2 makes a huge amount of sense.

But then I would go for a Piaggio P-180 Avanti II over a CJ2 or Hondajet - I believe form follows function and the Avanti is stupid pretty, to me. The PC-XII comes a close second - but both are way to big for me.

Ringtail, you just moved up a notch in my book for posting a cogent point about what YOU see as important, thanks.

Gunner said...

CWMoR-
Before the parsing begins, let me thank you for your signature analytic approach, comments and criticisms on the D-Jet update. Hadn't thought about the tooling decisions (and a couple of others you mention). Most important, your detached approach, as always, is educational.

Agree with you as to the Avanti....I don't know that it's a "pretty" aircraft, but it is definitely a head turner. Aesthetically, I wouldn't hesitate to own one. But, then, I thought the Starship was gorgeous.
Gunner

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

Would those 'honest', 'accurate' and 'proven' facts be like those when you swore Eclipse was not at AOPA last year because they were 'too busy' flight testing just like Vern said?

Or when you swore up and down that DayJet did not hold 40+% of the TOTAL - CLAIMED order book for the Eclipse?

Or when you claimed the windows were 'fixed'?

Or when you said there would be no Avidyne divorce?

Or when you said ATM was FOS about a new jet?

Great track record there dude, thanks for highlighting that.

andy said...

G man,
I have had to fly 60 miles off course in a airplane certified to FL270 on the plains to avoid WX.
How I wished at the time for another 10K in alt.

airsafetyman said...

Does anyone have any idea why the Dayjet airplanes have been flying around Florida, allegedly empty of payload, for weeks, now?

Gunner said...

Andy-
That's my point...60 miles off course....once that you can think of. How much time did it actually cost you? What percent of the time you spend flying can be attributed to such diversions? 20%? 10%? 3? <1?

Now, don't get me wrong...higher service ceiling is DEFINITELY worth paying for. It just isn't in the top 6 or 10 priorities for many, many aircraft purchasers. And Eclipse needs LOTS of purchasers.
Gunner

rcflyer said...

airsafetyman said,

"Does anyone have any idea why the Dayjet airplanes have been flying around Florida, allegedly empty of payload, for weeks, now?"

From AVweb:

September 21, 2007

Ssshhh: DayJet’s Up And Running

By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief

DayJet, the largest customer for Eclipse 500 very light jets, has been quietly conducting revenue flights for more than a week as it shakes down the operation. Although there have been no official announcements about the commencement of air taxi operations, a column by James Fallows in The Atlantic.com spilled the beans and DayJet spokesman Jeff Benanto confirmed the operation to AVweb in an e-mail Thursday. “Right now DayJet is enabling a small number of members to use the system,” Benanto said. “The goal is to slowly ramp up to the point early next month when all the members can use the system.” According to Fallows' column, the first DayJet flight was more than a week ago from Boca Raton to Tallahassee and took 84 minutes. Because of the lack of direct flights between the two cities, a similar trip on the airlines would likely have used up much of the day and driving would have taken at least six and a half hours. Cost of the flight hasn’t been revealed but those sorts of details should be available soon.

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"I recently learned here that, above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be "sucking oxygen" (Ken's word)."

You learned wrong.

It is NOT true that above FL350, "somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen.'"

Another misstatement. What a surprise.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,

"higher service ceiling is DEFINITELY worth paying for. It just isn't in the top 6 or 10 priorities for many, many aircraft purchasers."

And, of course, you have data to support the silly contention that higher ceiling isn't a high priority for many aircraft buyers, right?

No?

What a surprise. You're on a roll, and you never let facts get in your way.

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken said:
"And, of course, you have data to support the silly contention that higher ceiling isn't a high priority for many aircraft buyers, right?"

That's a REALLY silly question, Ken, what with all the piston and turboprop owners who might afford a jet, but are satisfied with what they have.

I think "many, many", would state, that "higher ceiling isn't a high priority for them.

Some of us don't wait for Vern to tell us our opinion when common sense readily provides the answer.

Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"I believe that in terms of complete, fully functioning aircaft in the ~$1-2M range...a slightly used TBM C2 makes a huge amount of sense."

Check out Controller--there aren't any slightly used TBM 700 C2s for $1-2 million.

You've just identified one very strong argument for the Eclipse--you can't get a good used TBM 700 for the same price as an Eclipse unless you go back beyond about 1995. Then, you're comparing a very used single-engine turboprop to a brand-new twin jet, and the turboprop no longer makes any sense.

Ken

gadfly said...

Open comment to the sales department at Eclipse:

Give Ken Meyer a brand new sparkling white E500 . . . with all “mods” . . . and do it quick! . . . before he convinces any more people what a rotten deal they will be getting. And don’t offer him a position on your sales staff. The only requirement should be that he keep his comments to himself . . . or you’ll re-possess the little jet. ‘Even give him unlimited “fill-ups” and free tires for a couple years. With recommendations from people like Ken, you have nothing to worry about with the “critic’s blogsite”.

Carry on, Ken, you are doing a masterful job of destroying the reputation of the little “choo-choo” that has left the station . . . on the wrong track, in the wrong direction. Or maybe you no longer give a “toot”.

gadfly

(You meant it for the best of Eclipse, but in your own way, you have drawn attention to flaws that would not have otherwise occurred to many . . . a major one is that it is mostly a “paper airplane”, that promises to do “such-and-such”, when it’s finally all put together. Normally, a “salesman” will do his best to ignore comments, leaving some things unspoken. Silence is golden, especially when you’re trying to get the customer’s gold.)

EclipseOwner387 said...

As is usual, I tend to find Ken's comments more compelling than the rest of the crowd on the blog. I am also curious as to why the blog host hasn't posted anything from his inspection of the AFM. Stan, what gives? You know I respect you but you haven't come up with anything new lately. Did the odd Marion Blakely story you posted turn up anything??

Let's face it: Other than Eclipse financing issues and the IOUs, what is new here? Seriously. I am bored with the conversation.

In the end, only lack of production at a profit is a deal killer. That is the bottom line.

All the other chatter is just hot air.

Disclosure:
I do not own or have ANY financial position in Eclipse at this time. I do like the concept of the Eclipse 500 and I hope it plays out for me and other consumers.

EclipseOwner387 said...

I would also like to point out that Hummer's comments are equally compelling and credible. I get the sense you are a very experienced individual (more than I) but yet open minded to new opportunities. I think you are like me in that you are cautiously optimistic about the Eclipse 500. Perhaps more cautious than me, but excited about the prospects.

Shane Price said...

EO387,

What's up?

You, of all people, don't even have a position right now. I'm sure that a lot of us would be very interested in why you don't.

On the finances, you are bang on the money, as usual. I would draw your attention to the dollar/euro and dollar/yen as causes for concern at Eclipse. Suppliers who are already under pressure need a weak dollar like a hole in the head.

Shane

Niner Zulu said...

Ken,
Has anyone actually flown 1300 nm in an Eclipse, without a tailwind?

I'll answer that.

NO.

Shane Price said...

9Z,

Forget Ken on range. You may remember the spat I had with him earlier, when Vern took that poor reporter to task. The one who had the gall to claim that a turboprop was a better choice for a 1,300nm trip.

Ken stated that the Eclipse was 'not practical' for that range, and then spent several days trying to reconcile his own position with that of The Great Raburn.

Poor Ken is conflicted in this matter. He can't even agree with himself. Why he keeps banging on about 1,300nm in a jet that is not finished yet is, frankly, beyond me.

Shane

Shane Price said...

Interesting news from ANN:-

"Epic wants to become the number one or number two business jet maker in the world," a source told Aero-News. This investment by Dr. Mallya and the consulting partnership with Airbus will help the company progress toward that goal, according to the source, who insisted on anonymity.

The good Doctor has put in a mere $200 million, but gets 50% of the company. Sounds fair to me, and was well flagged in advance. But the Airbus angle is new, and gives Epic added credibility in the market, IMHO.

Reminds me of when IBM licensed DOS for the 'IBM PC'. Overnight, personal computers moved from 'geek world' to front and centre for business users.

Rats, showing my age again....

Shane

Ken Meyer said...

Shane wrote,

"Ken stated that the Eclipse was 'not practical' for that range, and then spent several days trying to reconcile his own position with that of The Great Raburn."

Gosh, Shane must have missed something in Aviation 101. Everybody in the aviation world knows knows that airplanes have a rated maximum range, achievable under the proper circumstances. All planes have lower range under less-than-optimal circumstances.

This may be a new concept for Shane, but I'm happy to enlighten him. After all, he, like all the haters, is here to dispassionately seek the truth on the Eclipse, isn't he? :)

Ken

AlexA said...

It appears that my information on an upcoming fractional order announcement at NBAA for the E500 was wrong.

On another note I found the second publication of the D-Jet flyer informative. It’s obvious at least to me that someone associated with Diamond reads the Blog and wanted to set the record straight. The marketing piece discusses compressor stalls and duct icing, but fails to mention water ingestion. I hate to sound like Stan with his conspiracy theories but why not address the issue and put to rest the water ingestion cloud?

airsafetyman said...

Gunner, You were right, except that part 135 single-pilot operators need a mask on above 25,000 feet. A part 91 operator with two pilots could fly above 35,000 feet if BOTH pilots had quick-donning masks. A single-pilot part 91 operation would require use of an oxygen mask above 35,000 feet.

FAR 135:89 (b) (3) Whenever a pressurized aircraft is operated at altitudes above 35,000 feet MSL, at least one pilot at the controls shall wear, secured and sealed, an oxygen mask required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.

FAR 135:89 (b) (4) If one pilot leaves a duty station of an aircraft when operating at altitudes above 25,000 feet, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an approved oxygen mask until the other pilot returns to the pilot duty station of the aircraft.

FAR 91.211(b)(2)(ii) At flight altitudes above flight level 350 unless one pilot at the controls of the airplane is wearing and using an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed and that either supplies oxygen at all times or automatically supplies oxygen whenever the cabin pressure altitude of the airpalne exceeds 14,000 feet (MSL), except that the one pilot neeed not wear and use an oxygen mask while at or below flight level 410 if there are two pilots at the controls and each pilot has a quick donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position within 5 seconds, supplying oxygen and properly secured and sealed.

(2) Not withstanding paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if for any reason at any time it is necessary for one pilot to leave the controls of the aircraft when operating at flight altitudes above flight level 350, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an oxygen mask until the other pilot has returned to that crewmember's station.

Ken Meyer said...

airsafetyman wrote,

"Gunner, You were right"

In a pig's eye.

He said, "above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen'"

And that's not true.

Ken

airsafetyman said...

Ken,

What part of: "put on and use" don't you understand?

flightguy said...

From AIN on the Eclipse,

Known-icing certification has slipped beyond the date specified in the aircraft deposit agreement that was in effect in August last year, in which the approval was promised within 12 months of FAA type certification. That anniversary comes due at the end of this month, but Raburn does not expect the approval to be awarded until late this year or early next. Although this is a potential contract-voiding discrepancy, an Eclipse marketing official told NBAA Convention News that no customer yet has expressed enough concern with the schedule slippage to warrant contract cancellation.


http://www.ainonline.com/airshow-convention-news/nbaa-convention-news/single-publication-story/article/eclipse-still-waits-on-major-ramp-up/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Bstory_pointer%5D=6


From AOPA MEMBERS ONLY,

Actor John Travolta among new Eclipse 500 owners

Eclipse Aviation CEO Vern Raburn updated NBAA guests on the status of the company's production process. So far, the Albuquerque, N.M., manufacturer has produced 52 of its Eclipse 500 very light jets, including one delivered to actor John Travolta. Air Taxi operator DayJet has taken delivery of 12 airplanes and will receive seven more in the next couple of weeks. The production rate stands at about one a day currently; higher rates will be phased in over the next year. The Eclipse training program has turned out 98 type-rated pilots so far. Certification of the Avio NG avionics suites is scheduled for mid-November. At that point, airplanes already delivered will be scheduled to return to Eclipse service centers for upgrades to NG status. The company plans to make a decision by early 2008 on whether to proceed with the single-engine Eclipse Concept Jet unveiled at EAA AirVenture this summer.

