Tuesday, October 02, 2007


DayJet Takes Off...

Launching New Era in Regional Transportation

World's First "Per-Seat, On-Demand" Jet Service to Improve Productivity and Quality of Life for Southeastern Business Travelers

TALLAHASSEE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Tomorrow DayJet Corporation will formally announce the launch of the world's first "Per-Seat, On-Demand" jet service in Florida. DayJet members - which number more than 1,500 business travelers - can now book just the seat they need aboard DayJet's fleet of Eclipse 500(TM) very light jets (VLJs); customize travel according to their time and budget requirements; fly point-to-point between an initial five Florida DayPort(TM) airports; and return home in a single day. Prices start at a modest premium to equivalent full-fare economy coach airfares and will expand to dozens of additional DayPort locations in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

The service inauguration and grand opening of its first DayPort facilities in Boca Raton, Gainesville, Lakeland, Pensacola and Tallahassee, Florida, will be marked by a press conference in Tallahassee on Wednesday October 3, 2007 at 9am.

Joining DayJet President and CEO Ed Iacobucci will be Florida Lt. Governor Jeff Kottkamp, Tallahassee Mayor John Marks, Eclipse Aviation President and CEO Vern Raburn, state and local elected officials as well as leaders from the business community.

Thanks to HotDog for keeping readers of the blog informed as to this important event. The air taxi business and DayJet in particular, is the lynch pin for Vern Raburn's business plan.

343 comments:

1 – 200 of 343   Newer›   Newest»
Jim Howard said...

I have no knowledge as to the state of Eclipse's finances, but if I were an owner or deposit holder I would find this link kind of chilling:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/38lfxz

Particularly the items marked "been paid for but not installed".

This is just my opinion, YMMV.

Niner Zulu said...

Dayjet's profits are going to be nickel and dime, and their expenses are going to be huge.

While I wish them the best of luck, all I see is one bad idea on the back of another bad idea on the back of another and so on. Wrong time in the economic cycle, bad timing with high fuel prices, bad website, bad idea about requiring a "membership", wrong on their assessment of demand, and without a doubt the wrong airplane.

If they are to survive in business - a longshot in my opinion - they are going to have to reinvent their business model. Even then I think their profitability will be minimal.

I hope they enjoy today with the celebration, ribbon cutting and visit by the governor. I'm sure the media will be there. The more they all pat each other on the back, the more they distance themselves from the hard reality of trying to squeeze money out of this business.

Sorry to be negative, but this is one bandwagon I just can't jump on. Bad idea. Bad, bad, bad!

ExEclipser said...

I'll betcha they bought JetComplete and plan on using it. I hope they succeed. I really really do. If their profit point is 1.2 pax per flight, then a 1.4 average would cartainly hedge against issues.

Keep in mind that they've had these aircraft flying a LOT since January.

Anyone here gonna be able to make the ribbon cutting? I wish I could go... If only I had a way to fly down to Boca and make it back the same day for the cost of a premium airfare ticket...

FlightCenter said...

VK,

Planet-ex said that the Mustang training requirements discussed in the article were actually set by Flight Safety.

Would you (or anyone else) know whether the Flight Safety requirements for a type rating in a CJ more stringent than the Cessna requirements that you have listed?

FlightCenter said...

Linear Air issued a press release, Linear Air to fly first VLJ in NE, at the beginning of September, stating that they would begin revenue service with the Eclipse 500 in mid-September. It seems from their website that they haven't yet begun revenue service in the Eclipse 500.

Checking the Linear Air Home Page the status is listed as "Eclipse 500 FLYING SOON!"

The NY Times reports in a 25 Sept 2007 article, that Linear expects to have a fleet of 30 aircraft in two years and 1,000 pilots in 5 years.

FlightCenter said...

Jim Howard,

To your point about buying an aircraft from a company near bankruptcy, your link claims that as Columbia went into bankruptcy that Columbia stopped paying (at least some of) their service centers and as you would expect, those service centers stopped providing service.

This link also shows how concerned the owners are with the resale value of their Columbia aircraft.

It is a dangerous game buying an aircraft from a company that isn't financially stable.

In this case, it seems that there will be a happy ending for the Columbia owners.

One of the reasons for the happy ending is that both Columbia and Cessna have the same avionics vendor for their aircraft. I can't imagine Cessna would take on the liability of buying an aircraft company who is developing their own avionics suite.

I've heard that the Cessna engineers were very surprised to see how many significant differences there were between the G1000 for Columbia and the G1000 for Cessna.

vlad_klz said...

flightcenter - I believe (not completely, but pretty sure) the training will be provided by Flight Safety at Wichita (or Farnborough) facility, so it’s not only Cessna, but also FS requirements… I have some thoughts about this issue, but my lack of English does not allow me to discuss this problem politely enough :)

Stan Blankenship said...

FC,

Regarding the Happy Ending, Columbia will likely be sold to the high bidder.

Cessna's bid will be based on the asset value less the liabilities they have agreed to assume on a voluntary basis.

They could be outbid by an entity that would not recognize the liabilities nor discount their bid accordingly.

WhyTech said...

There is an extensive article on Mustang training in the B&CA issue which arrived today.

WT

FlightCenter said...

Stan,

You are right that it is premature to assume that there will be a happy ending for Columbia and their owners.

Just look at Mooney as a case study if you want to see how this type of transition can go very badly.

However, if Cessna succeeds with their bid, it will be good for Cessna, good for Columbia, good for Columbia's customers, good for the industry and one can even make a case that it will be good for Columbia's competitors.

Insiders say the probability is high that Jack Pelton and Cessna pull this one off.

If the Columbia purchase works out, then it makes sense for Cessna to evaluate the merits of buying EPIC as well.

That would certainly create some serious competition for the E500.

Shane Price said...

Best of luck to all at DayJet, and those who use the service.

I hope they make it.

BUT...

I just can't see it myself.

FC,

I think the boys and girls at Epic are doing just fine right now. Big cash injection from a serious business head, possible lower cost base in India, and an attractive range of aircraft, some of which are a long way down the road to certification.

Might cost more than Cessna wanted to pay at present.

IMHO

Shane

twinpilot said...

Cessna may be:
1. taking this opportunity to eliminate a competitor at a bankruptcy auction price
2. acquiring on a fast track the FAA approved technology/processes for building composite structure
3. acquiring a fiberglass low wing fiberglass fixed gear airplane to compete with Cirrus
4. all of the above
I really don't think they are going to be building this airplane any time soon, and certainly not in Bend OR.
They are just acquiring assets and FAA approved processes at a bargain price and don't forget item No. 1.

airtaximan said...

anyone tracking Dayjet flight(s) on flight aware? Or have the blocked themselves from visibility?

Apparently, they have been doing revenue flights for a few weeks, and it would be interesting to know, how many flights they have done, passed the "rproving run" or "we're flying our own employees around as a test" period.

I saw Ed at NBAA, and he was not specific at all regarding number of passengers, flights, load factor, or price. He said the plane was performing better than expected (Perhaps expectations were pretty low?) and that customers were happy with the plane.

We were told (somewhere) of a single revenue flight with one passenger onboard... They probably lost $1,000 on that flight. Also, without high utilization (over 100 hours a month) plus a load of at least 2 pax, at decent prices, they will lose money on every flight.

Sooooo... if the picture is rosey, and the news is good, why block? Why be evasive regarding details. The Satsair guy provided average load and utilization for the fleet... why not Dayjet?

I would think there's only 1 reason...same as the reason Vern did not make announcements regarding one-a-day jet production rates - the reality is pretty ugly.

Otherwise, the greatest little plane which is revolutionizing regional air transport and the wonder-model-computer-system would be in lockstep hyping and pumping away. Afterall, that's been the history - with little except vapor in the way of evidence the plane or the Daydream works as an air taxi.

If the hype is only at a drip - the model and plane don't fit!

hummer said...

ATM
Wake up. Go to Flightaware, and where it says "Track Commerical Flight" insert "DayJet" and where it says "Flight No." insert 115, 126, 109, 110, 116, 119, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, or 136. Also under each category look at "More Past Flight" for history.
and Smell the Roses.
They're flying.
Maybe not profitable,
But, they're flying.

hummer said...

Ed's podcast
Avwebbiz complete NBAA Podcast:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/962-full.html#196237

airsafetyman said...

I certainly wish all the folks at DayJet only the best. For their well being and their families I hope it succeeds and they have a safe operation.

mouse said...

Cessna is buying Columbia for thier expertise and equipment in building a composite airplane. The Cessna entry level/recreational single engine LSA (Light Sport Airplane) is the reason...

Niner Zulu said...

I'd like to be more enthusiastic about Dayjet. I really would.

I think Dayjet has about as much chance of making a profit as the TSA has of catching a terrorist by frisking old people in the airport security line and xraying my sandals.

Of course I wish the best for the families that work for them. Who wouldn't? But does that mean I have to go along and pretend that everything is going to work out? "It'll be OK...you'll see...". Nope. Sorry, not going to sugar coat my opinion. The company is a L-O-S-E-R in my opinion, and I hope the employees are hedging their bets with a backup job, just in case things don't work out.

I also hope I'm wrong, but don't count on it!

;-)

FlightCenter said...

Twinpilot,

Your points are quite valid, however...

To your point #1) Cessna isn't all that worried about Columbia as a competitor (especially if they were to continue to operate on the edge of bankruptcy). However, they are worried about Cirrus as a competitor.

Columbia shipped 484 aircraft from 2000 to 2006.

Cirrus shipped 3,018 during the same period. That is six times more aircraft than Columbia.

To your point #3) I'm hearing that the response to Cessna's high wing "Cirrus Killer" concept aircraft hasn't convinced Cessna's customers or dealers that it has what it takes to be a really competitive product with the SR22.

To your point #2) Acquiring advanced technology and processes that have been previously certified has to be a really good thing for Cessna. I'm told that Cessna has been quite impressed with the technology and the product.

Adding Cessna's brand name and marketing muscle to the Columbia 350 and 400 has a real chance of doubling or tripling Columbia sales.

Contrary to your comment, Pelton told the Columbia owners group that he would be building aircraft in Bend, OR. He needs the capacity that Columbia has in place. Also remember that tranferring production from one site to another, especially in an FAA regulated world, is fraught with peril.

rcflyer said...

mouse said,

"Cessna is buying Columbia for thier expertise and equipment in building a composite airplane. The Cessna entry level/recreational single engine LSA (Light Sport Airplane) is the reason..."

mouse,

That would be a great plan, except that the airframe on the Cessna LSA, the 162 Skycatcher, is made of aluminum.

R.C.

mouse said...

RC, Don't focus too much on the wrong shell... I didn't say it was the SkyCatcher 162.

rcflyer said...

mouse,

Since Cessna has committed to producing the 162, and taken 750 orders with deposits, are you saying that they are working on two LSAs?

R.C.

Jake Pliskin said...

ok mouse, i'll believe you that cessna has not one but two LSA's planned, but only if you can provide some details

mouse said...

Look for a Proof-of-Concept and then another newer, bigger model... Cirrus Killer?

bill e. goat said...

I think Cessna was noticing the LSA market and addressed that opportunity with the 162.
I would assume Cessna has been noticing competitors to the 182 and 206, and is formulating a response there too.

airtaximan said...

Hummer,

what can you glean from the flightaware data?

hummer said...

ATM
Just wanted to update about the activity and podcast.
I can not figure out how they will be profitable with their current operation. I wish them the best but the numbers don't come out for me.
But I've been wrong many times and I hope they prove me wrong.
Best Wishes, Ed as you go foward.

airtaximan said...

Hummer, I like your plan better. Let someone else take on the ownership risk of the plane, and you promise them a return based on air taxi revenue. If somehow all the NPR Dayjet Radio ads work to garner demand - terrific.

How many customers you figure Dayjet needs (members) for 30 planes or 300 planes - if they promise 4 trips a year? Average ticket price? Average load? Hours per plane per year?