Gunner said...

ASM-
Ken's parsing on the oxygen issue and he knows it. He looks down on single pilots wearing masks and makes great sport of them.....unless they're poured into the cockpit of Le Petit.

Personally, I think he was doing far better back when he was gushing about the performance of the EA-50X as compared to a Baron.
Gunner

Gunner said...

Alexa said-
"It’s obvious at least to me that someone associated with Diamond reads the Blog and wanted to set the record straight."

And since you're the only one making these claims, they must have produced that marketing piece specifically as damage control from your insider revelations, Alexa. They might as well have added a headline, "An Open Response to Alejandro Amor of Miami, FL".

You are quick becoming a Legend in Your Own Time (Mind?). ;-)

I think you've got 'em on the run. ;-)
Gunner

Stan Blankenship said...

coldfish commented...

"I disagree with the concept of investing in production tooling during R&D, no matter how good you think your design is - it creates significant economic pressure to continue with what might be a marginal design (not making any accusations here about the D-Jet design lest my words be taken out of context and blown out of proportion)."

In the 60's and before, companies would build prototypes on soft tooling, work the bugs out then tool for production. This often meant a 2-3 year delay for getting the product to market during which the cash flow would be huge with no off-setting revenue.

As manufacturers became more confident with all the technical aspects and could minimize risk, the prototypes would be built on hard production tooling. They even start the initial production while the prototype is still under going certification testing.

Boeing has perfected the art and are perhaps the most visible with their product development. Even their prototype 757/767/777 and now the 787 flying test articles get delivered to customers.

But your point is valid, once a company has tooling for a new design, scrapping it and starting over is not an easy decision to make.

Stan Blankenship said...

gunner,

The DayJet dissertation on engine placement for a single engine jet was quite good. Like a lot of decisions on airplane design, there is no perfect solution only trade offs.

But I agree with alexa, they covered all the main issues but one, water ingestion. Diamond could at least have mentioned how they expect to cope with the problem.

Gunner said...

Stan-
I agree. As a marketing piece (and that's its purpose), it was pretty informative as concerns the choices and trade-offs of various design issues. They took a couple of swipes at their competition, but didn't take the "ours is the only way" approach.
Gunner

FlightCenter said...

It would be a very interesting technical discussion to have regarding the requirements / tradeoffs for an aircraft certified to 25,000 feet (Diamond & Cirrus), vs. 35,000 feet (PiperJet) and 41,000 feet (Eclipse).

For folks who have designed aircraft, what are the main design drivers / risks associated with certified ceiling?

Each incremental step in an aircraft's certified ceiling adds structural requirements, weight, complexity, plus requirements for additional equipment, cost and certification risk.

A few areas that come to mind are:
Oxygen system
Pressurization system
Air Data Systems with SSEC
Autopilot
Environmental Controls
Doors, Windows and seals
Engine / FADEC
FMS

jetaburner said...

Hummer-

I agree with your point: "Without Airtaxi Eclipse will not
make it."

I have serious doubts regarding public acceptance because of its size and limited range and payload. I don't know if the airtaxi model will work but if it doesn't I don't see how e-clips will make up the volume they need to be profitable (600 aircraft per year).

jetaburner said...

Ken-

Let's do a little reality check with your statement:
"The Eclipse 500 goes 1300 nm with with 45 minute reserve carrying 714 lbs--that's more than 4 FAA 170-pound people. Not 3. Four. And not 800 nm; 1300 nm."

1st point: The only way you have the ability to carry 714 lbs with full fuel is if you don't get any options. That means:
- no co-pilot package 16.6lbs
- no stormscope 7.3lbs
- no SkyWatch HP 16.1lbs
- no TAWS 1.6lbs
- no Radar altimeter 3.5lbs
- no entertainment package 12.7lbs or 6th seat at 33.6lbs
- no LX edition interior at 31.3lbs.

I thought this was a jet? All of this stuff comes standard on my TBM as well as 6 Bose headsets!! There is even a weight penalty for for the Taxi/Recognition Lights at .5 lbs. Are you joking!!

I believe it is now required to have TCAS and TAWS in all turbine aircraft. I can't imagine buying a jet without it.

The options listed above weight 141.5lbs but as Ken has pointed out the plane is too small to have a 6th seat and refreshment center. If you go with the refreshment center and forget the 6th seat then your useful load w/ full fuel, with the options above, is 606lbs. With 3 people, including the pilot, you have 94lbs left for baggage.

Let's talk about range. Using a direct climb to FL410 with the software program from the e-clips owner's site and a direct descent, you will have a 168 lbs of reserve. This event would be extremely unlikely in 90% of the airspace in the US. This assumes 30lbs for taxi (highly unlikely), no SID, no STAR, and no one in your way in the climb or descent. Not to mention that 168lbs is less than 30 minutes of fuel at HSC at FL410 (340pph). Come on!! You've got to be kidding.

It would be suicidal to plan on such a low reserve in a jet. Let's not forget that at HSC at 10k your fuel burn is 835pph. In other words, at full throttle down low, you have less than 12 minutes of fuel. Also, important to note, that the e-clips can't even climb directly to FL410 if it is above ISA which it is most of the time. Hmmmm.... Yup, sounds like a realistic, real world, 4 person, 1300nm jet to me.

Ken- if you fly your airplanes with margins like that, I wish you luck.

jetaburner said...

Gunner-

Talking about wx in a turboprop vs. jet. I've flown both across the country many, many, times in both. The jet is really nice at FL450. But the fact is that in the winter, the high 20s keeps you clear of all of the weather in most parts of the country. The only wx that makes it up that high is convective and when it is in the high 20s it usually keeps on going. That being said, I've had many flights in the CJ2, I remember one specifically a non-stop from Nantucket to North Platte, NE where I topped all the weather and never had to deviate. Had I been at FL390 or maybe even 410 that would not have been the case. There seems, in my opinion, to be a significant drop off in the amount of cells that reach the mid 40s from the 30s. Airliners flying in the high 30s are constantly deviating during the summer months. FL410 will be nice in the e-clips if they can get there and ATC will allow them there but they will still have to deviate in the summer.

jetaburner said...

Ken-

When you get your jet and go to school you will learn that for single pilot operations, the pilot must wear supplemental oxygen above FL350. For 2 pilot operations, one of the pilots must wear O2 above FL410. This is what they taught me at Flight Safety for the CJ2.

jetaburner said...

Ken-

After flying my TBM for 2.5 yrs I've found that 400lbs is a good, comfortable reserve. I use the TBM as an example as the planes are similiar in efficiency at their respective cruise altitudes. You may want to use a little higher number since the e-clips isn't has efficient as the TBM down low. This is a critical point in a jet and requires better planning and more reserves since an early descent, vectors down low, a hold, or ATC won't give you a direct climb will have a dramatic effect on your reserves.

Anyway, if you use 400lbs as a reserve for the e-clips, you get a direct climb to FL410 and descent from ATC (highly unlikely with no SIDs, or STARS), then you can go 1070nm (that's also assuming you used only 30lbs of fuel for taxi). This is according to the owner's flight program. In the real world, no wind, with real IFR reserves (400lbs), IMO, the plane is god for 1000nm. If you are leaving a busy airport with any sort of ground delay, very common and I've personally experienced it in SDL, SMO, DVT, BUR, SBA, ASE, DEN, APA, PDK, TEB, SLC, SFO, and many others you burn a lot more fuel. What is the fuel burn in PPH for taxi? I know e-clips says its 30lbs. but I'm guessing that is in the ideal world with a 12 minute taxi. My point is if you are fluing in or out of a busy area, with a ground delay, SID, STAR, etc. you will see more like a 800nm range.

jet_fumes said...

Stan said:
"But I agree with alexa, they covered all the main issues but one, water ingestion. Diamond could at least have mentioned how they expect to cope with the problem."

Why would Diamond mention it since no one knows - including Diamond - whether there is a problem in the first place?

This blog is just like my kids, no one pays any attention to what I am saying ;oP I believe I have addressed the water ingestion issue three times on this blog already: the chined nose wheel - which works very nicely on other jets - has yet to be tested on the d-jet.

a37pilot said...

The reality of the oxygen use at extremely high altitude is this. When you have a small cabin, and I'm not picking on eclipse, because I would include all the CJ's in this group, and you have any significant pressurization incident, if you are able to don a mask and continue and then pat yourself on the back for your great piloting skill, remember this, you aren't that good, you just got lucky. Remember Payne Stewart.

bill e. goat said...

I think a lot of jets use a tire with a "flange" on the sidewall to deflect water. Maybe that is what is needed for Diamond.

rcflyer said...

jetaburner said,

"I believe it is now required to have TCAS and TAWS in all turbine aircraft. I can't imagine buying a jet without it."

The E500 is not required to have TAWS. See 14CFR 91.223 and 135.154.

I've never heard of any U.S. requirements for TCAS/TCAD, but there are a lot of things I've never heard of :)

Regulations aside, I would not fly a turbine without TAWS. TCAD is less important, but once you've used it, you won't want to be without it.

R.C.

Shane Price said...

Ken,

Memory 101.

After The Great Raburn took exception in the BC&A (July issue) to the report on a trip from San Deigo to Atlanta, a distance of 1,640nm. Vern insisted that the E500 (Tuesday edition) would do the trip nonstop, using less fuel than a TBM 850 and land with reserves.

On July 13th you wrote

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

I asked for clarity on which of you was right.

You said

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

You want to lecture me on what is 'practical' and then contradict yourself.

Shane

Stan Blankenship said...

jet fumes,

The D-Jet report covered nearly every issue technical, they did not address water ingestion.

Possible statements they could have made:

- They plan to use a chined tire

- They plan to use a mechanical shield (like the early Lears)

- They could tell us the airflow in the plenum ahead of the engine is expected to slow to the point that water will gravity separate thru a drain in the plenum.

- They could tell us their analysis indicates the spray will go under the wing and outboard of the inlets

- They could tell us their preliminary testing indicates they are not expecting a problem.

BTW, the preliminary testing is not that tough. Find a long runway not being used, build a shallow dike on centerline 3 ft x 20 ft half way down the runway, fill to the desired depth with water, accelerate the airplane to various speeds, chop the power before entering the water and watch the spray patterns

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't most business jets have a maximum depth limitation for water on the runway?

Shane Price said...

Gunner,

Did Vern not mention the LRU's?

I think you should, otherwise they might feel forgotten.

He also seems to be a bit reluctant to discuss the finer details of the delivery ramp.

And FIKI certification.

Oh, and Avio NG as well...

I asked Ken a few weeks ago what the priority was nowadays in Eclipse. Didn't get an answer from him or any other member of The Faithful.

Must mean there ARE no priorities.

You know what they say in the army 'fail to plan, plan to fail'

Guess even The Great Raburn has figured out by now that there is little or no point in worrying about the future.

There isn't one which includes the E499.5....

Shane

gadfly said...

Stan and “Jet Fumes”

Shivers go up and down my back when to talk about “water ingestion”, “spray”, “plenums”, “outboard inlets”, “drains”, etc. Water ingestion makes such a huge mess in the bilges . . . and diesels don’t seem to do too well on sea-water.

We had a simple solution: If a wave cut off induction air, the three-foot diameter snorkel intake valve would automatically close, and the diesels would simply “suck-air” from inside the pressure hull, until the “equivalent” altitude reached 3,000 feet . . . and then the diesels would automatically shut down. Of course the “passengers” (crew) might find their ears popping a lot . . . but after awhile you get used to that sort of thing.

And since Ken doesn’t seem to have a problem with using O2 at altitude, it’s probably a minor issue, at best.