Does this make your model look conservative, or risky from your investors/owners perspective?

hummer said...

ATM
email at hummer3@swbell.net
Sometimes it doesn't pay to
advertise.

rcflyer said...

mouse said,

"Look for a Proof-of-Concept and then another newer, bigger model... Cirrus Killer?"

and,

bill e. goat said,

"I think Cessna was noticing the LSA market and addressed that opportunity with the 162.
I would assume Cessna has been noticing competitors to the 182 and 206, and is formulating a response there too."

News flash! Cessna unveils "Cirrus Killer" proof of concept plane at Oshkosh Airventure ----------- 2006.

Google "Cessna NGP" and you'll find plenty of pictures.

The NGP is not an LSA.

R.C.

airsafetyman said...

Seems like the true innovation in aviation lies elsewhere than Cessna. Their new offerings are an anorexic 150 and a reworked 210. I mean, the 1950s are past! Look at Cirrus with their manufacturing innovations and the fresh designs of Honda and Piaggio.

WhyTech said...

ASM said:

"Look at Cirrus with their manufacturing innovations and the fresh designs of Honda and Piaggio."

Sometimes "fresh" isnt better, nor is innovation purely for the sake of being different.

Shane Price said...

WT,

Sometimes "fresh" isnt better, nor is innovation purely for the sake of being different.

A PC-12 owner to the core! Well said and very true.

I suppose the real problem with DayJet is that, in combination with the E499.5, they are presenting something as 'new' when, in the cold hard light of reality, it is not.

Without going over the same ground, DayJet could have tested the business systems they regard as their USP with a 'standard' aircraft. Then, when the software was fully up and running, moved on to whatever range of aircraft the market demanded.

The challange, as Stan has so clearly stated, is that Vern relies on Ed as the 'lynch pin' of the Eclipse high volume approach.

No air taxi market, no high volume.

No volume, no low price.

You don't see Epic banging on about air taxi as the basis of their business. I suspect that Epic will be around longer than Eclipse, because they are using tried and tested systems in their aircraft and approach to market.

Shane

airsafetyman said...

"Sometimes "fresh" isnt better, nor is innovation purely for the sake of being different."

And sometimes fresh IS bettrer as in Honda, Cirrus, and Piaggio! It just seems in the realm of sport aircraft Cessna is offering the same old Studebakers with new hood ornaments.

Stan Blankenship said...

A 'Fair Use' quote from ANN,

DayJet's success is not only important to the airline itself, but also to Eclipse Aviation. The on-demand airline is the Albuquerque, NM-based planemaker's largest single customer, by a significant margin.

"The Eclipse 500 very light jet's value proposition has inspired a new layer of affordable regional air transportation that will allow travelers to save time and be more productive," said Eclipse CEO Vern Raburn.

"DayJet and Eclipse are demonstrating that the idea of a new class of aircraft that are compliant with the FAA's NextGen strategy will change the work-life balance of hundreds of thousands, and eventually millions of Americans."

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

Another 'fair use' one from ANN:-

To maintain a cost-effective management structure of such a fluid schedule, DayJet will rely on an all-digital, real-time operations system, which the company calls Advanced System Technology for Real-Time Operations, or ASTRO. The system -- which, DayJet points out, contains more lines of code than early releases of Microsoft Windows -- automates and manages every aspect of the company's operations, end to end.

My earlier point amplified. Why not try out this ASRTO thingy, with a proven airframe?

Also, I hope it's more reliable that early Windows versions. They had a distrubing tendency to...

No, I won't say it here.

Shane

ExEclipser said...

Scattered amongst a smattering of DayJet aircraft, S/N 50, has embarked on a 1,046 NM journey. ETE is 3:05.

FlightCenter said...

Someone pointed out several weeks ago that you can't find out how much it costs to fly a DayJet flight from their website, unless you pony up the money to become a member.

This is still true today. It is and will continue to be a major impediment to attracting new members / customers.

Folks will want to be able to see some sort of examples of what it costs to fly and how you book flights before signing up.

There was some speculation a few weeks ago from the DayJet believers that the website didn't provide this sort of information because it was said at the time that DayJet really wasn't trying to attract new customers. The contention was that DayJet had plenty of customers signed up and that the issue was managing the high demand.

However, ATM says that DayJet is advertising. That would seem to say that they are interested in attracting new customers... only to have the website turn folks away.

hummer said...

Eclipser
S/N 50 has areomods.
Shame it doesn't have
AvioNG so it could file
and fly
direct instead of going
Vor to Vor.
Obviously it has full fuel
on board.
Be interesting to know how
many people and baggage on
board.
That's a very long way to go
to have an aircraft serviced.

hummer said...

flightcenter
"major impedement" ?
$99 to $299 for membership.
Give me a break.
If this amount is a major to
jet travel after they have
given away more flights than
anything I can remember, well
what more can one say?

mirage00 said...

Scattered amongst a smattering of DayJet aircraft, S/N 50, has embarked on a 1,046 NM journey. ETE is 3:05.

Thanks for the heads up Eclipser. On another note, the quality of this blog has certainly gone south in recent weeks. I would imagine it’s in direct correlation to Eclipse success. As predicted…

Still waiting on the AFM review...

I remain amused

double 00

ExEclipser said...

So DayJet isn't opening up their pricing structure to the public. Big deal. If you don't care what it costs to fly same day because that is what your business needs are, then I don't suppose $250 is going to be a barrier to know what those costs are.

They're just keeping nosy people away. Big deal.

Like the old saying: "If you have to ask what the price is, you probably can't afford it".

ExEclipser said...

Mirage00 - true. Gunner's been gone. Hope he's OK.

Stan Blankenship said...

DoubleZero (as in nothing of substance),

Look, I realize you are not the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, so I will explain the situation again.

I did not receive a full copy of the AFM, but did respond to what I had. In particular, talked about the limited CG travel at MTOW and the cold weather starting limitations which are onerous, even with a GPU.

And if you think this blog has gone South, what do you have to say about Andrew Broom and his "lack of progress" reports or Mike Press who is using others to write his column so that he does not have to write about negatives for which he is certainly aware?

planet-ex said...

The FAA might not like this bit from the Virgin charter article:

"The real pot sweetener for the industry, however, may be Virgin's notion that it will be able to market empty legs, a fuel-wasting drag on charter profits."

The FAA interpretation of the regs makes this a Part 121 scheduled operation.

"At NATA's recent Air Charter Summit, jaws dropped when an attorney with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) explained to attendees that the manner in which many empty legs are posted or otherwise offered to the public may in fact violate the FAA's rules prohibiting scheduled service in turbojet-powered aircraft under Part 135."

http://www.nata.aero/emptylegs/

jetaburner said...

Interesting flight on Flight Aware for N456MF:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N456MF/history/20071003/1601Z/KTLH/KHFD

Travelling between KTLH and KHFD at FL390. Filed route distance is 991nm (SZW J43 ATL GRD J209 RDU J207 FKN SWL J174 HTO) according to FltPlan.com. BTW- great site for those of you who haven't used it.

I thought it might be interesting to compare the TBM700, TBM850, and the CJ2 (just for fun) with the EA50. I will use FltPan.com's numbers (they have performance numbers for each aircraft) which I have found to be a little conservative but pretty accurate. We all know the +/- for each aircraft such as payload, range, 2 engines, jet vs. turboprop, acquisition cost, etc. The real point of this exercise is for discussion and to show that the e-clips isn't really that revolutionary when it comes to range, payload, speed and turbine reliability.

According to FltPlan.com:

TBM700:
FL310
3hrs 50min
1293 lbs/193g of fuel
reserves: 596lbs/89g

TBM850:
FL310
3hrs 30min
1341 lbs/201g of fuel
reserves: 543lbs/81g

CJ2:
FL450
2hrs 51min
2438lbs/346g
reserves: 1512lbs/226g

EA500:
FL390
3hrs 14min
1557lbs/232g
reserves: 129lbs!!!

According to FlightAware (at this moment) the flight is going to take 3hrs13min.

According to the owner's spreadsheet the flight should take:
3hrs 2 minutes
1274 lbs/190g
reserves: 412lbs/61g

It is interesting to note the difference between the EA50 owner's spreadsheet and fltplan.com for fuel burn and time. Don't know which is more accurate but I hope for the pilot's sake it is the spreadsheet b/c 129lbs reserve is pretty thin!!

This trip, 991nm is the probably about the longest anyone will fly the e-clips without a tailwind. It is interesting to note, according to fltplan.com, that it gets there only 16 minutes ahead of the TBM850 and burns 216lbs more fuel. BTW, socata announced that the TBM850 will have the G1000 next year. That should add approximately 130lbs to the useful load if they don't put more fuel in it. That means it can carry 980lbs with full fuel and go 1315nm at high speed cruise with NBAA IFR reserves. Pretty sweet!!

A friend of a friend just to told me that they took possesion of a new EA50 with the aeromods. I don't know what options they picked but when they fill it up they are over gross with just the 2 of them and their pro-pilot!!

mirage00 said...

Look, I realize you are not the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, so I will explain the situation again.

Now now be nice. What's with the attack?

And if you think this blog has gone South, what do you have to say about Andrew Broom and his "lack of progress" reports or Mike Press who is using others to write his column so that he does not have to write about negatives for which he is certainly aware?

You just proved my point. Thanks

I remain amused

double 00

Shane Price said...

Execlipser, Mirage00

Gunner's latest post was last Tuesday week.

Lots of us take time out to do normal business. Perhaps he has too.

In that time, there have been several hundred posts from a variety of old and new voices.

Even Ken has given us all a small break. His last post was nearly three whole days ago now....

The quality of the blog has, however, suffered in the past few minutes.....

I'm reminded of the classic rejoiner to some verbals I got from a business rival, who had just 'headhunted' an employee I had been trying to get rid of. He was boasting to me that I was losing a valuable resource.

I told him that I thought the average IQ in both companies had risen as a result of the change.

He was too dumb to get the joke...

Shane
PS. The subject drove him around the twist, and he ended up in firing mode...

jetaburner said...

Mirage00-

You said: "Scattered amongst a smattering of DayJet aircraft, S/N 50, has embarked on a 1,046 NM journey. ETE is 3:05."

See my post above for a thorough analysis of the flight and comparison to other aircraft. FYI... The flight route planned is 991NM and current FlightAware estimate is 3hrs 14min. ATC has just starting down N456MF about 200 miles out. That's pretty standard in the NE. These boys are cutting it close with their reserves. According to fltplan.com they should have 129lbs. I guess I know what the MF stands for in the tail number!!

jetaburner said...

Mirage00-

Another thought about reserves. I fly a CJ2 and use 600lbs for VFR, 800lbs for IFR, and if I'm flying into the Northeast or SoCal and the wx is bad I use 1,000 to 1200lbs to account for the arrival, etc. The last thing I want to have to worry about is fuel.

The CJ2 burns about 680pph in HSC at FL450 doing 395ktas. The ea500 burns 341 in HSC at FL410 doing 337ktas (according to the owners' spreadsheet). The EA500's relative fuel burn compared to the CJ2 increases as you descend. So.... I would use 300lbs VFR, 400lbs IFR, and 600-500 lbs for congested IFR. Using those numbers in the owners' EA500 spreadsheet your range is approx. 1150nm VFR, 1050IFR, and 850-950 congested IFR.

421Jockey said...

JetA,
I pretty much agree with your range asessments. We can all argue +/- 5%, but i think you are pretty close.
The point is, what other aircraft can do this mission with the acquisition cost and operating costs you laid out? Answer, none.

I will be perfectly content with this type of performance and cost. It is a huge step up from my previous aircraft, and it is the only way I would ever be able to personally acomplish this type of mission in a turbine aircraft.

I am looking forward to my delivery later this month.
421

jetaburner said...

421-

I agree there is definitely an owner flown market for the e-clips. But the plane costs close to $2M and isn't a 4 person, 1100nm IFR, 1300nm VFR plane. I built one recently on e-clips' website and the price came to $1,937,634 for LX edition with some options. Useful load with full fuel is 585lbs. Remove the 6th seat and it goes to 619lbs. That's 3 people, including the pilot, with limited luggage.

My point is that I think there is a market but that it is not revolutionary compared to what is already in the market place. Therefore, historical data regarding the marketplace will be relevant to the number of planes e-clips can sell. It has recently been said in the press and repeated here that e-clips needs to sell 600 planes a year to break even.

The marketplace for a $1.8M+ turboprop or jet has been about 50 to 100 planes per year over the last 7 years (look at the Meridian). I don't see the e-clips taking buyers from the TBM market (about 30 to 50), nor the Pilatus (about 60 to 80) nor the CJ, CJ2, etc. Will the prospect of a twin jet, with slightly better numbers than the Meridian cause more people to buy. Probably. But I just don't see how you can get to 600 even with the airtaxi business. Maybe if the jet was around a $1M as originally proposed. Add to the fact that there is a whole lot more competition such as the Mustang, Phenom 100 and 300, Piper Jet, Honda Jet, Cirrus Jet, etc. to dillute the market and I see a company that's business plan is very questionable. This would be a huge concern for me if I were buying the plane. We have seen this before in aviation where there have been spectacular failures (think Beech Starship) that over promised and under delivered. Who get's hurt? The early consumers.

If e-clips succeeds and you have an early, cheap position than you will make out just fine. If they fail, then your plane could become practically worthless depending on what happens. The used aircaft market is very efficient at pricing. I bought my new Meridian in 2001 for $1.5M (150K less than retail at the time) and four years later sold it for $1.1M. Why? Because Piper produced as many as they could, made a substantial improvement with the gross weight increase, and replaced the Meggitt System with Avidyne system. The market responded because the early Meridian had reliability issues with the Meggitt and it just didn't carry that much very far. The market also seems to question the quality of the Piper product (I think they are justified).

I bought my 2003 TBM C2 (used) in 2005 and it hasn't lost a dime of value. Why? Quality airplane that is extremely reliable. We also have a CJ2 in the family that we bought in 2002 and it has actually appreciated!! Lesson I learned in aviation: stick with products and companies that have proven track records.

FlightCenter said...

hummer and exe,

I agree with you that $250 isn't going to be an impediment for anyone who has already made the decision to fly DayJet. And it certainly won't be a factor if you are already chartering jets.

That really wasn't the point of the post.

The point is that requiring someone to pay for membership before they are provided the facts and economics for the service is going to turn folks away who haven't yet decided whether DayJet is a good fit for them.

They are asking folks to pay $250 just to see if DayJet will work for them?

I don't think so.


Exe,

Your point - "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" Implies Ed is going after the super rich, who are already flying charter.

That isn't the demographic that Ed is targeting. He has repeatedly said that he is going after the folks who are currently driving these trips. Trust me, those folks are careful with their money.


Your point - "keep the nosy people away"

If that is DayJet's attitude - then that is their choice, but it certainly isn't the type of company I'd want to do business with.

Net Jets and other similar services are more than happy to provide full disclosure of all the details of what their service costs, upfront at no charge to any "nosy" person who asks.

Requiring a membership fee upfront means that DayJet's new customers will come primarily from word of mouth. And for many companies that is a reasonable way to grow their business.

However, if they are planning to grow by word of mouth, then why advertise?

If they need to grow faster - through advertising and driving new folks to their website, why not present in clear and easily understandable terms, the value proposition for their service?

FlightCenter said...

421,

Great news that you are finally going to get your jet! It must really be a dream come true.

Can you provide a little background?

Have you had your flight evaluation?

Have you started training? If not, when do you expect to start?

Are you going for the single pilot type rating?

What is the word from Eclipse on your aircraft?

Will your aircraft have the windshield mods and the pitot static fix incorporated on the production line?

It sounds like the Avio NG cut in will occur after your delivery, is that right?

Ken Meyer said...

JetAburner--

Your numbers were bad, sorry. Probably you used the Fltplan.com Eclipse model. It's wrong. Plug the aeromod numbers in a real flight planner next time.

Using a decent flight planner and plugging in forecast winds, the Eclipse would take 3:10 and burn 1183 pounds. It actually took only 3:02--probably because Eclipse 500's with the aeromods are beating book numbers.

The bottom line: Both the TBM models take longer and burn more fuel for the flight. And a new TBM costs 75% more upfront, too. Why on earth would anybody want to buy a plane for more money that provides less performance??

I'll answer it...Personally, I think the only reasons a guy would buy a TBM 850 over an Eclipse would be if:

1. He needed the extra range although it turns out it's not all that much, or he needed the extra load capacity although it turns that's not so much either, or...

2. He didn't think he was good enough to pass the type rating checkride, or...

3. He liked a single engine prop-driven plane over a twin jet, or...

4. He wanted to spend 75% more upfront in order to wind up with less capability.

I think the TBM series will stick around as a niche aircraft. After all, the entire 15-year production run of the TBM series is less than 1/6th the Eclipse order book today! Those planes will stick around in large measure because of guys who think they just aren't good enough to pass a jet type rating checkride.

Ken

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

Ken,

OK, I was an optimist.

You did'nt get to 3 full days off line...

And please, PLEASE stop it with the numbers thing.

When they suit your position, you bored us to distraction with them.

When they don't, they are 'wrong'

By now, we all know that NOTHING positive anyone says about an alternative solution will fit your mind set.

I hope you enjoy your E499.5, if you ever get it.

And you know that depends on the next 90 days of an untried company, relying on brand new software in the one State that is bound to 'enjoy' natural weather systems of the most violent sort....

As I said earlier, I wish everyone involved the best of luck. You will need more than your fair share to get your mits on that aircraft.

Shane

airtaximan said...

Ken:

I think you forgot one more aspect to why someone would by a TBM, or some other VLJs besides e-clips...

too much risk in the eclipse plane and company.

then again, when asked over and over again to list the risks as you see them - despite your assertion that you see the risks -you come up empty on the risk side. Never a mention, never a real reply. ust mad as hell someone noticed for the last two years, you NEVER recognize the risks.

One more BIG reason (many risk elements in e-clips) would be the risk going with e-clips, compared with Socata or some of the others...

airtaximan said...

" why not present in clear and easily understandable terms, the value proposition for their service?"

what's unclear...
- you'll pay between $1-$4 per mile
- you may make a stop along the way
- you will be told when you are leaving only the night before flying

- sounds perfectly straight forward to me... if:
- you don't mind paying around the same price as flying in a light jet or 2-5 x the price of a prop
- have no reason to be at a meeting within 2-3 hours of a planned time, or are meeting with folks whose time is of no value
- stopping along the way and making the trip longer is no problem

Unless I'm wrong, there's no practical way to get home the same day, unless you choose very narrow (and expensive) time windows. The earliest meeting you can plan that is 300 miles away is around 11AM with a 2 hour window... meet until 2-3 PM, and getting home by 6PM or 7PM requires another 2 hour window, maximum.

I believe you need to allow for 1/2 hour at the airport, and a potential stop...also, renting a car and driving to the destination, and back takes time... 1 or 2 hour windows are going to be $3-4/mile - and that's $900-$1200 each way for the trip.

Driving will realistically take the same effective time, allow the same or more convenient business day. Something does not make sense, especially when a prop charter for the day might cost less and be more on-demand... as well as take less overall time.

jetaburner said...

Ken-

Quick lesson in math: 75% more than $1,937,634 (today's qouted price on website for a similarly equipped e-clips is $3,390,860. The new TBM850 costs $2.8M. Let's keep it real.

2nd lesson: You may not fly IFR all that much b/c of your plane but every flight in my TBM or CJ2 is IFR. All of my flights in flightAware are always posted a little short. Don't know exactly why. I flew the CJ2 on Monday 1650nm non-stop and it says 4hr6min when in actuality the flight was 4hrs16min. Same for the trip back. So.... when flightaware says N456MF flew 3hrs2min it was probably closer to 3hrs12min. You will notice it's first "hit" was at 8K and last was at 3200. Maybe that has something to do with it but I've found that it is almost always off by 10+ minutes. You will also notice if you look at my post that I said: "According to FlightAware (at this moment) the flight is going to take 3hrs13min"
You will probably find that out when you start flying your jet.

As for the TBM guys not being able to pass the checkride. I already have a single pilot type in the CJ2 but I'm not remotely interested in the e-clips. I would take a TBM850 over the e-clips everyday. Why?
1. Proven airframe.
2. Proven company with great support (even though it is French).
3. The company will be around for a long time. They are also owned by EADS which is the 2nd largest aerospace company in the world. Very nice. The TBMs are built in an ISO9001 certified facility and I've found the build quality to be outstanding and robust.
4. Better Avionics which are proven. The 850 will be delivered with the G1000. Which is a proven avionics package that has been installed previously in many aircraft including the Mustang. Nice choice and reflects a conservative approach (which I appreciate) by Socata.
5. Much better range and payload numbers than the EA500. The new TBM850 will get about an extra 120lbs of payload b/c of the G1000 installation. That means you can carry 970lbs w/ six seats or 1,000 lbs w/ 5 seats with full fuel. There's a rumor that they may add more fuel. That's great b/c there's already ample amount of payload.

I haven't met TBM owner who is remotely interested in the e-clips because of the reasons stated above. Obviously they all can afford it but think its limited range and payload is a joke. Some of them are interested in the Mustang but most think that is too limited as well. Most of them would like a CJ series aircraft.

Now for reality check #3. I actually qouted both fltplan.com and the owner's spreadsheet as I don't have operating experience to know which is more accurate. Why did I do this? To keep it real and honest. I've posted before an anaysis of range and payload but will summarize it again for you.

From my experience flying Meridians, TBMs, and CJs and looking at the fuel burn of the ea500, is that 300lbs for VFR, 400lbs for light IFR, and 500-600lbs for heavy, congested airspace IFR will probably be needed. Using the owners' spreadsheet and ISA #s that gives you:
1150nm w/ 300lbs
1050nm w/ 400lbs
850-950nm w/ 500-600lbs

That seems like a pretty fair and reasonable approach. It also assumes, to the benefit of e-clips, that you will get a direct climb and descent which is unlikely in most airspace in the U.S. Probably more realistic to subtract 50nm. Which is interesting b/c the owner's predicted time and fuel burn was:

3hrs 2 minutes
1274 lbs/190g
reserves: 412lbs/61g

Trip was 991nm and according to FlightAware took 3hrs2min. Hmmm... 412lbs of reserve w/ a 2kt tailwind??? Maybe I'm being too generous with the 1050nm IFR range. Think it is more like 1000nm (on a good day). And by the way.... the plane can't hold 714lbs with full fuel unless you get 0 options. That means:
-no SkyWatch
-no Stormscope
-no TAWS
-no Radar Altimeter
-no Taxi/Recognition Lights
-no 6th seat or refreshment center.
-no LX Edition Interior
- no Entertainment Package.

Add any of those options and you lose your 714lbs with full fuel payload and that's provided they meet those #s!! The typically equipped plane will more likely hold 550 to 650lbs with full fuel which is 3 people, not 4 with limited luggage. That's the real problem with the plane. People like me like to bring friends along.

I thought this was a jet???? As my insurance broker said to me: "the e-clips is for the guy who could almost afford a jet."

jetaburner said...

This is really telling about how the aviation community views the VLJs. On the Controller's website they list:
Jet Aircraft
Turboprop Aircraft
Single Piston
Twin Piston

Very Light Jets
Sport Aircraft

That's kind of funny that they built a seperate category for the VLJ. They don't even consider it a real jet which I was scratching my head b/c I couldn't find any e-clips listed under jet aircraft. Silly me!!

There are a bunch for sale including several under $1.5M with options. This can't a good sign for E-clips when they are trying to sell them for $1.9M+.

jetaburner said...