Oh, that’s right! You were concerned about the “engines” . . . and (stupid me) I was back thinking about some earlier comments about O2 above 25,000 feet.

‘Sorry ‘bout that!

gadfly

Footnotes:

Interesting things begin to happen . . . real fast (even though everything seems to slow down) when a person runs out of O2 . . . either “deep” or “up high” . . . it’s a pleasant way to phase out. Been there, done that! But maybe it’s different when your only concern is about O2, and not combined with CO2.

Seriously: Do not take lightly the need for oxygen at altitude. There is no-one who can react quickly enough, should a depressurization take place in the “little jet” or any aircraft above 25,000 feet. The brain goes “limp” faster than you can possibly imagine.

Ken Meyer said...

airsafetyman wrote,

"What part of: "put on and use" don't you understand?"

I understand the entire set of oxygen regulations reasonably well, thank you.

But it seems maybe you do not understand those regulations since you concurred with gunner's assessment that "above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen.'"

That's just not true, and your continued insistence that it is true does not make it so. I think your knowledge of the FARs is a little weak on this issue.

The whole oxygen question is not just an idle issue for VLJ and light jet pilots. I do not expect to ever be required to "suck oxygen" despite routinely flying above FL 350. Having to wear an oxygen mask above FL350 would raise the hassle factor of gaining maximum utility out of any jet.

Ken

jetaburner said...

Gadfly-

According to Flight Safety and Simcom it takes 1min 30 sec for the average person to lose consciousness at FL310. 3 seconds for the average person at FL450.

There has never been a total loss of cabin pressure in a CJ series that I, or the instructors I've spoken with at Flight Safety, are aware of. That is somewhat reassuring at FL450. The e-clips has pushed the weight envelope and it will be interesting to see if over the long term with 1000s of cycles there will be any loss of pressurization issues in the e-clips. The windshield issues could be a warning of things to come.

FlightCenter said...

Time of Useful Consciousness (TUC)

You really do want that oxygen mask on above 35,000 feet.

Flight Level -- TUC
FL 250 -- 3 to 5 minutes
FL 350 -- 30 to 60 seconds
FL 400 -- 15 to 20 seconds
FL 430 -- 9 to 12 seconds

Notes

1) TUC is for a healthy, individual at rest.
2) Any exercise will decrease that time substantially.
3) A rapid decompression can reduce the TUC by up to 50 percent caused by the forced exhalation of the lungs during decompression and the extremely rapid rate of ascent.
4) There is evidence that TUC is shorter for people exposed to stressful conditions.


YMMV

jetaburner said...

Ken-

According to Flight Safety, where I received both of my type ratings, if there is only one pilot in the cockpit he or she must wear the oxygen mask above FL350. If it is a 2 person crew then only one of the pilots must wear the mask above FL410.

jetaburner said...

Flightcenter-

Thanks for the clarification. That jives with my previous comment about 3 seconds at FL450 and 90 seconds at FL310.

jetaburner said...

RCFlyer-

I believe 2 years ago the FAA came out with a requirement that all turbine powered aircraft with more than 6 seats are required to have TWAS and TCAS. I didn't pay much attention at the time as the TBM and CJ2 were already equipped so I could be somewhat mistaken.

airsafetyman said...

Ken,

Again, what part of the regulations don't you understand? I quoted them in detail earlier.

jetaburner said...

airsafetyman-

In Ken's case it is called denial....

Same with the range and performance numbers which he qouted earlier as 4 people and 1300nm (vfr) range. Using the e-clips owners own perfomance spreadsheet and the e-clips website I showed that the only way that was possible is if you didn't get any options (no TCAS, Skywatch, Stormscope, TAWS, etc.) and after a very improbable (both from ATC and the plane's own lack of performance) direct climb and descent to FL410 you would land with 168 lbs of fuel which is less than 30 minutes at FL410!! But he still insists it can go 1300nm safely. Maybe he is planning on shutting down the engines for the descent to save fuel.

airsafetyman said...

Jetaburner,

Thanks, most prople would just say "Ooops, I was wrong, thanks for the correction", but not this guy. Scary, really.

WhyTech said...

jab said:

"I believe 2 years ago the FAA came out with a requirement that all turbine powered aircraft with more than 6 seats are required to have TWAS and TCAS."

Pretty sure thats TAWS only. But as others stated, once you've used TAWS, TCAS, and NEXRAD, you dont want to leave home without them.

WT

FlightCenter said...

JetA,

Your recollection was right that the regulation required TAWS for turbine aircraft with 6 seats, but the regulation actually specifies turbine aircraft with 6 or more passenger seats.

Since the E500 doesn't have 6 passenger seats, it isn't required to be equipped with TAWS.


In March 2000, the FAA issued 2 rules, one for part 91 operations and one for part 135 operations that requires all turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplanes type certificated to have six or more passenger seats (exclusive of pilot and copilot seating), be equipped with an FAA-approved terrain awareness and warning
system.

Sec. 91.223 - Terrain awareness and warning system.

(a) Airplanes manufactured after March 29, 2002. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplane configured with six or more passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that as a minimum meets the requirements for Class B equipment in Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C151.

Sec. 135.154

Terrain awareness and warning system.

(a) Airplanes manufactured after March 29, 2002:
(1) No person may operate a turbine-powered airplane configured with 10 or more passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that meets the requirements for Class A equipment in Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C151. The airplane must also include an approved terrain situational awareness display.
(2) No person may operate a turbine-powered airplane configured with 6 to 9 passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that meets as a minimum the requirements for Class B equipment in Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C151.

TSO C151b

WhyTech said...

jab said:

"Talking about wx in a turboprop vs. jet. I've flown both across the country many, many, times in both. The jet is really nice at FL450. But the fact is that in the winter, the high 20s keeps you clear of all of the weather in most parts of the country. "

Just completed a trip in my PC-12 today KASH-KMNM-KASH (Nashua, NH, Menominee, MI) round trip of about 1450 nm, to visit Enstrom Helicopter. Wheels up at 9:00AM, back in the hangar in NH by 5:30 PM and this included a two hour lunch meeting. Penetrated a fairly active cold front going and coming and had to make only two minor deviations for buildups to FL400. This has been typical in my experince with a turboprop which performs well at FL290-FL300. Are there days when FL410 or higher would be better? Sure, but not so many that it becomes a significant issue, IMO.

WT

jetaburner said...

WT-

I agree. I find that in my TBM, which has RVSM, I have to deviate a little in the summer and never in the winter. In the CJ2 at FL450 I almost never have to deviate during cruise. But it isn't really that significant of a difference. You can just nap at FL450 because you don't have to look out the window. Just kidding!!!

FlightCenter said...

The FAA requires TCAS I (TSO C118) for commuter aircraft with 10 to 30 passenger seats.

The FAA requires TCAS II (TSO C119) for Part 121 aircraft with 31 or more passenger seats. TCAS II systems provide Resolution Advisorys (RAs).

Part 91 or Part 135 do not require that the E500 be equipped with a traffic system.

While many people use the term TCAS to describe all traffic systems, the Skywatch HP system provided as an option on the E500 is a TAS system that meets the requirements of TSO C147.

TAS TSO C147 traffic systems have lower power and lower range than TCAS systems and cost and weigh substantially less than TCAS systems.

planet-ex said...

The whole oxygen question is not just an idle issue for VLJ and light jet pilots. I do not expect to ever be required to "suck oxygen" despite routinely flying above FL 350. Having to wear an oxygen mask above FL350 would raise the hassle factor of gaining maximum utility out of any jet.

Ken, what part of the FAR don't you understand?

Plain language from AC 61-107A:

"(3) Title 14 CFR section 91.211(b) requires pressurized aircraft to have at least a 10-minute additional supply of supplemental oxygen for each occupant at flight altitudes above FL 250 in the event of a decompression. At flight altitudes above FL 350, one pilot at the controls of the airplane must wear and use an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed. The oxygen mask must supply oxygen at all times or must automatically supply oxygen when the cabin pressure altitude of the airplane exceeds 14,000 feet MSL. An exception to this regulation exists for two-pilot crews that operate at or below FL 410. One pilot does not need to wear and use an oxygen mask if both pilots are at the controls and each pilot has a quick donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position and be properly secured, sealed, and operational within 5 seconds. If one pilot of a two-pilot crew is away from the controls, then the pilot that is at the controls must wear and use an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed."

Obviously, you can't read the FARs. So you are saying that if the Eclipse gets single pilot certification, you never plan on using oxygen? If so, say hello to Payne Stewart if you see him.

Also, I bet you've never been through high-altitude training in an altitude chamber. I'm not talking about that mamby-pamby high-altitude training that Eclipse is using (no altitude chamber but a breathing restrictio nmask). If you ever had been through an altitude chamber session (I have) with an explosive decompression at 25,000 feet, you'd have more respect for the FARs and hypoxia.

At least Flight Safety and SimuFlite offer the altitude chamber for high-altitude training which, as I understand, Eclipse does not.

Ken Meyer said...

airsafetyman wrote,

"Again, what part of the regulations don't you understand?"

No part.

It is you that misunderstands the regulations.

The regulations do not require a pilot to use oxygen above FL350. It's all right there in FAR 91.211.

Read the FARs again, a little more carefully this time, and then we'll talk.

Ken

planet-ex said...

I should add for Ken's education:

TUC at Altitude (from the same AC):

25,000 - 3 to 5 minutes
30,000 - 1 to 2 minutes
35,000 - 30 to 60 seconds
40,000 - 15 to 20 seconds
43,000 - 9 to 12 seconds

TUC is roughly halved with an rapid decompression.

I'm wondering...does the Eclipse have an emergency pressurization system (i.e., bleed air straight from the engines)?

planet-ex said...

BS Ken:

What don't you understand about this sentence?

At flight altitudes above FL 350, one pilot at the controls of the airplane must wear and use an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed.

The exception to this rule is if there are two pilots and quick donning masks are available. Does the Eclipse has EROS masks on board and where are they located?

WhyTech said...

jab said:

" In the CJ2 at FL450 I almost never have to deviate "

But, there are no airports with a field elevation of FL450, at least not yet. So even the jets must climb and descend through the wx at lower alititudes. Admittedly the time spent in climb and descent is a relatively small portion of most flights, but during this time period, even a jet is vulnerable.

WT

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"No part."

So Ken, have you actually ever done this?

WT

jetaburner said...

WT-

Absolutely. A jet is just as vulnerable to weather as a turboprop in the departure and approach segment which of course is the most critical part of flight.

Ken Meyer said...

Planet ex wrote,

"BS Ken:

What don't you understand about this sentence?

At flight altitudes above FL 350, one pilot at the controls of the airplane must wear and use an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed."


I understand it.

I also understand the sentence that follows it:

"the one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen mask while at or below flight level 410 if there are two pilots at the controls and each pilot has a quick-donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position within 5 seconds, supplying oxygen and properly secured and sealed."

Many of us operate or will operate under this part of the regulation.

And under this regulation, what gunner wrote ("above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen'") is entirely untrue.

Nobody here was shy about citing the O2 requirement yet nobody here seemed to have actually read it. Weird.

Ken

jetaburner said...

Ken-

I'm really amazed at your denial regarding wearing O2 above FL350. The regs have been reproduced and it is clear as day: If you are flying single pilot, then you must wear O2 above FL350. This is exactly what they taught me at Flight Safety when I received my SP type rating for a CJ2.

Aren't you at NBAA? Why don't you go ask an FAA rep or even e-clips. No maybe not e-clips since they seem to make up their own rules, ask a reputable company like Cessna.

rcflyer said...

planet-ex said,

"Does the Eclipse has EROS masks on board and where are they located?"

The E500 comes standard with one quick-donning diluter-demand mask. In the standard configuration, the mask for the right seat pops out of the instrument panel. It's a constant-flow mask, like the passenger masks.