Ken-

Here's another point I forgot to add: I put 350KTAS into FlightAware for FL390 for the EA50 and it predicted 3hrs 14mins. It was probably pretty accurate. As for fuel burn, I hope those guys didn't land with 129lbs. Whew!! That's tight. So is 350KTAS accurate for FL390? The time seemed about right.

What's really interesting is that the longest IFR flight with no wind (in the real world Ken) that the EA50 can do is about 1000nm and it only beats the TBM850 by 20 minutes. I think I've proven that and even 421jockey agrees.

Koolaid-drinker1 said...

jetaburner said...

"This is really telling about how the aviation community views the VLJs. On the Controller's website they list:
Jet Aircraft
Turboprop Aircraft
Single Piston
Twin Piston

Very Light Jets
Sport Aircraft

That's kind of funny that they built a seperate category for the VLJ. They don't even consider it a real jet which I was scratching my head b/c I couldn't find any e-clips listed under jet aircraft. Silly me!!"


Yes jetaburner.... Silly you! perhaps you should have used Aircraft Shopper Online as an example.

ASO.com Business Jets

You could have shown how the Eclipse is in the same "Business Jet" category as all the following aircraft.

Very Telling isn't it?

------------------------------------------------
Choose a make or model group
Beech Beechjet
Beech Premier
Boeing 727
Boeing 737
Boeing BBJ
Bombardier Challenger
Bombardier Global
Cessna Citation I / 500 / 501
Cessna Citation II / Bravo / 550
Cessna Citation III / VI / VII
Cessna Citation Mustang
Cessna Citation S/II
Cessna Citation Sovereign
Cessna Citation V / Ultra / Excel XLS / Encore
Cessna Citation X
Cessna CitationJet / CJ
Diamond D-Jet
Eclipse
Embraer
Falcon 10 / 100
Falcon 20 / 200
Falcon 2000
Falcon 50
Falcon 7X
Falcon 900
Gulfstream G100 / G150 / G200
Gulfstream GII / GIII
Gulfstream GIV / G300 / G400
Gulfstream GV / G500 / G550
Hawker
IAI Astra
IAI Westwind
Learjet 23 / 24
Learjet 25 / 28 / 29
Learjet 31
Learjet 35 / 36
Learjet 40 / 45
Learjet 55 / 60
Lockheed
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 / MD-80
Mitsubishi
Sabreliner
------------------------------

Koolaid-driker1 (AKA CAD1)

Ken Meyer said...

Jet A--

You sure seem like a guy bound and determined to convince himself that a single engine propeller plane is better than a jet. I respect that; the TBM 850 is a better choice for you. You should stay away from the Eclipse.

In your particular situation, you're better-served by spending more and getting a single engine propeller plane. OK. I just wish you'd be confident enough in your decision to quit trying to tell the rest of the world that your decision is the right one for everybody. It's not. I've posted a dozen times the very compelling reasons why the Eclipse is a far better choice for many people than a turboprop.

2700 orders for the Eclipse vs 400 for the TBM 700/850 over its 15 year production history validates my point of view. 2700 orders vs 400 tells us you're an outlier. No single plane is right for everybody, but a lot more people think the Eclipse is the right choice than think the TBM is. I'm amazed you can't see that. Or maybe you can and that's why you persist in trying to tell the whole world how good your choice really was.

Ken

jetaburner said...

Ken-

Again you missed my point (which isn't the first time). The reason I compared the recent ea500 flight to a TBM is to show that there has been a similiar products (a pressurized turbine powered aircraft) in the marketplace that are capable of similiar times and efficiencies. And I doubt that the marketplace is 600 aircraft a year based on historical sales of TBMs, Meridians, and KA90s. Many of your 2700 hundred contracts were signed when the plane was less than $1M. That's not true today it is almost $2M. Over half of the orders are from DayJet and who knows if they will succeed. How many of them are/were speculators?

So can e-clips continue to sell 600 of them a year at around $2M in order to become a viable, stable and profitable company? I I don't see it. From the people in aviation I've spoken with everyone has either lost interest and sold their positions or never was interested. If it is no, than you and your fellow depositors are in for some big trouble.

jetaburner said...

Ken-

Even if I was interested in the plane I wouldn't buy it until all the above mentioned uncertainties were worked out. I would be happy to pay more in a couple of years and know that e-clips will be around to service my plane.

mouse said...

RC,

Expand your horizons....

mouse said...

Air Safety Man,

Now you might understand why they want Columbia... Composite will be a big part of their future...

Ken Meyer said...

Jet A wrote,

"Even if I was interested in the plane I wouldn't buy it until..."

That's disingenuous. Everybody in the world knows you're not interested in the Eclipse. You've expended a tremendous amount of time and energy to tell us why the TBM is so much better for you.

So the postscript ("even if I was interested, I wouldn't want it right now") winds up being just energy devoted to spitting into the wind. So much energy expended trying to stop the train after it has left the station.

In the end, none of this matters. What matters is that the plane is rolling off the assembly line at high rates; it has turned out to be very successful in the field; it is meeting or beating performance figures. And it is pleasing lots and lots of pilots.

Of course the plane is not for everybody. Some want more plane--the CJ3 guys here for instance. Some will want less plane. Some want less plane that costs more.

That's fine. There is room in the world for all of us. Aviation is a big tent :)

Ken

mouse said...

PlanetX,

not exactly. It's how the legs are presented. If you broadcast where the plane is and when it is available for charter that's perfectly fine.

If you say it's at ORD and departing to ATL at 1600Hrs and available for occupation, thats not acceptable.

Big difference.

mouse said...

FlightCenter hit the nail on the head with the DayJet pricing issue. The whole idea is to intice "New" passengers who have not chartered, so they are 101% clueless about what the costs might be. By not giving them any details you fail to entice anyone new...

mouse said...

JetBurner, be careful now, you're gone piss off Ken and he's going to blow you up with his Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

Using facts and common sense... Shame, shame on you!

Besides, leave him alone... all he has are his numbers... No Plane, just pictures... Good value...

airsafetyman said...

Mouse,

I am very glad Columbia is staying alive. I was just pointing out that Cessna can be a little backward; their LSA and NGA prove that. I know several people who work for Cessna and even their eyes glaze over at the mention of the LSA; a lot are truly embarassed by it. The Cirrus LSA derived from a European design looks like something most pilots whould love to fly. Cessna's strength is in their marketing department. In manufacturing they are known to mix and match wings and fuselages and call the result a "new" airplane. They get away with it so good for them. In many ways Cessna looks go good because the Eclipse is so poor.

hummer said...

Mouse & Flightcenter
What is it about DayJet don't you understand? They have had their membership open for over six months now. There has been a published telephone number with a delightful lady representative available to answer any and all questions. There is also an agreement about flying which outlines what the requirements are. Further information is given about prices and pricing. If you wish to criticize them, do so like something really important, you know, like the color of their airplane or something.
They have the right to operate their business any way they chose.
Sorry that it doesn't really fit with your interests, desires and sense of fairplay.
Why don't you just email Ed about the way you feel and how you feel slighted. I'm certain that he will amend his policies and procedures to fit your liking.
He may even agree to give you a free demo ride so he can secure your later business.
If you get lucky, maybe he'll give you a high paying job as say a marketing consultant.
You never know.

hummer said...

BTW
When is the last time you ran a company of this size and raised
200 million dollars?

airtaximan said...

hummer, that's funny - bottom line is, no one can raise and blow money in aviation... like Vern.

imagine if Socata decide to lower the price of their largely learned out TBM, say 35%... and did a little test market of volume. Perhaps they would see that they could sell 300-400 planes a year.

Just like Vern's learning, he can't sell 600 or 1,000 plaes a year.

Something tells me that Ken would switch to the TBM at around the same price as the "low, low, low, intro price" Vern dreamed up for the e-500

Anyways, its good to have the e-clips billboards back. The place just was not the same without them.

hummer said...

ATM
I was referring to Ed, not to Vern.
Ken will have to talk for himself;
he's a grown man. As far a billboards are concerned, could you please eloborate?
Am I missing something.
You consider me as a billboard?

airtaximan said...

Ed, VErn... its all the same. Did Ed also rasie $200M? I thought it was $100? Nice...

Ken's the billboard...
I have no problems with you -should know this by now!

nite

AeroObserver said...

Can we just let DayJet fail or succeed on its own merits? In case you all haven't noticed, your opinions about DayJet don't mean jack sh!t -- Ed's company has already started service, so the train has left the station. Sit back, relax and see whether it stays on the tracks or derails. DayJet won't make it or break it based on any of your opinions.

Sorry to burst your bubble that the world -- not to mention Eclipse's and DayJet's success -- revolves around this blog. If you believe it does, I have three words for you: Dee Dee Dee!

280KT said...

I agree that eclipse cannot sell volume to real owner/pilots. My jetprop easily does 1000nm in less than four hours, using 125 gallons of fuel, with a 26 gallon (one hour) reserve. Price was lower and room is more. Yet so far, they have made only about 200 jetprops in about six years, at the exact price point that eclipe originally targeted. Without DayJet, the market will be MUCH less than neccessary to achieve the touted production advantages.

jetaburner said...

Ken-

You said: "In the end, none of this matters. What matters is that the plane is rolling off the assembly line at high rates; it has turned out to be very successful in the field; it is meeting or beating performance figures. And it is pleasing lots and lots of pilots."

I agree that in the end none of this (I assume you mean this blog) matters. Of course it doesn't!! I don't take myself that seriously and I'm just having some fun wondering and discussing the future of e-clips.

As far as turning out high productions numbers and being succesful in the field, well frankly, that remains to be seen. They are producing partly finished planes and not at the high production rates that were predicted just a couple of months ago. Let's keep it real Ken.

Their planes are delivered without a complete avionics package, no FIKI, and a static pitot problem that needs to be fixed in the future. I wouldn't call that succesful. As far as pleasing lots and lots of pilots... well I haven't heard anything positive from the aviation community. The fact there are 49 positions and planes for sale on Controller does not suggest that the aviation community is happy with plane. Someone qouted earlier in the blog that 21% of the planes delivered so far to non airtaxi companies have been resold. Wow!! That's in just in one year.

Other indicators support this as well. 2007 will be Socata's best year and 08 is looking even better. The used TBM market has never been stronger and I can't get a new TBM 850 until the end of 08 (and that's a maybe). Why? I think a lot of owner pilots are realizing that the VLJs, especially e-clips, over promised and are under delivering. Remember Vern originally said that he was going to produce a twin jet that could carry 4 people 1450nm. That's when he signed most of those contracts.

jetaburner said...

280kt-

I agree and that's been my point. I think there might be a market of 600 planes per year if the jet was priced at $1M. But at $2M I find that a big stretch based on market history. I sure wouldn't bet on it.

jetaburner said...

It is interesting to compare the Mustangs and e-clips for sale on Controller. The e-clips are selling at substantial discounts to what the manufacturer is offering while the Mustangs are commanding a $300k premium. That is very telling.

AlexA said...

jetaburner said...”It is interesting to compare the Mustangs and e-clips for sale on Controller.”

What is interesting is that many of the sellers are making $500,000 on a $1.5M Eclipse while the Mustang sellers are making $300k on a $3M aircraft.

AlexA said...

Jetaburner said “I wouldn't call that successful” referring to Eclipse.

Ken, please don’t confuse the bloggers with facts. You don’t understand the TBM series is much better built and much more reliable and cheaper to operate;-) Please do me a favor an overlook the 10 , yes TEN ADs which the FAA issued this year alone on the 700s. Some of the problems including loose rivets, vertical stabilizer attachments and more. Yup great reputation, yup well built airplane.

If you add the carrying cost of the additional purchase price (TBM over the E500) and the additional insurance cost you would be able to “purchase” 115,240 lbs of fuel for free. That’s almost 70 complete fill-ups for FREE. Oh and never mind the TBM is 50Knots slower.

ExEclipser said...

AO: Gee, you have a lot of vitriol to spew while bursting others' bubbles. Of course DayJet will make it or not completely independent of our opinions. Duh.

JetABurner: DayJet will be happy to quote you a price over the phone. Most charter companies don't have an online booking/pricing system that just anyone can use without registering.

"If you have to ask, you probably can't afford it" is a lot more diverse a comment than catering to the super rich. You don't have to be the super rich if you feel that for $250 down and $2000 four times a year is worth your time for any specific situation. That's less than ten grand for a convienient alternative to commercial OR charter air travel.

Now, please pardon me as I go see how DayJet's launch went yesterday...

airsafetyman said...

"Please do me a favor an overlook the 10 , yes TEN ADs which the FAA issued this year alone on the 700s."

Yes and ALL ten have the statement that "This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation aurthority of another country..." In other words the FAA found zero, zip, nada, on their own. Sounds like EADS tightened up their quality control, went to the French DGAC and requested mandatory actions as a way of incorporating changes into the fleet, knowing that the US's FAA would follow the French DGAC lead.

Ken Meyer said...

Jet A wrote,

"the Mustangs are commanding a $300k premium."

Do you actually know what the delivered price would be for a new Mustang order placed today? I do; I priced one because I was very seriously considering buying one.

Those planes on Controller are NOT selling for a $300K premium to current pricing. Like the Eclipse, Mustang positions are yielding handsome profits to those who purchased them early on for speculation.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

One difference between Cessna and Eclipse--you cannot actually transfer a Mustang position to another buyer; Cessna forbids it.

You have to work around that by one of a handful of ruses such as transferring the LLC that owns the position.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

Jet A wrote,

"2007 will be Socata's best year and 08 is looking even better."

Well, I guess success is in the beholder's eye.

Socata sold a whopping 42 TBM's last year. The new upstart, Eclipse, delivered more than that number the first 8 months of its first year and will very likely deliver 10 times that number next year.

The TBM 850 is a nice plane that fills a particular niche. But it never ignited the market enough to make much of an impact. It's hard to believe after 15 years, that it is suddenly going to blast off. Heck, check out the anti-VLJ advertisements Socata is running and you come away feeling Socata is pretty nervous about the future of the TBM.

Ken

mouse said...

Ken Meyer said...
One difference between Cessna and Eclipse--you cannot actually transfer a Mustang position to another buyer; Cessna forbids it.

Another way Cessna protects the value of the airplane. Ken, what sort of Dr. are you?

Do you ever feel like your in a room full of Proctologists, and they're all staring at you?

Eclipse with all their other issues now has to compete with the owners to sell new airplanes... Very Distruptive indeed.

You also criticized many for forcing their beliefs (TBM's) on others... Look in the mirror Ken, you push Eclipse to the world like a D9 Caterpillar.

If the EA-500 is right for you, Buy One! If it's not, just stay here and keep cut-n-pasting Verns message...

That's what I thought... Don't cut yourself, and stop sniffing the glue, or eating the paste....

mouse said...

Ken Meyer said...
Jet A wrote,

"2007 will be Socata's best year and 08 is looking even better."

Well, I guess success is in the beholder's eye.

Socata sold a whopping 42 TBM's last year. The new upstart, Eclipse, delivered more than that number the first 8 months of its first year and will very likely deliver 10 times that number next year.


Ken, this is called a business plan, and Socata is following it to a "T". The market demand does not call for huge numbers. Their team is under control. They are profitable.

Eclipse is busy... Losing money, trying to catch up with thier promises, running on empty, grossly overburdened, grossly under-delivering, and missed the boat the launched.

Eclipse is cranking out planes like the diarrhia... Apparently you are enjoying the splattering, butt (pun intended) not enough to scoop up a handful for yourself...

Why don't you but one and flip it like the rest of the bunch? Sell enough and you can buy your wife her Mustang and she can take you for a ride in a plane instead of going for a ride with Vern on paper?

airtaximan said...

HOW TO THINK LIKE A DIE-HARD:

DIE-HARD THOUGHT: "Socata sold a whopping 42 TBM's last year."

MISSING: thats $155 million in sales, and likely a nice profit

DIE HARD THOUGHT: "The new upstart, Eclipse, delivered more than that number the first 8 months"

MISSING: Their first 8 months of production were last year (2006), and they delivered one plane during this period. Also, the 42 E-clip deliveries totalled about $55 million - probably at a huge loss.

DIE HARD THOUGHT: "The new upstart, Eclipse"

REALITY CHECK: 10 YEARS AND $1.X BILLION SPENT DOES NOT A "NEW UPSTART" MAKE.

Hey, whatever "reality" you chose to make yourself feel OK about the dismal situation over there...keep praying for some aluminum in return for your deposit and progress payments already flushed... pray hard... its almost blind faith at this point.

EclipseOwner387 said...

280kt,

Some people pay attrention to things like useful load. The JetProp just can't be a serious part135 aircraft. I love my JetProp but you can't really compare the full spectrum of customers with the JetProp offering. Plus Jets are viewed by the flying public as safer. I also agree DayJet and others like DayJet have pumped up Eclipse sales numbers but it would still outsell the JetProp by a large factor. To go the JetProp route you need to have or acquire a used airframe and then negotiate the conversion. The more I think about it - it is a stretch to compare the two. Not a knock against the JetProp at all. Just different and more niche.

Niner Zulu said...

Where, exactly, are all the satisfied Eclipse owners? It seems someone, somewhere, should be writing good things about their "ownership experience". Where are the accolades? The aviation publications aren't overly kind these days -surprising since Eclipse has probably spent more advertising dollars than any aviation manufacturer in history.

Ken, you seem to be pretty well connected to the Eclipse gang. Can you invite some of them to post here?

jetaburner said...

Mouse and AT-

Thank you I couldn't have said it better. Would you rather own an airplane that has an excellent 15 year reputation that Flying Magazine recently said was the ultimate personal turboprop or a tiny, little jet with a pathetic payload that is unproven and not even fully certified? Hmmm... tough answer!! My C2 has actually increased in value over the last 2 years!! That's very nice. I wonder how many TBMs Socata could have sold if they originally priced them below $1M!!!

Alexa-

You said: "Please do me a favor an overlook the 10 , yes TEN ADs which the FAA issued this year alone on the 700s. Some of the problems including loose rivets, vertical stabilizer attachments and more. Yup great reputation, yup well built airplane."

This has more to do with a change in the relationship between the French and American Aviation Authorities. All of the ADs issued this year were all ready incorporated (as in when the plane was built in 2003) or done by my maintenance facility. The 10 ADs were accumalated over many years and were previously issued by the Socata and complied with. It never caused any burdens what so ever.

FYI.... Every plane that I've had the pleasure to operate, CJ, CJ2, TBM, Meridian, B36TC have had ADs. The Meridian by far had the most because it was brand new. I must have gotten one every other month for the first couple of years. You will experience this first hand with your new e-clips. It has already started with the windshield and pitot static and that's just the beginning.

jetaburner said...

9Z-

Excellent point. Everybody I've spoken too has either sold their position or wasn't interested to begin with. If this plane is so great why aren't their all these glowing reviews and write ups?

I heard from a friend of a friend who very recently took delivery of a aero-mod plane and said that with his pro-pilot and wife on board he is over gross if they top it off. Sounds like a real useful jet to me.

I'm getting into the helium underpants business in order to sell them to all the new VLJ owners. The weight savings offset the TCAS so you can get that installed. Ken and Alexa do you want a pair?

airsafetyman said...

"The JetProp just can't be a serious part135 aircraft."

Why not? The de-ice boots on the JetProp work just fine and the weather radar actually works, too! At least it's not a day, VFR, dry runway airplane.

jetaburner said...

EO387-

Well Said:
"Some people pay attrention to things like useful load. The JetProp just can't be a serious part135 aircraft."

That's my problem with the e-clips. A typically equipped e-clips comes in with a full fuel payload of 550-625lbs. What's it in the JetProp?

jetaburner said...

EO387-

I also agree that it is a stretch to compare the jetprop to the e-clips. Although it is close on payload and range which is kind of pathetic for the e-clips considering that the jetprop is a PT6 bolted on an airframe originally designed for a Piston. Same is true for the Meridian which is probably why there as been 2 bent wings in flight and 1 in flight break-up (all are on the NTSB site). I sold mine because I was concerned with the structural integrity. I actually had an issue that was red tagged and it took Piper 3 months to fix it.

ExEclipser said...

The $1.9M Piper Meridian has 578 lbs of payload with full fuel. Tight squeeze for three.

ExEclipser said...

Cessna Mustang has 600 lbs (after loading the pilot). Good job there...

ExEclipser said...

D-Jet gets 500 lbs with full fuel.

ExEclipser said...

A700 gets 503 lbs - but two pilots are included.

ExEclipser said...

Looks like the Epic Elite is the leader of the pack with 1330 lbs of payload available with full fuel (no pilots here, but still).

Now we're talking haulage!

AlexA said...

ASM said “In other words the FAA found zero, zip, nada, on their own.” JetA said”This has more to do with a change in the relationship between the French and American Aviation Authorities.”

You guys are really quick to defend EADS. The bottom line is that an established manufacturer has 10 ADs this year alone. It does not matter where the AD data originated, from France, China or anywhere else. What matters is that the FAA took the data and issued an AD.

As to the excuse that it is not applicable to my aircraft so it does not matter, bull. Here is an example “(c) This AD applies to Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 9999, certificated in any category.” It seems this “great established manufacturer” has had many production snafus.

AlexA said...

ExEclipser said...
“D-Jet gets 500 lbs with full fuel.” Sorry X but I have bad news. The 500 lbs of fuel is for the plain Jane D-jet not the executive model. Expect the D-Jet Executive (TAWS, TCAS, etc) to be close to 400 lbs

airsafetyman said...

No Alexa, your post implied the TMB 700 was falling apart and only but for the dilligent efforts of the FAA was disaster averted. Which is BS. Several manufacturers ENCOURAGE the issuance of AD notes as a way of insuring the fixes are incorporated fleet-wide. If all the aircraft can be shown to have complied with the AD and a fix is incorporated on the production line, the AD may be withdrawn. I would gladly fly in a TBM 700, but I would not get near an Eclipse.

FlightCenter said...

Exe,

To be fair with your comparisons you need to look at the total fuel amount and the fuel burn rate.

For example, the D-Jet holds 1,750 lbs of fuel and according to ANN burns 34 g/hour or 232 pph.

That's 7.5 hours of fuel capacity. Based on those numbers, you can put 1,250 pounds of fuel on board and the D-Jet should be able to haul 1,000 lbs and still fly between 5 and 5.5 hours.

Jim Howard said...

1) A plane ought to have only 400-500 pounds useful load with full fuel and a good fuel quantity system.

2) Spy Picture of a new Piper:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yuexxk

planet-ex said...

Alexa:

The TBM700 was certificated in 1990 (DGAC) yet took five years before it warranted an AD. The Eclipse took less than a year after certification to warrant an AD.

Let's see how many ADs the Eclipse accumulates if it is in production as long as the TBM is.

Redtail said...

AlexA said... Expect the D-Jet Executive (TAWS, TCAS, etc) to be close to 400 lbs

Gee, that really makes me want to run out and buy three. What a great decision!!!!

FlightCenter said...

Piper Unveils Matrix

The Piper Matrix is an unpressurized Mirage selling for $757K. This aircraft should do very well in the market against the Cirrus SR22 turbo and the Columbia 400.

The press release says that they have already sold 100 aircraft for delivery in 2008.

Jim Bass, CEO of Piper, has been superb in improving Piper's product quality, moving to modern manufacturing techniques and driving cost out of the product.

Expect a lower priced Meridian to follow.

jetaburner said...

Alexa-

You failed to get my point regarding the 10ADs for the TBM. They have accumulated over many years but were only issued in the last year from the FAA b/c of a new agreement. None of them applied to my 2003 airplane b/c they were already incorporated. Get it?

FlightCenter said...

Piper Matrix Price and Specifications

Since we are on the topic of full fuel payloads, the Matrix has a full fuel payload of 700 lbs.

jetaburner said...