If you purchase the copilot package or the Part 135 option, then the right seat is equipped with a quick-don mask identical to the pilot's.

The cup for the mask is installed on top of the seatback, next to the headrest.

I don't remember if the masks are manufactured by Eros, but they are the same type as modern Eros masks, with an inflatable harness.

R.C.

Ken Meyer said...

JetA wrote,

"The regs have been reproduced and it is clear as day: If you are flying single pilot..."

Right.

But that wasn't the claim.

The claim was "above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen.'" That's not true, unless you're operating without a copilot or don't have quick don masks.

This isn't rocket science guys. Why is there so much trouble reading and interpreting this relatively simple regulation (as FARs go) among this particular group of supposedly knowledgeable aviation enthusiasts? You guys all dropped a notch in my book :).

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Methinks Ken is 'taking credit' for the Nanny-pilot (2 pilots with quick-don masks ala Eros) and after he graduates potty-training taking credit for his pilot wife Sherri (sp?), at least when she isn't out flying 'her' Mustang he bragged about possibly buying her.

Serious question for the class, if you are taking a non-type-rated but licensed pilot for a joy-ride bragging-rights $800 hamburger flight, does he\she qualify under the reg's as a 'pilot' to eliminate the mask requirement?

Methinks 'not' but I am honestly not sure.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Yes Virginia, the self-presenting co-pilot mask does NOT qualify, only a co-pilot quick-don mask counts, along with an actual co-pilot (required crew should be appropriately typed and meet currency and other requirements).

HAL NfG does not count as a co-pilot BTW.

How much weight does the co-pilot kit take? If the kit is not installed, somebody will be sucking O2 above FL350 even with 2 rated pilots aboard - no questions asked.

Is the co-pilot kit already certified and actually available? Mod's like this are typically via STC (but could be variants or even 8110's, depends on how Eclipse is handling configuration management for options).

rcflyer said...

planet-ex said,

"I'm not talking about that mamby-pamby high-altitude training that Eclipse is using (no altitude chamber but a breathing restrictio nmask)."

Eclipse do not use a breathing restriction mask. They use a Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device (ROBD). There is no restriction in your breathing, but you are breathing a gas mixture which has an oxygen partial pressure (ppO2) which corresponds to high altitudes.

While there are both advantages and disadvantages to hypobaric chambers and ROBD's, one of the advantages of the ROBD is that it better simulates insidious hypoxia, of the type that is suspected of killing Payne Stewart and his flight crew.

There is no sudden pressure drop, no noticeable decompression, just gradually worsening hypoxia.

While chambers are useful for exploring hypoxia signs and symptoms, the exercise is an artificial one, since you know when the hypoxia event occurs. With an ROBD, you can be concentrating on flying a flight simulator while they sneak the ppO2 down to hypoxic levels.

By the way, I've done the chamber ride. I also got my high altitude endorsement from Flight Safety. The endorsement did not involve any chamber work.

R.C.

airsafetyman said...

Ken,

If you are going to operate your Eclipse single pilot under part 91 of the Federal Air Regulations you will "put on and use" an oxygen mask above 35,000 feet. Period. The exemption for two pilots not having to wear the masks below 41,000 feet as long as quick donning masks were available and both crewmen were at their stations was listed in my earlier reply this morning. You have added nothing new to the discussion, except that you plan to find a copilot to fly with you when you operate above 35,000 feet.

gadfly said...

To avoid the problem, our "friend" will simply drop down to 34,950 feet . . . and turn on the N2O feed to his mask.

gadfly

(Fortunately for the rest of us, the paperclips will seldom get up to that altitude.)

The Real Frank Castle said...

Cessna got this year's NBAA off to a record setting start with the Citation Mustang flying a commemorative flight on Sept 22 from New York to Atlanta, marking both the 60th anniversary of the NBAA and the 100th anniversay of the first powered aircraft flight in Georgia, site of this year's NBAA convention.

Upon the Mustang's arrival at Atlanta's Peachtree-DeKalb Airport (PDK), Cessna submitted the required paperwork to the National Aeronautic Association to have the flight recognized as setting the first speed record in the newly created Very Light Jet class. Once the results are certified by the NAA, a presentation is scheduled to be made at NBAA.

Twenty-seven Mustangs have been delivered, in the United States, Australia, and Europe. Besides those locations, it is also certified in Mexico and Venezuela, with certification in Brazil imminent.

The Real Frank Castle said...

Also from happydaysforjets....

Largest Single Order To Date For VLJ

The hits just keep on coming for Cessna at NBAA 2007. At a Tuesday briefing in Atlanta, the planemaker announced a 30-plane order for its Citation Mustang light jet from an unnamed European customer.

"This is a very significant order on a number of fronts," said Trevor Esling, Cessna vice president, International Sales. "Foremost, it is a departure from our usual customer profile and shows the Mustang is very attractive to the large-fleet air-taxi market. It is telling evidence of the suitability of the Mustang for the European market. It also demonstrates the durability of the airframe for the demands of high-utilization operators."

The order represents the largest single order-to-date for the Mustang, Cessna's answer to the very-light-jet marketplace. Most of Cessna's 350-plus orders for the Mustang are from individual owner-operators, corporate flight departments or smaller-fleet charter companies.

The Citation Mustang became the first of a new category of entry-level jets to achieve full certification from the Federal Aviation Administration -- in September 2006 -- and the European Aviation Safety Agency in May 2007. The aircraft also is certified in Australia, Mexico and Venezuela, with certification in Brazil imminent.

The six-place Mustang has a top speed of 340 knots, a range of 1,150 nautical miles (with NBAA IFR Reserves) and a service ceiling of 41,000 feet enabling more efficient operations above most weather and commercial traffic.

The Real Frank Castle said...

From the last thread.....

Whats-her-name sez...

"If the exchange is meaningful (ie Ken Meyer) there is a lot for a novice like myself to learn."

OK, learn this. Oh, wait, you already know how to attack people.

As I do.

Kenny sez...

"Nope. I flew to Atlanta to be at NBAA. Company send you? Or you too low down the totem pole?"

Good cheap shot there, Kenny. Makes me proud.

You actually went back on your word that you wouldn't reply to anymore of my posts.

Glad to see you still craw-dad with the best of 'em.

Ken Meyer said...

airsafetyman wrote,

If you are going to operate your Eclipse single pilot under part 91 of the Federal Air Regulations you will "put on and use" an oxygen mask above 35,000 feet. Period."

Of course. You must follow the rule outlined in FAR 91.211 (b)(ii). That rule does not say "above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen.'"

Gunner said it did. You commended him for accurately reporting the regulation even though he was flatout wrong.

You were both wrong. Now you seem to want to say, "...but what I really meant was...."

I am amused.

Ken

The Real Frank Castle said...

BTW, if I ever want to spoil a perfectly good company-paid vacation, I'll let you know, so we can meet wherever.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

Your most recent Parsing-Technology treatment from the Church of Flyantology must have been a doozy.

YOU are the one backtracking, the reg's clearly show you to have been wrong and now you want to argue over 'sucking oxygen' vs. the REQUIREMENT to wear a mask.

When does your 'position' turn into a jet?

airsafetyman said...

Ken,

Perhaps this 337 accident will amuse you further. They only got to 27,700 feet.

"The pilot of the unpressurized airplane was cleared to climb to 25,000 feet by air traffic control (ATC) and he was observed going through the assigned altitude and leveling at 27,700 feet. Then the aircraft was observed at 26,000 feet, and subsequent contact was lost. The pilot did not respond when ATC queried him about exceeding his assigned altitude. The aircraft sustained an inflight breakup during an uncontrolled descent, and came to rest in a tree. According to the surviving passenger, the airplane was refueled and a portable oxygen bottle was filled prior to takeoff. She stated that they were going to take aerial photographs at four separate locations during this flight. She said that they shot three of the locations and landed at Williamsburg, Pennsylvania where the pilot filed a flight plan and setup the portable oxygen system for their use during the next flight. They departed and climbed to 10,000 feet, and the pilot told her to put her oxygen mask on, and he did the same. The last altitude she remembered the pilot calling out was 20,000 feet, and he asked her how she was doing and if she felt okay and she said yes. When asked, 'who turned on the oxygen?' she stated that she did, started to but wasn't sure how, so, the pilot reached back and turned it on. She said she knew it was on because she could feel the cool air and that there was a little valve in both lines and they went from red to green indicating the oxygen was flowing. She said that she remembered him saying that they had just crossed 20,000 feet and she began feeling dizzy, she said that her eyes would not focus, and that she felt like she was cross eyed. She said she told the pilot that she was dizzy but she thought that he was talking to the tower because he did not respond. She recalled that she felt better when she closed her eyes, when she did, that was the last thing she clearly remembered until after the crash. Analytical testing of the contents of each cylinder used to fill the pilot's oxygen bottle found that they contained compressed breathing air at about 21 percent oxygen instead of aviation oxygen. Postmortem examination revealed the pilot's death was a result of hypoxic hypoxia due to insufficient oxygen reaching the blood."

gadfly said...

a-saf-man

Ken will now attempt to "prove" that the dead pilot was "legal".

gadfly

Ken Meyer said...

Interesting article in Flight International's 9/25 issue...

First Euro Eclipse 500 en route to Ukraine buyer

The first European Eclipse 500 will land in Ukraine in early October when its new owner, Evgeniy Chervonenko, governor of the Zaporozhiy region state administration, takes delivery of aircraft serial number 28 from Eclipse secondary market provider, Single-Pilot Jet Management (SPJM), the top reseller of the $1.8 million very light jets. Pete Zaccagnino, an Eclipse 500 Mentor Pilot with numerous ocean crossings, will deliver the aircraft.

SPJM president Mike Press says the sale highlights growing interest in the Eclipse in Europe -15 of the 30 Eclipse 500 sales made over the past three months for 2008 positions are to European customers. SPJM in total has sold more than 75 pre-owned Eclipse 500 jets and delivery positions to date, says Press.

To better capture the European demand, Press has formed a partnership with Sabena Flight Academy Consulting, a Brussels-based company affiliated with the Sabena Flight Academy airline training company. Press says Sabena will handle sales and service of pre-owned Eclipse 500 jets and delivery positions in Europe and will have its own website linking to SPJM's inventory. Sabena will focus on both eastern and western Europe.

Press says the first factory Eclipse set for a European buyer will be aircraft number 51, which will be delivered to its owner after making a visit to the Dubai air show in mid-November.

Serial number 28 is RVSM capable and has pitot-static system fixes, but Press says it will have to be returned to Eclipse at some point to have its aerodynamic performance modifications and Avio NG integrated avionics installed. Chervonecko also purchased serial number 172 to be delivered in December with AvioNG, international options and aero modifications, says Press.

The Real Frank Castle said...

So, until unit 51, Euro-folks have to put up with a used Eclipse.

While most are enjoying a NEW Mustang.

A USED ECLIPSE.

That's a lot to brag about.

The Real Frank Castle said...

And, #28 has to go back to "Pa-pa" because of IOU's.

Oh, maybe it'll get FIKI when it comes back, too.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

I wonder who pays for the fuel and ferry crew to return Evgeniy Chervonenko's "$1.8M" jet from the Ukraine all the way to Eclipse in ABQ for the fixes that Cheerleader Press says it will need?

So the bar has been lowered so far that NOT having FIKI, Avio NfG and the Aero-mods is 'good' news.

Is it just me or is Eclipse really sucking for good news this year at NBAA? Greenest Jet, JT and a half-baked euro-delivery of a partially completed would-be jet that will have to return HALFWAY AROUND THE PLANET to be completed at a 'later-date'.

Vern and crew must not have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, they seem way of their game this go around.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

To clarify for the nit-picking ankle-biters from the Church of Flyantology, 'halfway around the planet' is a rough approximation and in no way meant to suggest that ABQ is exactly halfway around the planet from Ukraine.

rcflyer said...

cwmor,

Dang, you were a little too fast in qualifying "halfway around the planet."