Did a quick comparison between the Mustang and E-clips for reserve fuel allowances. I have the Citation Mustang brochure and using Cessna's numbers (which I trust and are stated below) I calculated what the equivelant reserve would be for the e-clips. I compared fuel flows and TAS at HSC at FL410 and found that the e-clips is 33% more efficient. I then subracted 33% off of the Mustang's reserve for comparison.

First # is for the Mustang 2nd for the e-clips in pounds:

VFR Reserves (at 15,000):
Day - 291/195
Night - 444/297

IFR (Alt + 45min at 15k):
100nm alt - 729/488
200nm alt - 915/613
300nm alt - 1056/708

NBAA IFR Reserves:
100 alt - 622/417
200 alt - 805/540
300 alt - 944/632

This isn't exact but it is a pretty good estimate and supports what I've said along: 250 to 300lbs for VFR and 400 to 700lbs for IFR.

This is the problem with small jets. Because they are small they can't carry much fuel and payload. Jets really only make sense for trips over 600+nm (which is why King Airs and other props have been around for so long). The time difference for trips less than 600nm is irrelevant and the e-clips won't be able to carry much weight (b/c it will be topped off) for trips longer than 600nm. Add in the small cabin and no potty for those longer trips and the appeal b/c even more questionnable.

I think a lot of the owner flown market could live with these realities when it was a sub $1m airplane but now that it is a $2M plane there is no value. Add in the fact that e-clips has consistently over promised and under delivered as well as the fact that they are now delivering partially finished aircraft. That is why there has been compression in their order book and sn #s 31, 91, and 92 were recently for sale. Consumers now see the real picture of the VLJ and have lost confidence. Only the guys who desperately want a jet are still justifying it.
Just my opinion.

EclipseOwner387 said...

JAB,

I would take you as more sincere if you hadn't adopted the "e-clips" phrase of the haters.

Blog is becoming more and more useless. I stated it very early on - TBM owners fear the Eclipse 500 Jet the most and you have become the most prolific "ghost" writer on the blog. Thanks for proving me right once again.

EclipseOwner387 said...

JAB,

And BTW - Eclipse full fuel payload is considerably greater than that of the JetProp. Why do you claim what you don't know?

mirage00 said...

Blog is becoming more and more useless. I stated it very early on - TBM owners fear the Eclipse 500 Jet the most and you have become the most prolific "ghost" writer on the blog. Thanks for proving me right once again.


This,from one of the most respected bloggers here.


I remain amused

double 00

JetProp Jockey said...

There are a few JetProp owners that read this blog for entertianment and enlightment.

Just a couple of comments.

1. A JetProp is not a serious candidate for part 135 ops. It is almost 100% owner operated.

2. Some of the guys who are waiting to move up from their 100LL burners to the E-500 do not understand the reality of a JetA burner at lower altitudes, especially if you are anywhere near the east coast (I assume this applies to the west coast also, but I don't fly there). Because the altitude is low, the TAS is down and because the altitued is low, the fuel burn is way up. It's one thing to plug perfect numbers into flight planning software - it's another to be listening to ATC telling you to start a descent 200 miles out.

3. Be honest about you average mission. I usually use the airplane anytime the trip would take more than one and a half hours to drive. Over a year's time most of those trips are going to be 125 to 400 MN. About 2 or three round trips per year are pushing the 850 to 950 mile length.

4. Every time you land at a bigger airport, there will be sticker shock for the landing and handling fees. I have talked directly with an E-500 owner who mentioned this area specifically.

Ironially, I believe that Day Jet Ops are probably a close profile to what an average user will be doing with this machine.

These are a few of the reasons that I, and I think a number of other single turboprop operators are staying right where we are.

jetaburner said...

EO387-

You said:
And BTW - Eclipse full fuel payload is considerably greater than that of the JetProp. Why do you claim what you don't know?

I didn't. I asked a question which you didn't answer.

Niner Zulu said...

FYI, A prolific writer is defined as one who is "intellectually productive".

EclipseOwner387 said...

JAB said,

"I also agree that it is a stretch to compare the jetprop to the e-clips. Although it is close on payload and range which is kind of pathetic for the e-clips considering that the jetprop is a PT6 bolted on an airframe originally designed for a Piston."

Sounds like a claim to me and not a question.

jetaburner said...

EO387-

I don't use e-clips as a derogatory term. I never took it that way and use it for its ease. Sorry if it offends you. I was concerned about the effect the VLJs will have on my TBM but I am no longer. For a couple of reasons:
- The Mustang is a real threat and will remain so. That being said it only beats the TBM850 on my typical trip of 700nm by 6min and burns 60 gallons more. It also carries less and doesn't go as far. Each are great planes and I'm considering both currently.

- I was concerned about Eclipse but I'm no longer. I think its small size, limited range and payload isn't competitive with the TBM. That's just my opinion but I think the market agrees with me as the TBM used and new market has never been stronger. I know 2 pilots who recently sold their positions in the Eclipse for an bought a used TBM700.

jetaburner said...

EO387-

The next sentence I discussed the Meridian which I have 800+ hrs in. I think that gives me some leeway to discuss it. I don't know the specifics with the Jetprop but I was under the impression that it had more useful load then the Meridian with full fuel.

AlexA said...

Jetaburner,

Yup I get it. Nowhere on my post did I say it applied to your aircraft. I understand if you are a little sensitive flying around a $2.8M single engine prop when you can purchase a twin engine for a million dollars less with better performance. Here is a partial list of ADs from the FAA web site.

airsafetyman said... “… your post implied the TMB 700 was falling apart and only but for the dilligent efforts of the FAA was disaster averted.” ASM you are reading way too much into my posts, I wasn’t implying anything. I just reported factual information.

1. A Nose Landing Gear (NLG) hinge pin rupture that causes an uncommanded NLG retraction.
2. unsafe condition as the finding of an improper geometry of some pulley brackets, which can offset the cable in the sheave.
3. Cracks on a vertical stabilizer attachment fitting due to corrosion, have been found on an aircraft in service
4. ..unsafe condition as a report of a master cylinder yoke failure
5. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent the flight control wheels from traveling beyond normal roll control limits, which could result in the control wheel becoming jammed. Such a condition could lead to reduced or loss of control of the airplane.

Certainly sounds like a great company and aircraft to me.

airtaximan said...

I guess some folks think there's only two possible reasons for posting here:

Fear
or
Greed

AlexA said...

airtaximan said... “I guess some folks think there's only two possible reasons for posting here:”

What about boredom?

AlexA said...

Planet-Ex said “The TBM700 was certificated in 1990 (DGAC) yet took five years before it warranted an AD.”
So Planet-Ex would it be fair to extrapolate from your post the EADS quality has gone down the tubes? Let’s look at the scorecard:
1st 5 years 1990-1995 1 AD
2nd 5 years 1996-2001 14 ADs
3rd 5 years 2002-2007 15 ADs

Ken Meyer said...

Jet A wrote,

"I was concerned about Eclipse but I'm no longer. I think its small size, limited range and payload isn't competitive with the TBM. That's just my opinion but I think the market agrees with me as the TBM used and new market has never been stronger."

You're not alarmed by the dramatic drop in used TBM prices recently? I just got a newsletter showing a lowtime 1999 TBM 700A sold for just $1.55M. I don't follow the TBM market real closely, but it looks to me like that's a pretty low price, historically speaking, for that plane.

You worried?

Ken

Turboprop_pilot said...

Let's get back to Eclipse:

Ken said planes are "flying" out of the factory. The FAA registry seems not to show this. Ken: can you tell us deliveries of the plane since mid-September? Mike Price said that September would be the critical month for Eclipse to meet their delivery promises and it has seemed pretty quiet.

TP

Black Dog said...

AlexA said...
Planet-Ex said “The TBM700 was certificated in 1990 (DGAC) yet took five years before it warranted an AD.”
So Planet-Ex would it be fair to extrapolate from your post the EADS quality has gone down the tubes? Let’s look at the scorecard:
1st 5 years 1990-1995 1 AD
2nd 5 years 1996-2001 14 ADs
3rd 5 years 2002-2007 15 ADs

Sorry to jump in Alex but I can't help but think you are flogging a dead horse on the AD issue.
ALL aircraft at some point will have a AD issued against them even the big boys at Boeing with the 737 slat track (missing washer) just recently
I've never worked on TBM's but 1 in 5 years is not bad at all and as the a/c age and receive more inspections you are bound to find problems which in turn lead to maintaince stations informing the CAA/FAA who in turn issue AD's (if warranted) to inspect for similar problems.
3. Cracks on a vertical stabilizer attachment fitting due to corrosion, have been found on an aircraft in service
This don't mean every plane has cracks or corrosion in this area its probably one instance but due to the potential problems a crack in this area may cause its prudent for the maintenance centre to send up a flare just to say hey look out for this.

EADS quality has not gone down the tubes but the a/c is getting older and as such you should expect more AD's with age and you fly boys should be happy that maintainance stations are finding and highlighting these issues (and making them safe) and not hiding them under the floorboards!

planet-ex said...

To counter Alexa, this sounds like a nice design flaw:

"This AD is being issued because of three instances of loss of primary airspeed indication due to freezing condensation within the pitot system. The loss of air pressure in the pitot system could cause the stall warning to become unreliable and the stick pusher, overspeed warning, and autopilot to not function. The concern is heightened by the aerodynamic characteristics of the airplane, which relies on the stall warning and the stick pusher to alert the pilot prior to the loss of aircraft control."

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Don't forget stupidity and jet envy.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

Have you considered that a 700A might see the effects of age more than a much younger C2 or the 850? The Eclipse likely has nothing to do with it.

Why are CJ's less than CJ 1's? The Eclipse likely has nothing to do with it.

You lambast others for suggesting the finances at Eclipse might be shakey based ONLY on the words of the CEO and several of his cheerleaders - saying it is wild speculation because they lack perfect knowledge to the penny - then turn around and make the suggestion that the Eclipse might be why a '99 TBM 700A is selling for ONLY $1.5M (extra credit to the student who can show us what the price would have been when new, 8 YEARS ago - coincidentally about the same time Eclipse started collecting resumes and money) - completely ignoring the fact that 2 superior versions of the same plane have been designed, certified, introduced and succesfully entered service in the interim.

As for the ridiculous inability of the Faithful to grasp the impact of a change in regulatory data sharing and the nature of OEM initiated Airworthiness Directives, it only shows once again that the Faithful lack the very basic understandings of what it takes to design, certify, manufacture and deliver a SAFE product - kind of like their hero in the 505.

cj3driver said...

An observation regarding the cost of light jet ownership. One of the most important aspects of aircraft ownership (from a financial standpoint) is depreciation/appreciation.

IMO:

The Eclipse will likely suffer considerable depreciation losses for owners over the next few years.

1. Forward pricing. The E500 is sold out (2700 units?) far into the foreseeable future.

2. Airtaxi planes soon to be in service will likely be available for purchase in the future.

3. Many speculators in the eclipse order book. Eclipse must compete for new orders with existing customer postions at a significantly lower cost

4. Potentially expensive service and maintenance.

5. If Eclipse fails, JetComplete fails.

6. owner/flown market was much smaller than Eclipse estimated.

7. Air taxi market was much smaller than Eclipse estimated.

8. Eclipse is still filling orders for the aircraft at $1.3 and less.. hundreds of planes.

9. There are many other choices offering greater amenities at similar price.

10. There may be hundreds of Eclipse owners looking to move up, when they see the overall cost, and the other options available at similar price.

For these reasons, I estimate a conservative depreciation budget for this aircraft at 5% per year. This comes out to $90,000 per year. If one assumes 200 hrs per year, Expensed for fuel, maintenance, hangar, capital cost at 6.5% and depreciation, the cost of ownership for an Eclipse comes to about $360,000.00 per year.

Comparing this to the Mustang.

For the following reasons, I do not believe there will not be much depreciation on the Mustang, for the next few years.