:)

R.C.

gadfly said...

The last thing imported by the Ukraine from the "west" was a "Yugo" . . . so in their mind, this is an improvement.

gadfly

(Imagine . . . 75 used, er, "pre-owned" paperclips out of 52 "delivered" . . . Amazing!)

Troglodyte said...

How is the Eclipse certificated with regard to number of pilots needed? Are there separate type ratings for crew operation and single pilot like the CitationJet (i.e. CE-525 and CE-525S)? Under what circumstances can the Eclipse be operated as a two pilot operation with a SIC?

If Ken is suggesting that you don’t have to use O2 if there are two pilots I would ask under what circumstances are two pilots required on the Eclipse? Clearly if instruction were being given by an appropriately rated CFI or if a safety pilot were required or for part 135 where the op specs specified a crew, then you are a two pilot operation. Otherwise, wouldn’t it be just like a Baron – you might have a certificated pilot in the right seat, but they are not acting in the capacity of a pilot for that flight – and the single pilot would need to wear O2 above 35,000 ft?

Trog

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Thanks RCF, not my first time around the block with these guys, ;^)

Great circle distance from Zaporozhye to KABQ is 6,240 nautical miles, with routings it would be closer to 9,000 miles.

Halfway around the planet, using the median circumference and ignoring altitude effects is more like 10,700 nm.

rcflyer said...

cwmor,

I must have told you a million times to stop exaggerating.

R.C.

gadfly said...

It's not all that far . . . as the "Croatian" flies.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Can you imagine?

18,000 nm - even at 350 kt block speeds is almost 52 hrs of flight time round trip.

Even at the much vaunted .8 lb\nm fuel efficiency that is still something like $7500 USD just for round trip fuel - factor in 2 4 day ferry crews at about $1K\day plus expenses, and you are looking at serious coin to return home for mods that should have been applied before anyone had the cajones to deliver this aborted fetus jet in the first place.

Literally, $17K (give or take a couple grand) for the return home AND back to the Ukraine, PLUS the parts and labor of ripping out the ENTIRE central nervous system of the plane, ripping off the tip tanks and several fairings, installing new structure, repainting to match, installing new hardware and software and ensuring they play well together - and that is just a few items right off the top of my head.

Hello Faithful, Charlie Foxtrot calling.......

Ken Meyer said...

troglodyte wrote,

"under what circumstances are two pilots required on the Eclipse?"

When it is being operated as a 2-pilot aircraft :)

Joking aside, the plane is certificated to be operated with either:

A. One pilot provided:

-Pilot occupies the left seat
-Autopilot is operative
-One headset mounted microphone is used
-One transponder IDENT button is on sidestick control
-QRH is available to pilot

OR

B. One pilot and one copilot provided:

-Quick-don O2 masks with built-in microphones are operative on both sides
-COM source select switches are operational on the pilot and co-pilot sides

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

IOW, there are no single-pilot Eclipse's right now due to lack of full autopilot functionality, right Ken?

Troglodyte said...

Ken:

Thank you. Are there separate type ratings for crew (SIC required) and single pilot operations?

Trog

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"IOW, there are no single-pilot Eclipse's right now due to lack of full autopilot functionality, right Ken?"

No. That's wrong. The 51 delivered planes are being flown single-pilot a lot of the time.

Ken

Metal Guy said...

You mean the autopilot is not fully functional? I thought they had this one nailed like a year ago (minus the auto-throttle).

Does ANYTHING actually “work for real” on this plane?

Yipes.

Ken Meyer said...

Trog wrote,

"Thank you. Are there separate type ratings for crew (SIC required) and single pilot operations?"

Theoretically, yes. The FAA Flight Standardization Board says there are two available type ratings:

EA-500, the 2-pilot crew rating, and
EA-500S, the single-pilot rating.

In practice, to my knowledge, there haven't been any 2-pilot ratings requested or granted. It is possible there are some I'm not aware of.

Ken

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
baron95 said...

First Independent Report on Flying EA500+aeromods.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/mh/nbaa092607/

Some scary stuff about that outpilot (1/2 way though the article). I am amazed this was actually certified.

The autopilot exhibits a rocking motion from side to side wenever it is on a notherly heading!!!! Does not happen southbound.

The autopilot is hunting in pitch on descent near redline - not what you want.

The autopilot disconnected by itself on descent multiple times. Ouch. You are descending at redline speed, and boom autopilot disconnects. Not good.

Raburn was on the flight and caution pilot flying to go easy on the brakes as 100psi tires with no anti-skid will cause the tires to blow easily.

baron95 said...

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/
mh/nbaa092607/

Trying one more time.

AlexA said...

There is been a lot of criticism of the full fuel payload capacity of a well equipped Eclipse 500 (around 620-650lbs depending on options). I am surprised that the D-Jet’s full fuel payload capacity is 500lbs. Am I missing something or did I misinterpret the D-Jet Flyer?

According to Peter Maurer’s report the aircraft was at full gross with him and the test pilot? SN001 does not have pressurization or environmental systems. Maybe test equipment? Could someone shed some light?

Niner Zulu said...

Alexa,

I believe you are correct. Payload with full fuel on the Djet is around 500 lbs. I don't think they are advertising it as a long range heavy hauler, but it is definitely limiting if you have a family of four - I'm not sure it's going to work for us.

Every plane is a compromise. Fortunately there are a lot of choices on the horizon.

Redtail said...

9Z said ... I believe you are correct. Payload with full fuel on the Djet is around 500 lbs. I don't think they are advertising it as a long range heavy hauler, but it is definitely limiting if you have a family of four.

And there you have it. That's why Gunner bought three - it doesn't have the capacity to carry much, so you need three, and besides, no one could stand to be in the same limited cabin with him for too long. It's all much clearer now.

WhyTech said...

b95 said:

"The autopilot exhibits a rocking motion from side to side wenever it is on a notherly heading!!!! "

What's the big deal Just dont fly North.

WT

Ken Meyer said...

baron95 wrote,

"Raburn was on the flight and caution pilot flying to go easy on the brakes as 100psi tires with no anti-skid will cause the tires to blow easily."

That's not what Fred George (the author of that nice article) actually wrote. What he wrote was, "Its 100 psi main tire can easily be flat-spotted or blown out if you have lead feet on the rudder pedals."

What that means is that you use brakes like you would for your Baron; not like you would for a CJ. In the CJ, the AFM permits (indeed recommends) that the pilot apply maximum pressure to the brake pedals upon touchdown for maximum braking performance. That's what you do in a plane with antilock braking--the system will prevent lockup, so you're supposed to stomp on the brakes if you want minimal ground roll. In the Eclipse, as with most GA aircraft of its weight class, the pilot is expected to apply the brakes prudently and exercise some degree of skill because the wheels will lock if you stomp on the brakes. One doesn't need antilock brakes in a plane with maximum landing weight of 5600 lbs.

The key part of that nice article was at the end:

"The Eclipse is very close to making advertised book speeds. We believe it's now a 370 KTAS aircraft at FL 300...At FL 410, you'll still be able to cruise at 350 KTAS and fuel flow drops to 345 pph--that's just over 51 gph, so its fuel efficiency in cruise is highly competitive with high performance piston twins."

Jet speeds with piston twin efficiency. That's the takehome message of this review. And one reason why there are 2700 orders for this aircraft.

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

So Ken,

You are stating, categorically, that Eclipse's are being flown single-pilot, above FL350, and that the wing-wagging heading hold and sort of pitch hold function are deemed 'adequate' even though the requirement is for a functining autopilot?

Just to be clear.

Are those single pilots wearing their mask as REQUIRED by the law - or are they skirting that regulation like the functioning autopilot requirement?

Inquiring minds want to know.

BTW, it is OK to say you don't actually know any of this for a fact if you want to avoid having to reparse your own words later.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

No Ken, the take home message is that the marginal plane is less a plane than was suspected.

The take home message is that the autopilot disconnected on its own 'several times' during the descent, and it is having difficulty keeping the wings level and avoiding the kind of motions that passengers (especially the paying kind that DayJet hopes to attract) will find annoying at best and downright vomit inducing at worse.

The take home message is that the CEO-cum-prophet his own self cautioned the pilot to 'go easy on the brakes' because the tires are easily flatspotted because unlike the REAL jets L. Vern Raburn and the Church of Flyantology want to compare their product with, this one does NOT have ABS.

That it meets or slightly best its mediocre book performance (applies to all VLJ's in my book) is meaningless when taken in context of the much larger, much gloomier picture.

Context Ken, the take home message is context.

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"it is having difficulty keeping the wings level and avoiding the kind of motions that passengers (especially the paying kind that DayJet hopes to attract) will find annoying at best and downright vomit inducing at worse."

Oh, what baloney! You're a funny guy, thanks for that.

The thing rocks 2 degrees and you think that's "vomit inducing." OK.

Didn't you say you're a pilot? I've been in lots of planes with a 2 degree recurrent rock to them. I suspect they'll fix it; don't worry so much, silly guy.

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken, your ability to ignore direct questions and obvious problems for the Eclipse, and focus instead on the minutia of the bright side is a gift, truly a gift.

You and Eclipse deserve each other - they want a customer who will not hold their feet to the fire and forgive each and every transgression or failure with a cheery Oliver-esque 'please sir can I have some more' - and you, you want a cheap jet.

Ignorance is bliss as they say, maybe I will leave you alone - you are not interested in a frank and honest discussion of the facts, you ignore context when it paints a bad picture of the wee-jet (finances, structural and assembly issues, Avio NfG, repeated disintegrations of key vendor realtions, the ever present and lowering bar of expectation, etc.), and you highlight and exxagerate context (i.e., tailwinds and ounces of fuel burn) when it looks to prove a small point you are interested in.

So long as you and your lawn dart aren't directly overhead, what passes as your ADM 'skills' will only effect you and any unfortunate passengers - wish that I could guarantee that would be the case all the time, I would feel safer.

airsafetyman said...

The governor of the Ukraine takes delivery of an Eclipse without ice capability? Should be an interesting winter for him.

airsafetyman said...

"One doesn't need antilock brakes in a plane with maximum landing weight of 5600 lbs."

How about a 5,995 pound aircraft on take-off that has just lost an engine before rotation. On a wet, slick, short runway. With the governor of the Ukraine on board. Does he need anti-lock? Maybe thrust reversers, too?

FlightCenter said...

Ken said,

"I do not expect to ever be required to "suck oxygen" despite routinely flying above FL 350. Having to wear an oxygen mask above FL350 would raise the hassle factor of gaining maximum utility out of any jet.

Ken

5:51 PM, September 26, 2007"


AND this morning

"The key part of that nice article was at the end:

"The Eclipse is very close to making advertised book speeds. We believe it's now a 370 KTAS aircraft at FL 300...At FL 410, you'll still be able to cruise at 350 KTAS and fuel flow drops to 345 pph--that's just over 51 gph, so its fuel efficiency in cruise is highly competitive with high performance piston twins."

It would seem from those two statements that you aren't planning to experience the fuel efficiency of flying at FL 410.

The Fred George article also said, "... FL 340 north of Bakersfield. At that altitude, the aircraft cruised at 355 KTAS while burning 450 pph in ISA+5°C conditions."

If I understand your positions correctly, you would rather stay in the 30s and burn 100 pph more, rather than experiencing the hassle factor of wearing a mask in trade for gaining the fuel efficiencies of FL 410.

These are the same fuel efficiencies that you have pointed to as one of the key pillars of the Eclipse value proposition.

The fuel efficiencies at FL 410 are also key to making the range numbers that we've discussed so often.

Ken Meyer said...

FC wrote,

"If I understand your positions correctly, you would rather stay in the 30s and burn 100 pph more, rather than experiencing the hassle factor of wearing a mask"

No; that's not it at all.