1. The back-orders for Mustangs are at higher prices than current.

2. Cessna has never claimed huge air taxi market orders in the past.

3. Stable service and maintenance.

4. Unlikely Cessna will fail.

5. Conservative production ramp-up.

6. Conservative production forecast sold out past 2010.

7. Current sales “in-line” with projected production.

8. Priced “in-line” with offerings from competitors such as Embraer, Honda, Adam.

9. There are no future contracts with customers (years down the road) at 20-40% LESS than current pricing.

10. There will be plenty of Eclipse operators looking to move up!

Based on this, if you were to buy a Mustang today, at $3.0 million, the annual cost of ownership would be $365,000 (using 200 hrs) … about the same price as an Eclipse.

In further comparison,

Because of the popularity of the CJ series of aircraft, I can report that the cost of ownership for most operators has been LESS than the estimated cost for an Eclipse, or Mustang. The reason? Appreciation. The CJ3 has appreciated over the last few years by over 1.5 million dollars. CJ, CJ1 and CJ2 (including + models) have also seen substantial increases in value. These increases have occurred even in light of the anticipated Eclipse “revolutionizing” the market. Even 10 year old CJ’s have seen double digit increases in price over the last few years. A used CJ purchased two years ago would have cost the owner LESS than the expected total cost for an Eclipse, … even with the higher fuel cost and maintenance.

Will this trend continue? Time will tell, but for the Eclipse, I don’t see values’ going up. There just aren’t that many people with an $1,800 per hour budget for a tiny light jet.

mirage00 said...

Ken said planes are "flying" out of the factory. The FAA registry seems not to show this.

Was it E387 who said his E500 sale in august just recently popped up on the FAA database? I don't think using the FAA database is a great indication of recent events.

I remain amused

double 00

cj3driver said...

“… extra credit to the student who can show us what the price would have been when new, 8 YEARS ago - coincidentally about the same time Eclipse started collecting resumes and money) …”

CWMOR,

www.Caijets.com is a great resourse for tracking TBM values and history. JP has links to all past newsletters since 1999.

jetaburner said...

Ken-

Not at all. I bought a 2003 TBM700 C2 for $2,250,000 in 2005 (used). Just spoke to the TBM guy who said there are currently 6 C2s on the market of which one has been damaged (you might like that one) and 2 are in Europe. They made 100 C2s so that's 3 to 6% which signifies a strong used market. In addition, a C2 which was 4 serial #s older then mine with about the same amount of time and a prop strike just sold for $2,250,000. Flying Magazine just rated it as the best personal turboprop partly because they hold their value so well. The market has never been stronger. So am I worried? Not in the least.

cj3driver said...

Moo said;

“… Ken said planes are "flying" out of the factory. The FAA registry seems not to show this.
Was it E387 who said his E500 sale in august just recently popped up on the FAA database? I don't think using the FAA database is a great indication of recent events…”

Moo,

Take a look on flightaware.

Of the last 1,400 flights to depart from KABQ over the last 7 days, 5 of those filing IFR have been EA50’s. The serial numbers were 3, 19, 27, 40 and 46. If Eclipse is delivering 1 per day, they aren’t filing IFR out of ABQ.

Also, There have been three flights out of AEG, serial numbers 9, 31 and 44.

Since September 24th, six Mustangs have departed IFR from KIDP. Serial numbers … 26, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 32.

cj3driver said...

Moo,

....In case you are wondering about S/N 28, it first flew IFR on September 19th and left Kansas on Sep 25 for its new home on the west coast (N54PV).

cj3driver said...

as for Eclipse,

The latest serial number to fly out of ABQ was on September 24th, ... the display Aircraft at NBAA and AOPA, # 50.

Serial number 48 first flew on September 26th.

October 1st was the latest date for a high serial number, and that was N6100, serial number 46.

No word on 47 or 49 yet.

Number 51 and on …. have not flown IFR.

Most of the serial numbers in the 30’s were flown IFR in late August, five were DayJets.

Ken Meyer said...

Jet A wrote,

"I bought a 2003 TBM700 C2 for $2,250,000 in 2005 (used)."

As I say, I don't follow this market but...

It sure looks like you've lost money on this proposition. Here is a 2005 C2 with just 450 hours and an asking price of $2.3 M.

My TBM newsletter has a 2003 C2 for $2.1 M.

They look to me to be dropping in response to all the nice alternatives suddenly available. But WTFDIK?

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3 wrote,

"If Eclipse is delivering 1 per day, they aren’t filing IFR out of ABQ."

Not so fast. What you should have said was...

"...they aren't filing IFR out of ABQ or they're blocked so I can't see them." You seem to have forgotten that many Eclipse flights are blocked (or maybe you didn't forget it?? :)

We have some very good legal and tax advisors on the Eclipse Owner's site who recommend blocking a plane's tail number from flight tracking. I think a number of owners are taking that advice.

Ken

jetaburner said...

Alexa-

You said:
"I understand if you are a little sensitive flying around a $2.8M single engine prop when you can purchase a twin engine for a million dollars less with better performance."

Time for a reality check. I purchased my TBM 2 years ago for $2.25M in cash. Since the plane has held 100% of its value, I could easily sell it today and buy an e-clips (especially since sn #31, 91, and 92 were recently offered direct from the factory for $1.65M). Do you want to argue that point with me??? Got to: www.caijets.com if you need valuation for my C2.

So why don't you ask yourself why a guy (me) who is SP typed in a CJ2, flies it and his TBM regularly, isn't interested in a product that does more for less (according to you). I'm actually looking at upgrading to the TBM850, Mustang or CJ1. I'll probably go with the TBM850 but haven't finalized that decision. I love its blend of performane, economy, range, payload, and reliability. That's just me but remember I have flown multiple turboprops and jets.

The e-clips is a no starter for me for several reasons:
- No significant aircraft history.
- No company history and questionable whether it will survive with its volume production model.
- Lots of speculators and early depositors who hold inexpensive positions. This has enormous potential to undermind the resale value. It also could bankrupt the company because they will not be able to sell new inventory at the price and volumes they need to. I experience this to a much lessor degree with my Meridian. I was an early purchaser (my sn was between 80 and 100) and got hammered on my resale.
- Range and payload is too small for me. I have well over 1000 hrs. flying turboprops and jets and love them both. Do I prefer a jet, of course. Who doesn't? But what I've learned through my experience is that jets are really sensitive to altitude when it comes to fuel burn and KTAS. It has a dramatic effect on range. Most of the airports I fly into have SIDs and STARS and I have found that you need to plan accordingly. I built up an e-clips on their site (with the options that I would require) and came to a useful load with full fuel of 586lbs. I've also done some analysis on reserves and (IMO) have found that e-clips' reserves are way too light. For me, I would want to see 300/400 for VFR/IFR in uncongested airspace, 400/500-600 for VFR/IFR in congested airspace depending on the weather. Factor in a SID and STAR and being held down or not being able to climb directly to FL410 (warmer than ISA and the plane has trouble above FL350) and your range is 700 to 1100nm (depending on reserves required). Therefore, for me flying into congested airspace and wanting higher reserves, the plane is really good for 700 to 900nm. That may be overly conservative but that has kept me accident free, insurable, and alive.
- The really small cabin size is also a major issue for me. I don't have kids but I like to bring my friends, dogs, and gear. That I find is one of the most satisfy things about owning an airplane.

Everybody is different and has different needs. I'm not trying to put e-clips down but rather share my experience with folks who may be buying their first turbine powered plane. Lots of people have caught "jet fever" and I think a lot of people are going to get hurt when the dust settles. There are so many speculators and people who have to have a jet that they don't do an objective cost/benefit analysis. They will do anything to justify it. That is a dangerous position. I believe the marketplace (41 or so e-clips for sale, many at a substantial discount) is beginning to catch on.

jetaburner said...

jetaburner said...
Ken-

I don't know where you get your info from but I spoke with the TBM dealer last night about the 850 and he told me that a 2003 TBMC2 w/ similiar time just sold for $2.25M. It also had a prop strike. My has RVSM and a GMX200 and no damage. Here's what is listed for sale currently:

2003 261 410 EFIS, Dual Garmin 530, IHAS-8000, Air, Dual GTX-327 $2,350,000

2003 273 1,350 EFIS, Dual Garmin 530, IHAS-8000, Roll Steering, ETM $2,250,000

2003 274 680 EFIS, Dual Garmin 530s, KMD-850, TAWS, WX-500 $2,350,000

2004 289 712 EFIS, Dual Garmin 530s, KMD-850 MFD, Skywatch HP $2,400,000

2004 290 737 EFIS, Dual Garmin 530s, IHAS-8000, RVSM, ETM, S/S $2,375,000

2005 310 450 EFIS, Dual Garmin 530s, IHAS-8000, GTX 327/330 $2,300,000

2006 340 940 EFIS, RVSM Dual Garmin 530’s, IHAS-8000, WX-500 $2,390,000+

Looks pretty solid to me. By the way, when there is less than 10% available on the market it is considered strong. One of those 7 has already been sold which leaves 6. There are a 100 C2 flying so that's 6%. That's indicative of a very strong market which will probably increase in value.

So Ken, you don't know what you are talking about.

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

“… Not so fast. What you should have said was...
"...they aren't filing IFR out of ABQ or they're blocked so I can't see them." You seem to have forgotten that many Eclipse flights are blocked (or maybe you didn't forget it?? :)
We have some very good legal and tax advisors on the Eclipse Owner's site who recommend blocking a plane's tail number from flight tracking. I think a number of owners are taking that advice…”

Actually Ken, I can only find two Eclipse’s currently “blocked” on flightaware. N229BW (#4 Mike Press) and N500CD (#45).

Also, flight explorer shows all aircraft, even “blocked" ones. They just don’t show the tail number. The aircraft just show up as “blocked” in the info tag. The blip is still there.

None of the tail numbers thru serial number 71 have been blocked yet.

So far, the number of Eclipse owners taking advice from your “advisors” … is two.

If you can find any more, … let us know.

cj3driver said...

Ken, for clarification...

...None of the tail numbers thru serial number 71 have been blocked yet...

Except #4 and 45....

Cj3 ;)

airsafetyman said...

Well, AlexA, I think it would take an EADS or Canadair or some manufacturer who knows what they are doing to straighten out the hideous design/construction mishmash that is the Eclipse program. The Eclipse owners should have it so good.

Turboprop_pilot said...

I purchased a TBM new in 2004 for $2.65 million, flew it 800 hours and sold it 9 months ago on my retirement. I got the equivalent of $2.2 million for it (I took a Meridian in trade) and therefore lost $450,000 over 2+years. Why? Not the E500 but the TBM850, which offered much better performance at a tiny increase in price.

The Meridian has been a good plane for my needs- me, daughter and wife with trips around the Northeast with a couple to Colorado and Florida. The TBM was a superior plane that was very high quality, strong and excellent performance. The Meridian is lightly constructed and you have to be more careful about flight stresses, but it flies well, has a pleasant cabin and meets my needs.

I had a deposit on the Eclipse and requested and received my money back when they did not meet performance guarantees. I felt that the plane would be fine for my needs but I did not believe Eclipse was financially viable and my wife said, on viewing for the first time at Hanscom “It’s tiny, smaller than the Malibu and I don’t want to fly in it”!

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3 wrote,

"So far, the number of Eclipse owners taking advice from your “advisors” … is two."

Well, we know that's wrong. Lots and lots of Eclipse company flights have been blocked over the last year.

I'm guessing from your erroneous statements that you are not fully acquainted with the BARR program. The aircraft can be blocked with the vendor or it can be blocked at the source. When blocked at the source (i.e. the FAA) the flight information vendors do not have any flight information to show, and you cannot infer flight information; the plane just doesn't exist.

Ken

rcflyer said...

jetaburner said,

"I'm not trying to put e-clips down"

I believe you when you say you harbor no ill-will towards Eclipse Aviation, but to me, that statement is like saying, "Some of my best friends are niggers." In other words, "e-clips" is a derogatory term used by others who plainly DO have ill-will towards Eclipse Aviation.