Ken

jet_fumes said...

Alexa said "Maybe test equipment? Could someone shed some light?"

An escape system quickly pulls the pilot seats back to the door level in high g-load conditions. Very heavy stuff. And a proof of concept is typically overbuilt by a wide margin.

airsafetyman said...

Flightcenter

Ken had apparently rather hire a copilot than fly single pilot at altitude and use oxygen. The fact that his additional payload with a copilot will be one family member and a medium-sized gerbil is lost on him.

FlightCenter said...

Ken,

Are you planning to fly your Eclipse at FL 410?

FC

FlightCenter said...

Alexa and 9Z,

Can you point out the part of the D-Jet newsletter that left you with the impression that the aircraft has a 500 pound fuel capacity?

I read it twice, but didn't see any mention of fuel capacity.

Aero-News.Net ran an article that claimed

"The five-passenger D-Jet is expected to cruise at a maximum speed of 315 knots, at an altitude of 25,000 ft while offering range of 1,351 nm -- which translates to a decidedly un-jetlike fuel burn around 34 gallons per hour."

That sentence would seem to require a lot more than 500 pounds of fuel on board.

1351 nm / 315 kts = 4.3 hours

4.3 hours x 34 gph = 146 gallons

146 gallons x 6.84 ppg = 997 lbs.

planet-ex said...

If that autopilot is not fully functional, you're in violation of FARs and the MEL if you operate single-pilot. I suggest you read the MEL Ken.

M) May be inoperative provided:
a) Aircraft is operated with a crew of two,
b) Yaw Damper is verified to be operative,
c) Stall Warning System and Stick Pusher are operative, and
d) Aircraft is not operated in RVSM airspace.


You're starting to scare me Ken with your cavalier attitude about oxygen use and other things...

Niner Zulu said...

Flightcenter - you must have misread what we wrote. The Djet will carry full fuel AND have 500 lbs of payload remaining for passengers & luggage

jetaburner said...

9Z-

I don't see how Dayjet can carry 500lbs of payload after they have installed the part 135 package and other basic options. Running the numbers on the e-clips site I come out with 636lbs of payload with full fuel and no pilot depending on total options installd. After you add the pilot, 170lbs, you have 466 lbs for people and bags. That's for a plane with the bare essentials installed:
- No 6th seat
- no LX edition interior
- no entertainment package
- no refreshment center

Niner Zulu said...

Jetaburner,
That's the Diamond Djet, not the Eclipse Dayjet

jetaburner said...

9Z-

My bad. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

FlightCenter said...

9Z,

You are right, I must have misread your comments. Thank you for the clarification.

Has anyone seen a spec from Diamond on the D-Jet fuel capacity?

airtaximan said...

from NBAA:

The VLJ/Air taxi panel included Satsair with its SR-22 single engine prop. They report flying thousands of revenue hours a month. It strikes me as comical that a single engine prop plane is perfectly suitable for Air Taxi according to their customer traffic, but certain folks remain vocal and skeptical about market acceptance for single engine jets in this market.

Speaking about the single engine VLJs like D-jet and The-jet Vern Raburn concluded that HIS e-500 was a better option because his twin burns less fuel tahn the single fanjets.

Interesting how MRO (a big cost driver) on TWO engines is TWICE the cost of the singles. Someone on the panel quickly corrected his sound-bite on fuel burn savings, with this little fact. Also, the $300,000 savings on acquasition cost makes a difference as well.

Funny, how this year, there seemed to be cold water thrown on most of Vern's sound-bite arguments for his plane vs the rest, especially regarding the taxi market. There was Linear and Dayjet pumping how great e-clips' plane is, and how accordingto their focus groups customers like it very much... but somehow, the guy with thousands of flights in his little prop 4-place on the panel was conspicuously included on the VLJ/air taxi panel... and he seemed very optimistic about HIS plans and quietly confident in his equipment.

It was fun to watch Vern and Ed state emphatically that cabin size (small) was not an issue in all the market studies that they conducted, while Embraer, Diamond, Cessna ets als stated their research proved otherwise. Dayjet dismissed the concern for the e-500 cramped quarters as a "myth", and use the following logic as back up: "We asked folks in a focus group if they would pay MORE for a larger cabin... and they all said NO" - I wondered, given the price already at $3 or $4 per mile, why would anyone would say "yes" to paying MORE? (I wonder if Dayjet asked their focus group how they felt about perhaps paying "MORE" when they were advertising the price at $1-$3 per mile? I doubt anyone cheered and said "YES". They then raised the price 25%..hmmm...

On the accusation that there's a "myth" being perpetuated (I guess by Cessna, Diamond, Cirrus and Embraer, Honda....BIG conspiracy?) that customers prefer a larger cabin... one should reflect on the doublespeak:

Eclipse says: E-500 was designed for the air taxi market - twin engines, 5 (or 6) place, no lav...

In reality, a SINGLE ENGINE PROP plane with 4 places flown single pilot is perfectly acceptable to thousands of passengers already -doing the same mission as many of Dayjets planned routes.

Perhaps the myth is E-clips - the plane designed with 2 jet engines and 3 or 4 passenger seats, is for the air taxi market? A lot of "myths" addressed by SATSair here - props are unacceptable... single pilot... 2 passenger seats, flies low... slow... seems to be doing the job just fine for thousands of newcomers to the market using Satsair...for a plane that e-clips and Dayjet determined is unacceptable as an air taxi and are replacing with a twin jet at 5x the cost, and some more room, which they admit their customers don't care about. Hmmm...

Just a thought.

PS. everyone I spoke with at the conference agreed that e-clips is in for a major financial event, soon. They are doing extremely porrly, and the silence at NBAA (except for a few nasty remarks by Vern to the press and at the VLJ/Air Taxi conference) is telling. Nothing they say passes the giggle test any longer.

Just one air taximan's view. A lot happening at NBAA this year, the industry is booming and everyone's orderbooks are expanding dramatically - except you know who.

Niner Zulu said...

If Eclipse would use their money to finish the E500 rather than continue to spend more than any other manufacturer in history on endless marketing and hype, they might earn some respect from their colleagues at NBAA.

By the way, here's a link to day 3 news from the NBAA show:

NBAA Show News

ExEclipser said...

RE: "The five-passenger D-Jet..."

Saw this little bird at NBAA. There are 5 seats total. If a pilot occupies one, then it's a 4-pax. If there are two pilots, then it's a 3-pax. But the three pax seats are all on one row. Unless you're flying Gary Coleman, Emmanuel Lewis, and He Pingping, you're not ever gonna get three back there.

Funny that a lot of people criticize Vern's single, but all the other singles out there are pulling all sorts of praise.

Black Dog said...

"If I understand your positions correctly, you would rather stay in the 30s and burn 100 pph more, rather than experiencing the hassle factor of wearing a mask"

Ken Said

No; that's not it at all.

Ken

I think I get it as Ken is obviously not of this world he doesn't need oxygen.

Ken after reading this blog today I can't believe you are a grown up never mind a pilot

AlexA said...

FC,

From the Diamond web site:

Ramp Weight 5110lbs
Useful Load 2240lbs
Max Fuel 1740lbs


Useable W/Max Fuel 500lbs

The way I read it the D-Jet is a two person aircraft with full fuel, unless I’m missing something.

FlightCenter said...

Exe,

I agree with you that the D-Jet really isn't a 5 place airplane, unless you have 3 small kids.

However, at least for me (I've had some friends disagree with me on this) I feel less claustrophic in the D-Jet cabin than the E500 cabin.

I put this down to the fact that the cabin height in the D-Jet is 4 inches higher than the Eclipse and the cabin width is 1 inch wider than the E500.

I like the bench seat in the back as well. You can fold up the arm rest and spread out a little into the "middle seat" area.

So for me, the D-Jet is much nicer for 3 or 4 than the E500. However, if I was flying 5 folks, the E500 beats the D-Jet hands down for passenger comfort.

Now the Cirrus Jet may have both the E500 and D-Jet beat when it comes to cabin comfort. It felt quite roomy for a single.

FlightCenter said...

Alexa,

Thanks for finding the data on the D-Jet.

The interesting part of the analysis will be to find out if the ANN number of 34 gph is a real number for fuel burn on the D-Jet.

If you can really fly 4 hours on 1,000 pounds of fuel, then you certainly have enough useful load to take 4 folks with you.

AlexA said...

FC,

It appears that in the VLJ market we are faced with:

You can fill the tanks but not the seats

Or

You can fill the seats but not the tanks.

Ken Meyer said...

black dog wrote,

"I think I get it as Ken is obviously not of this world he doesn't need oxygen."

Sure I need oxygen just like anybody else if the pressurization fails.

However the regs are crystal-clear how an operator can *legally* operate above FL 350 without wearing oxygen.

Planet-ex got scared because he thinks I'm not following the regs. I'm scared 'cause Planet-ex is pitching a point of view without knowing enough about the regs to understand how a guy flies above FL 350 legally without using oxygen!

It is pretty sad really--somehow, not knowing stuff never seems to stop you naysayers from screaming at the top of your lungs that which is completely incorrect.

It is amusing. And it points out how it is that so many of the criticisms of the Eclipse tossed around here are wrong. The guys tossing them just don't know what they're talking about--but that doesn't stop them :)

Ken

FlightCenter said...

Ken,

What are the regs for flying at FL 410?

Ken Meyer said...

Alexa wrote,

"It appears that in the VLJ market we are faced with:

You can fill the tanks but not the seats

Or

You can fill the seats but not the tanks."


That's right.

But it's not limited to VLJs. The full-fuel payload of a Citation CJ1+ with one pilot is just 720 pounds! Here's a plane with a MGTOW 78% higher than the Eclipse that has a full-fuel payload less than 1% higher than the Eclipse.

I've seen some very expensive jets with full-fuel payload less than the Eclipse.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

Flightcenter asked,

"What are the regs for flying at FL 410?"

Part 135 or Part 91?

Ken

FlightCenter said...

Ken,

Part 91

gadfly said...

Dark Pooch

We’re getting a profile of the “Eclipse” faithful. ‘See just how close to the limits you can fly, without actually violating the “fine print” of regulations . . . and ignore the fact that even the US federal government is lacking in “infinite wisdom”. Assume that the regulations are going to keep you alive, rather than being written to keep the general public safe . . . and, hopefully, our back lawns free of “lawn darts”.

‘Interesting thing: A week ago, we seemed to be “enemies”, and today, we are on exactly the same page. We agree: Our “friend” is “out of this world”.

‘Right on!

gadfly

(Me thinks that our fine feathered friend got a hold of a bottle of Nitrous Oxide (N2O, instead of O2) . . . these physician types have access to that sort of thing.)

Jim Howard said...

"However the regs are crystal-clear how an operator can *legally* operate above FL 350 without wearing oxygen."

Ken, to avoid further long back and forths about parsing, let's define "wearing oxygen" as:

wearing and using an oxygen mask that is secured
and sealed and that either supplies oxygen at all times or automatically
supplies oxygen whenever the cabin pressure altitude of the airplane exceeds
14,000 feet (MSL)


Please address the case of a single pilot operating in the United States under Part 91.

As far as I can tell no jet airplane is allowed to operate single pilot in the U.S. under FAR part 135, not withstanding single pilot type ratings. I'm willing to be proved wrong by contra-example of course. It is possible that there exists a U.S. part 135 operator who has an FAA approved ops spec that allow single pilot jet charters.

For extra credit, perhaps someone wants to address the case of two pilots in the cockpit, where one pilot has an EA-500S (single pilot) type rating, and the other pilot is an instrument rated pilot (private, commercial, or ATP) but not typed in the Eclipse.

planet-ex said...

I'm concerned with your lack of understanding of the FARs. How long have you been intimately involved in aviation other than flying that Cessna 340 of your's Ken?

Would you care to compare aviation resumes?

Also, you are so wedded to the Eclipse that you wholeheartedly endorse the design and the company no matter what BS Eclipse dishes out because of delays and shortcomings.

To me, you're like so many pilots out there...too much money and not enough common sense.

Black Dog said...

Gadfly said

"Dark Pooch

We’re getting a profile of the “Eclipse” faithful. "

Quite true they are either amused all the time or completely mad!!
Don't worry Ken after you've passed out the Avio NFG will take over and get you down in one piece!!!!

‘Interesting thing: A week ago, we seemed to be “enemies”, and today, we are on exactly the same page. We agree: Our “friend” is “out of this world”.

‘Right on!

gadfly


Gad I only have one enemy and its is nobody on here.

My current project is Super plastic forming and diffusion bonding of titanium now if the stuff was cheap enough I could manufacture a complete fuse in one go!!!!!! now that would be revolutionary!
He maybe I've been hitting the N2O

Ken Meyer said...

Planet ex wrote,

"Would you care to compare aviation resumes?"

Ahhh! Penis envy emerges again!

You need to get together with gunner.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

jim howard said,

"Please address the case of a single pilot operating in the United States under Part 91."

Why?

Ken

paul said...

I doubt it's penis envy Ken, so stop thinking about them.
There is a reason certain aircraft are called "doctor killers".
A medical degree does not translate into you being an expert on aviation. If you haven't noticed most of the posters on this site that have concerns about the e-cuse have been in the aviation industry for years, whereas the faithfull seem to be the types that need a jet to compensate for some physical limitations.

There hasn't been a airplane built recently that earned the title doctor killer. Methinks Vern has rectified that.

gadfly said...

Dark Pooch

A local person, a “lady”, took up the bonding of dis-similar glasses, with different refractive indexes . . . to reduce the number of elements in a stack of lenses. (Along with the different refractive indexes, comes a corresponding change in shrinkage as the glass goes from liquid to solid . . . and normally, “cracking” occurs.) Anyone knows that you cannot do that . . . but she didn’t read the book, and formed a company that could produce such lenses. Unfortunately, she (and her management) fell into the trap that young engineers of the “new age” could design and make practical the many applications of her “new-found-techniques” . . . and the company went south . . . literally . . . moving from Albuquerque to Florida (last I heard). She failed to understand the need for the “dinosaur” generation, to bring her excellent ideas from conception to birth. The stock fell from a high, to an extreme low. Somehow, the story seems to have a familiar ring. Her “ideas” are still great, but . . . for another day!

Another time . . . another place . . . I would like very much to discuss your work on “super plastic forming/bonding” of dissimilar materials. But for the moment, we are locked in a discussion of other people, that think all technologies depend solely on “high hopes and a new-approach” to the age-old dream of flight, without proper recognition and balance with all that has gone before.

The point being, in the context of Eclipse, the “new” must never ignore the “old” . . . a transition must take place, recognizing the value of each . . . and in the process, being careful to maintain the friendship necessary to make the transition. Wisdom is a hard-fought victory, not to be taken lightly.

gadfly

(The metallurgists of old, produced Damascus steel, and Samurai swords . . . in a primitive form of plastic forming and bonding of materials . . . Solomon said, in Ecclesiastes, that there is nothing new under the sun . . . and so it is.)

gadfly said...

paul

At least one of us has worked closely with neurosurgeons, in "OR", more than a few times, as well as in the aircraft industry. There is a certain "mind set" that is apparent in the discussions . . . and of little surprise. So don't get too concerned . . . it's nothing new.

'Let's leave it at that!

gadfly

(And now, "I am amused!")

airtaximan said...

"Funny that a lot of people criticize Vern's single, but all the other singles out there are pulling all sorts of praise."

Prasie...hmm...did you ever see the con-jet? I just saw it yesterday at NBAA, I looked through the window, with two people seated in the cockpit, and you know what? The rear seats were toching the back of the two front seats. Its a joke.

The D-jet, for example has tons of legroom and tons of headroom. Yes, the middel paret of the bench is small if you have 2 normal size folks in the rear seats, but for 4 people, its a terrific achievemment in a cabin layout.

The con-jet is a 2-place... another e-clips BS marketing stunt, unless of course the seats were way back for no reason... but, I suspect the back of the front seats can touch the rear seats becasue they need the room up front.

Sham.

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"The con-jet is a 2-place"

That is completely false. I sat in the back seat this morning. There is plenty of room. Only a die-hard Eclipse hater would assess the backseat room with the forward seats all the way back! With the seats all the way back, Wilt Chamberlain couldn't fly the plane because he couldn't reach the rudder pedals!

You're too smart not to have noticed that the forward seats were all the way back (I think you are anyway, aren't you?), so it looks to me like you're just pitching BS.

I saw a bunch of people very interested in the Concept Jet during the time I visited the Eclipse booth. One of the Eclipse folks told me people are trying to put deposits down even though the plane isn't for sale.

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Just wanted to point out the outstanding parsing skills and never-say-die attitude of Cardinal Ken Meyers of L. Vern Raburn's Church of Flyantology.

At 9:50 PM, September 25, 2007 Ken said:

“It is NOT true that above FL350, "somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen.'"

Then at 7:30 AM, September 26, 2007 Ken said:

“He said, "above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen'" And that's not true.”

Then at 5:51 PM, September 26, 2007 Ken said:

“I understand the entire set of oxygen regulations reasonably well, thank you.

But it seems maybe you do not understand those regulations since you concurred with gunner's assessment that "above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen.'"

That's just not true, and your continued insistence that it is true does not make it so. I think your knowledge of the FARs is a little weak on this issue.

The whole oxygen question is not just an idle issue for VLJ and light jet pilots. I do not expect to ever be required to "suck oxygen" despite routinely flying above FL 350. Having to wear an oxygen mask above FL350 would raise the hassle factor of gaining maximum utility out of any jet.”

Then at 7:18 PM, September 26, 2007 Ken said:

“The regulations do not require a pilot to use oxygen above FL350. It's all right there in FAR 91.211.”

Then at 7:40 PM, September 26, 2007 Ken said:

“And under this regulation, what gunner wrote ("above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen'") is entirely untrue.”

Then at 7:49 PM, September 26, 2007 in response to a direct quote from the reg's for the umpteenth time Ken said:

“Right.

But that wasn't the claim.

The claim was "above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen.'" That's not true, unless you're operating without a copilot or don't have quick don masks.”

Then at 8:21 PM, September 26, 2007 Ken said:

“Of course. You must follow the rule outlined in FAR 91.211 (b)(ii). That rule does not say "above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen.'"”

Now don’t blink or you might miss it. After spending all that time and energy, Ken admitted, after a fashion anyway, that he was wr, wr, wr, wrong - without actually admitting it.

He then went on to suggest that the partially functioning autopilot satisfies the functioning autopilot REQUIREMENT for single-pilot ops and OUTED all of the would-be Eclipse Jet Jockeys who are VIOLATING the reg’s when he said:

“No. That's wrong. The 51 delivered planes are being flown single-pilot a lot of the time.”

But wait, he did not actually answer the implied question dealing with required autopilot functionality, he only said what others doing.

So I asked the following:
“So Ken,

You are stating, categorically, that Eclipse's are being flown single-pilot, above FL350, and that the wing-wagging heading hold and sort of pitch hold function are deemed 'adequate' even though the requirement is for a functining autopilot?

Just to be clear.

Are those single pilots wearing their mask as REQUIRED by the law - or are they skirting that regulation like the functioning autopilot requirement?

Inquiring minds want to know.

BTW, it is OK to say you don't actually know any of this for a fact if you want to avoid having to reparse your own words later.”

Still waiting for an answer of course, but not holding my breath, unlike some folks I have a healthy respect for hypoxia and avoid it whenever possible.

Progresso said...

I have read this blog for months, and as a former potential position holder I must tell you that Ken is fos.

Firstly, my buddy is a position holder, he went to fly the e-pos in ABQ early August. A little about him, 10k hours, currently owns twin. Went to fly the plane and when he asked what altitude they were going to he was told 14.5k. He questioned this and was told that the plane they were flying was not IFR, so they were restricted to below 18k. When asked why the plane was not IFR was told that they were short of planes because owners were taking their planes off lease, and they had taken 'parts' from this plane to complete a delivery and that was why they were restricted. He made the flight, thought the plane flew OK, the AP was not working and there were other placarded items on the panel.

When he landed he asked when his plane was going to be delivered, his position number was between 500 and 700, I am being vague because Ken will try and out him, and I don't want to cost him any money with this posting of the unabashed truth. The e-pos rep told him he would get back to him on this, and he was later told that his position had come forward nearly 100 positions, after much effort trying to get the answer, he was reluctantly told the shrinkage was due to cancellations. This is a big percentage shrink in the numbers. He has added his SN to the growing list of e-pos's for sale. BTW, he asked when his deposit would be due and he was told the date, when doing a day count between now and then the projected delivery date the rate of production was 3 per working day.

Now on to the conjet, I sat in this conjet, I am 6'1", with my feet comfortably on the pedals the seat back touched the rear seat, in fact the comment from one of the other on lookers was where do they carry the wheel chairs of the back seat riders, inference being they would have to be amputees to sit there. So Ken your remark about Wilt is rubbish.

The energy level at the e-pos stand was low, they still have the avio model of the w&b up showing the empty weight of the e-pos as 3550 lbs, and this is not being lost on the lookee lous that were milling around the stand when I was there. Their sales people were spending more time swapping war stories with each other than talking to the prospects, but then again I did not see many prospects.

What struck me about the VLJ's; Adam and e-pos are out of the race, this is the sentiment of the industry sources that I spoke to, the juggernaut at Cessna is unstoppable, and Embraer is gaining momentum. Honda is building steam and this is going to be the one to watch.

I went and had a look at the TBM booth, when I found it in the corner of the building, it was tiny, understated, but the information I received on their product was professionally offered, there is no hype, they would not engage in e-pos bashing, their high confidence level was palpable. I had the same sense at the PC-XII stand which was much bigger and nicer than the TBM stand.

Ken, your credibility is worthless, your support of this toy is unjustified and unsubstantiated and not shared by the majority of people that I spoke to, heard speak, and frankly now the journalists are climbing in, enuff is enuff pal, smell the roses, because this game in ABQ is nearly over. Columbia saw their rear ends by over selling and under delivering, e-pos is doing it on a much grander scale. Actually there are very few in the industry that I spoke with that are wishing e-pos well these days, they are all tired of the cheap shots from e-vern and can't wait for him to see his rear end.

Oh BTW, placed a deposit on a Mustang, part of what drove me to the Mustang was the bad taste that you put in my mouth Ken about the kind of AH that supports this e-pos, I could not bring myself to accept the association, keep up the good work.

Keep it real, over and out.

FlightCenter said...

Ken,

Can you tell us the Part 91 regulations regarding oxygen use at FL 410?

Jim Howard said...

"Please address the case of a single pilot operating in the United States under Part 91."

"Why?

Ken"

Well Ken, I've been flying for many years and have always thought that in the United States under 14 CFR 91.211 (b)(ii) a single pilot operation the pilot must be wearing a mask when operating above FL350. I grant you that if it is the kind of mask we had in the USAF then this pilot might not be actually be 'sucking oxygen" if the cabin pressure is below some limit, but my understanding is that our single pilot must be wearing his or her mask.

You have posted on this subject a number of times, and certainly I get the impression that you believe my interpretation of this rule to be incorrect.

Since this subject seemed to be interesting to you I was just hoping you would help me increase my understanding of the rule.

I take it I was mistaken about you Ken, so nevermind.

jetaburner said...

Ken-

The CJ1+ can carry 815lbs with full fuel while the eclipse, with no equipment options (TCAS, TAWS, SkyWatch, taxi/recognition lights, copilot package, etc.) can carry 714lbs. That is a 15% difference not 1%. If you add typical options, ones mentioned above that come standard on the CJ1+ your useful load with full fuel in the e-clips shrinks to 585 lbs. Now your talking about a 40% increase. Let's keep it honest. Below is the CJ1+ info from Cessna's website.

Maximum ramp weight 10,800 lb (4,898 kg)
Maximum takeoff weight 10,700 lb (4,853 kg)
Maximum landing weight 9,900 lb (4,490 kg)
Maximum zero fuel weight 8,400 lb (3,810 kg)
Maximum fuel capacity (6.7 lb/gal) 3,220 lb (1,461 kg)
Typical empty weight* 6,765 lb (3,069 kg)
One pilot plus furnishings 200 lb (91 kg)
Typical basic operating weight (BOW) 6,965 lb (3,164 kg)
Useful load** 3,835 lb (1,740 kg)
Payload with full fuel 615 lb (279 kg)

EclipseBlogger said...

Aircraft S/N 91 hit the assembly line on the manufacturing floor this past week.

gadfly said...

Ken

Someone has referred to you as a “physician” . . . and so let’s assume that you are a physician. With that assumption, I looked up the “Hipporcratic Oath” (Modern Version, in use since about 1964, written by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University).

Among other things, a couple lines stand out . . . that can be directly applied to being a pilot, and being involved in the aircraft industry. For instance, if you are a physician, you gave an oath according to the following (among other things):

“I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.” . . . in other words, it’s acceptable to declare ignorance, and refer to another’s better knowledge and skills.

“I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.” . . . in other words, it’s better to prevent a problem than to attempt a cure “after the fact” (‘relates directly to your desire to see how far you can push the limits of the use of an oxygen mask, using the “law”, rather than common sense).

“May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.” . . . and if your calling happens to include “flying” as a pilot, there is obvious application.

As you know, there is much more within the oath . . . and it would seem to me to be an all encompassing attitude, and commitment, beyond the strict limits of the medical profession.

It would be my hope that you would reconsider the attitude that seems to be your position, that moving towards a dangerous situation is to somehow be desired, as opposed to providing the safest possible conditions, while flying yourself, and passengers . . . whether in the “Eclipse” or any other aircraft.

One should not require a “regulation” for motivation to fly safely and prudently, especially in today’s increasingly crowded skies.

gadfly

(If your purpose is to get attention, then I plead guilty of contributing to that end.)

Niner Zulu said...

Progresso,

Thanks for the info on NBAA & welcome to the blog. Sounds like you came to the same conclusion that the rest of us who ALMOST bought Eclipse's did.

I wouldn't be too hard on Ken. He'll have his wife to answer to when his toy can't fly because of lack of support from the company in receivership formerly known as Eclipse Aviation. That will be painful enough! ;-)

jetaburner said...

Howard-

I think can earn the extra credit, you said:
"For extra credit, perhaps someone wants to address the case of two pilots in the cockpit, where one pilot has an EA-500S (single pilot) type rating, and the other pilot is an instrument rated pilot (private, commercial, or ATP) but not typed in the Eclipse."

I have 2 type ratings for the CJ2: 525 and 525S. Both are listed on my license and both required a seperate check ride with an FAA DE.

The 525 type is for crew operation and in order to be legal the PIC must hold this type rating, have received instruction and a sign off in CRM in the last 12 months and the co-pilot must be "familiar with the aircraft." I'm not qouting the regs but this is from memory. "Familiar with the aircraft" means some kind of approved ground course, and I think 6 take-off and landings in the last year. Again this is from memory.

If you have the 525S then there is no annual check required and you can fly the aircraft single pilot. It is the insurance companies, and good judgement, that requires you to go to school every year. You cannot fly in a crew configuration if you only have the single pilot type rating.

Bottom line: If you want to fly in a crew configuration the PIC has to be typed for crew operations, been checked and signed off in the previous 12 months, and the pilot in the right seat must also be signed off for CRM and the aircraft (but does not have to be typed).

I was at Flight Safety last November and I fly the CJ2 in a crew configuration and as single pilot. In order to continue to fly in a crew configuration I recieved an endorsement in my logbook for FAR 61.57.

jetaburner said...

Ken-

You never answered my previous e-mail so I am posting it again.

Ken-

Let's do a little reality check with your statement:
"The Eclipse 500 goes 1300 nm with with 45 minute reserve carrying 714 lbs--that's more than 4 FAA 170-pound people. Not 3. Four. And not 800 nm; 1300 nm."

1st point: The only way you have the ability to carry 714 lbs with full fuel is if you don't get any options. That means:
- no co-pilot package 16.6lbs
- no stormscope 7.3lbs
- no SkyWatch HP 16.1lbs
- no TAWS 1.6lbs
- no Radar altimeter 3.5lbs
- no entertainment package 12.7lbs or 6th seat at 33.6lbs
- no LX edition interior at 31.3lbs.

I thought this was a jet? All of this stuff comes standard on my TBM as well as 6 Bose headsets!! There is even a weight penalty for for the Taxi/Recognition Lights at .5 lbs. Are you joking!!

I believe it is now required to have TCAS and TAWS in all turbine aircraft. I can't imagine buying a jet without it.

The options listed above weight 141.5lbs but as Ken has pointed out the plane is too small to have a 6th seat and refreshment center. If you go with the refreshment center and forget the 6th seat then your useful load w/ full fuel, with the options above, is 606lbs. With 3 people, including the pilot, you have 94lbs left for baggage.

Let's talk about range. Using a direct climb to FL410 with the software program from the e-clips owner's site and a direct descent, you will have a 168 lbs of reserve. This event would be extremely unlikely in 90% of the airspace in the US. This assumes 30lbs for taxi (highly unlikely), no SID, no STAR, and no one in your way in the climb or descent. Not to mention that 168lbs is less than 30 minutes of fuel at HSC at FL410 (340pph). Come on!! You've got to be kidding.

It would be suicidal to plan on such a low reserve in a jet. Let's not forget that at HSC at 10k your fuel burn is 835pph. In other words, at full throttle down low, you have less than 12 minutes of fuel. Also, important to note, that the e-clips can't even climb directly to FL410 if it is above ISA which it is most of the time. Hmmmm.... Yup, sounds like a realistic, real world, 4 person, 1300nm jet to me.

Ken- if you fly your airplanes with margins like that, I wish you luck.

Jim Howard said...

jetburner, thanks for the clarification.

I was sure our second pilot didn't have to have a full type to count as a 'pilot' for mask wearing purposes, but I wasn't sure that the requirement was.

jetaburner said...

Jim-
The second pilot definitely does not have to be typed but the PIC has to be "crew" typed and sign off in the last year for crew operations. The 2nd pilot also has to have some training on the airplane and CRM.

The regs are actually more strict when it comes to crew operations versus single pilot. I was told that it was because there have been some accidents caused by CRM issues.

FYI... I found the crew type rating more difficult than the SP.

Troglodyte said...

Brief thoughts from NBAA:

Returned this afternoon. Very busy show with lots of action but relatively little in the way of unexpected news or announcements in the light / very light jet segments.

The eclipse booth was large and, from what I could see, modestly attended. Eclipse employees that I spoke with seemed honest and forthcoming about the challenges that the company faces, the fact that they would need more money, and that producing airplanes was very hard. Gone was the “we can do anything and do it better than anyone else” attitude in evidence last year, replaced by we need to get the basic stuff working and produce a lot of airplanes. I did not see Vern. Agree with Progresso that the overall energy was low.

I asked if they had made any sales at the convention and, while the answer was appropriately obtuse, I think not. Cessna sold a number of Mustangs. Got different answers about when Avio NG would be ready including end of November, and January. FIKI maybe January, depending on if they find ice. Found out that they sacked another vendor who was doing the EFB, Seattle Avionics. (The rest of of you probably knew that already.)

Look of the Avio still best of any of the displays (much slicker than G1000), but good graphic design and good ideas are way different than reliable underlying functionality, wherein lies their challenge.

In past years there had been a reasonable amount of talk about Eclipse at the show -- good, bad, and indifferent. This year there seemed to be little or no discussion of Eclipse. Almost as though they were irrelevant or already gone.

Trog

Troglodyte said...

JetAburner said: “I have 2 type ratings for the CJ2: 525 and 525S. Both are listed on my license and both required a seperate check ride with an FAA DE.”

I’m very interested in this as I have been under the perhaps mistaken impression that if a pilot possesses the 525S type rating that he/she can operate as part of a crew if, and only if, they have passed a 61.58 checkride within the past 24 months in the particular type of aircraft and within the past 12 months in any aircraft certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember. That 61.58 ride serves in lieu of the 525 (no S) rating. Interestingly, this particular point came up in a discussion with CAE/SimuFlite regarding how single and crew type ratings were administered in another type of light jet. Would you be able to point me to any authoritative source of information with respect to needing both type ratings? Thanks in advance...

Trog

Progresso said...

Also spoke to the people at Pratt and asked them what they kn

jetaburner said...

Trog-

I would speak directly with Flight Safety. You can give Mercedes a call at the Orlando office. She takes care of all the scheduling and she can put you in touch with the head of the CJ2 program. Any of the CJ instructors will know the details. If my memory serves me correctly, you cannot fly the airplane in a crew configuration, acting as PIC, with only the single pilot type rating.

Progresso said...

Also spoke to the P&W people and asked them what they knew about the 'thrust bullet' a term I learned from the e-pos salespeople when they stopped to catch their breath between war stories.

The first reaction was we don't know what you are talking about, but when I asked them about the increase in performance as a result of mickey mousing around with the fadec the lights went on. Unequivocally I was told that if an OEM changes the thrust rating or fuel delivery schedule on the engine that their warranty would be voided and tbo would be reduced.

So when I hear from e-pos that projected performance is being acheived with 'thrust bullets', what is the TBO on these engines?

Maybe we should ask Wilt? Oh dear that would be a long distance call, maybe should we should ask Ken, e-pos's wikepaedia.

Six Romeo said...

Trying to remain just an observer, but couldn't resist...

Gadfly said, "With that assumption, I looked up the “Hippocratic Oath”"

Gadfly, I think Ken got in the wrong line and took the hypocritic oath instead.

I have said this here before, but I'll say it again. Ken is a case study in cognitive dissonance.

...back to observing.

Shane Price said...

Gentlefolk,

At this stage, I would make a large bet that Ken would be prepared to wear an O2 mask 24/7, if doing so would improve his chances of getting something for his investment, sorry, deposit.

Shane

Ken Meyer said...

progresso wrote,

"The energy level at the e-pos stand was low"

Not according to yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution:


"The little guys became the big show-stoppers this year at the 60th annual National Business Aviation Association convention in downtown Atlanta.

So-called VLJs--very light jets--and their itsy-bitsy cousins, the personal jets, drew huge crowds at the three-day event..."


Ken

Ken Meyer said...

JetA wrote,

"The CJ1+ can carry 815lbs with full fuel while the eclipse, with no equipment options (TCAS, TAWS, SkyWatch, taxi/recognition lights, copilot package, etc.) can carry 714lbs."

The CJ1+ Flightplanning Guide I picked up yesterday at the Cessna book disagrees with you:

"Payload

Useful Payload and fuel...3,740 lbs
Maximum Payload..........1,340 lbs
Payload at full fuel...........520 lbs"


Cessna includes a single 200-lb pilot in the BOW, so the payload at full fuel is 720 lbs. The full-fuel payload of the Eclipse, as you observed, is 714 lbs.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

jim howard wrote,

"I've been flying for many years and have always thought that in the United States under 14 CFR 91.211 (b)(ii) a single pilot operation the pilot must be wearing a mask when operating above FL350."

Yes; that's true. But that wasn't the claim I disputed. The claim made was, "above FL350, somebody in the cockpit has got to be 'sucking oxygen.'" And that's not true.

Ken

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 215   Newer› Newest»