R.C.

AlexA said...

9Z said “Your arguments are really getting a little silly.” Yup, you are right. I was trying to prove a point I think it was successful. Of course I realize that the older any fleet is, the higher the likelihood of ADs. The more hours flown the higher likelihood and so on. That’s not the point.

The point is the motives behind the posts. You have guys that own TBMs rationalizing why TBM is the better choice over Eclipse (by the way we are doing it to share our knowledge with no ulterior motives)- Give me a Break. You have folks that have deposits on Diamond trying to rationalize why DJet is a better choice over Eclipse. You have a few disgruntled former employees. You have a couple of depositors and so on.

I would have to agree with EO387 the Blog is running out of steam.

airsafetyman said...

AleaA said : "Yup, you are right. I was trying to prove a point I think it was successful."

Was the point you were trying to make is that you are very unknowledgeable about aircraft maintenance regulatory procedures and practices? Then you were successful!

AlexA said...

ASM said “straighten out the hideous design/construction mishmash that is the Eclipse program.”

Airsafetyman please don’t hold back tell us what you think of the design and construction of the Eclipse;-) So what are you currently flying these days?

AlexA said...

Airsafetyman paraphrased “FAA issued ADs must mean the EADS is tightening quality control.”

Yup that one makes a lot of sense ASM.

Golly I know that I know nothing about maintenance regulatory procedures and practices but, I also know that I should pay much attention to what you post;)

Great to know that Eclipse is also tightening quality control (based on your logic) and they did it in less time than EADS;-)

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

“… I'm guessing from your erroneous statements that you are not fully acquainted with the BARR program. The aircraft can be blocked with the vendor or it can be blocked at the source….”

Ken, I am familiar. … And, I am telling you that as of today, October 4, 2007, at 6:20 pm PST… there are only two of the 71 tail numbers registered which are blocked on flightaware.

All others are visible. NOT “blocked at the source”, or otherwise. In fact, If you wanted to, you can pull the history … right now… on each one the first 71 eclipse’s. Up thru number 50, two are “blocked” and two have no history. After 50… no history and none blocked.

No one has to believe my “erroneous statements”, they can look for themselves!

There is enough data there. You are grasping at straws if you think all deliveries after 50 are being "hidden".

Even if your right, and Eclipse is convincing cutomers to fly away from the factory under diffent call signs in the dark of night, or under company test flight numbers, or "blocked" and change your tail number right away, or some other rediculous reason... this would make me worry me even more.

… Telling.

airsafetyman said...

AlexA,

It is really bush league to try and trash a perfectly good airplane by quoting AD stats. The Boeing 777 has 25 ADs to date, the Boeing 757 has 115 ADs to date. So what? The majority were probably discovered by Boeing themselves. I doubt is anyone at Eclipse has the courage to pick up the phone and call the local FSDO when they do find something amiss. In a well-run company the bad news would be ACCELERATED by management up to the FAA. Eclipse management uses political pull to get FAA inspectors REMOVED. Maybe even you can spot the difference.

Ken Meyer said...

CJ wrote,

"In fact, If you wanted to, you can pull the history … right now… on each one the first 71 eclipse’s."

OK, if you're right, you won't have any trouble posting the flight history for these serial numbers I found on a quick inspection:

17
47
4
45
51
52
49
29

I think you can't. So, prove me wrong.

Ken

Ringtail said...

Wow - I step away for a few days and nothing new here...we still have more discussion about the TBM than the eclipse.

I prefer two powerplants, therefore if I were to buy a new turboprop it would be a King Air 90 or 200 even though they MAY be slower and less fuel efficient than the TBM. Did I mention, I have seen a Citation lose an engine?

Eclipse= 2 powerplants
Eclipse = higher service ceiling than single engines
Eclipse = very good speed for its size
Eclipse + very good economics for its mission

Alex, Ken, EO, RC, Hummer, thanks for keeping it real.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Alexa,

AD's are issued by the regulatory authority (FAA, EASA, etc.) when a situation is significantly important enough AND the manufacturer EITHER requests the AD to ensure compliance in the field, OR because the OEM can not ensure compliance in the field. Occasionally they result from a lack of confidence in the OEM on the part of the FAA.

The issues with the TBM you guys keep harping on occurred a while back, some close to 10 years ago.

It has been explained before but I will cover it again, there has been a recent focus on harmonization between EASA and FAA, and this includes the bilateral sharing of previously released AD's, and for the OEM's SB's, temporary revisions to ICA's, and so on.

The FAA takes lead on certification around the world, so while they are now synching up with AD's generated by EASA as an example, it is likely that EASA and many other regulatory agencies are already in synch with say anything related to King Air's or Learjets.

In other words, the point you either cannot seem to grasp, or are deliberately misrepresenting, is that the AD's you saw were not new, but rather the collection of issues discovered and addressed over several years being caught up with FAA.

As one of the TBM owners here clearly stated, his aircraft was not subject to ANY of the AD's you tried to suggest were indicative of serious issues with the TBM, as they had already been incorporated by the time his TBM was built, 4 YEARS AGO.

On the other hand, there was an AD out against the Eclipse within months of certification, one which Eclipse resisted and tried to address through a Service Bulletin (a valid mechanism IF you can demonstrate that you are trustworthy AND you can prove the entire fleet is in compliance).

The FAA was either unconvinced that Eclipse could ensure that all 15-20 or so aircraft which had been delivered at that point would be brought into compliance, or the FAA was unconvinced that Eclipse could make the fix. It is really that simple.

This is not an apples to apples comparison, EADS-Socata is part of a multi-billion dollar operation that has been doing this work for decades and is staffed by professionals at all levels.

Eclipse has only been at it for a little under ten years, and while no doubt full of dedicated individuals, has all appearances of being ruled by a cult of personality with a pathological inability to take responsibility for mistakes - much like the Faithful.

AlexA said...

CWMoR The bottom line still remains an AD is an AD. No matter how anyone tries to sugar coated and AD is “An Airworthiness Directive (commonly abbreviated as AD) is a notification to aircraft owner and operator of a known safety deficiency with a particular model of aircraft, engine, avionics or other system.”

The TBM 700 is the subject of 30ADs. This number is shockingly high considering the number of TBM 700s in the field/produced.

Certainly sounds like EADS was at least sloppy in the design/build.

A TBM owner/operator IMHO tried to assert that the wannabe VLJ buyers are seeing the light and jumping the fence (backwards I might add) to TBMs. Well the TBM 700 is far from perfect (I don’t know of any aircraft that is perfect). I find it hard to believe that someone can rationalize spending a million dollars more for a single engine turbo prop with outdated avionics. With so many choices around the corner (PiperJet, Cirrus The-Jet, D-Jet, Eclipse) common sense would dictate the TBM market should soften in the near future.

I found it interesting that there have not been any comments from the peanut gallery as to ability to fly any of the VLJs for approximately 210 hours a year free (if you opt for a VLJ versus a TBM).

Ringtail said...

Where's Gunner? You out hunting?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Alexa,

Nobody is sugarcoating anything re: the TBM issues. Sugarcoating is when someone says that 'a particular plane' is not at AOPA for example, because it is 'too busy in flight test' only to announce 3 weeks later, under duress, that it was actually grounded along with all its' sister ships - no wait, that is called lying- hard to keep the VERNacular straight with the meaning of words in such a state of flux.

Can you provide an example in manufacturing (OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS FOR THAT MATTER) where a start up came in at 50-70% the cost of the existing competition, provided the same or better ACTUAL value, and ended up changing the game in the way Eclipse claims it might do, SOMEDAY, when they actually complete the design, get it certified and start delivering a fraction of the plane they promised 8 years ago?

I will agree with you that the Eclipse is at about the same level of development\completion at this time as the D-Jet, Cirrus or PiperJet BTW - smartest thing you've yet said IMO.

Black Tulip said...

Alexa said,

"I found it interesting that there have not been any comments from the peanut gallery.."

You need to get some more experience with airplanes.

Black Tulip

jetaburner said...

Alexa-

I've been very open with my experience and history in order to share my experience for the benefit of others. Your following statement suggests that you don't fully understand the cost/benefit analysis of turbine aircraft:

"A TBM owner/operator IMHO tried to assert that the wannabe VLJ buyers are seeing the light and jumping the fence (backwards I might add) to TBMs. Well the TBM 700 is far from perfect (I don’t know of any aircraft that is perfect). I find it hard to believe that someone can rationalize spending a million dollars more for a single engine turbo prop with outdated avionics. "

So I must ask, what is your experience? What type of aircraft do you currently own and fly? I believe I've asked this before and haven't received an answer. I'm curious because you don't seem to really understand all of dynamics of owning a more complex aircraft.

bill e. goat said...

Goat pseudo-rant/rambling/babelling/etc...
(part 1 of 2)
-------------------
Airsafetyman:
“Seems like the true innovation in aviation lies elsewhere than Cessna. Their new offerings are an anorexic 150 and a reworked 210. I mean, the 1950s are past! Look at Cirrus with their manufacturing innovations and the fresh designs of Honda and Piaggio”.

Goat's observation:

Honda has yet to deliver an airplane. (Obviously).

Cirrus has yet to make a profit. (Per numerous comments posted previously here).

The P.180 was wind tunnel tested in Italy and the U.S. in 1980 and 1981... the prototype first flew in 1986...U.S. certification was obtained in 1990...the 100th aircraft was delivered in October 2005. (Paraphrasing Wikipedia. Note: less than 1 per month average production).

From Rcflyer:
“Cessna has committed to producing the 162, and taken 750 orders with deposits...”

Goat:
Cessna is the best managed company in aviation, IMHO.

(and BTW, I agree with ASM's fondness for the beauty of the P-180, and the innovations of Cirrus and Honda. But Cessna is in business to make money, not make art :).

jetaburner said...

Turboprop pilot-

Thank you for your honest and candid approach. We have a lot in common as I owned a Meridian for 4 years and have had a TBM for the last 2.5yrs. Both are good planes. I feel bad putting down the Meridian as I have in past posts. My point was only to show the risks of buying a new aircraft. I thought I was safe b/c of the history of the airframe and powerplant. I had an early model that had some "teething issues". Hopefully the new ones are better.

Your decision process is very similiar with a lot of current turbine aircaft owners who feel the e-clips is just too small and does not offer enough value. It is hard for the die-hards to believe that people would not only choose a single turboprop over a twin jet but would also pay more for it. I've pointed out that the market has shown this to be true over the last 15 years (TBM, Pilatus, and Meridian) but they fail to recognize it. It's a fact. People buy single turboprops for a variety of reasons over twin turboprops and jets. I'm not saying a single turboprop is better I'm just pointing out a market fact. I don't know why they won't recognize that.

Currently I don't know of any owner pilots who are still interested in the e-clips. Maybe I live in a strange world that is out of sync with reality. But of all the TBM guys (20+) I've spoken with no one is interested in the e-clips. Some are interested in the Mustang others in the CJ series but none in the e-clips. I know 2 pilots who were e-clips position holders, one flies a KA90 the other a 414, both have sold their positions. The 414 guy decided to split an A model TBM with another pilot who also interested in the e-clips but no longer is. The KA90 pilot sold his position and is know considering a TBM850. Again, I'm not trying to toute or sell the TBM I just naturally have a lot of exposure to fellow TBM pilots.

AlexA said...

Jetaburner “I believe I've asked this before and haven't received an answer.” Once again I owned and operated a Cessna 400 series for multiple years. Sold it recently based on forecasted delivery date of the Eclipse 500. Still have a single. By the way I speculated that the market for older twins would wither away due to the advent of the VLJ market.

I think recent history proved me correct.

JAB with all due respect I have looked at the economics of the TBM versus E500 and it does not make any sense.

CWMoR Since you are kind enough to educate someone inexperienced like myself would you please provide me the One Engine Out Climb Rate of a TBM 700;-)

jetaburner said...

Goat-

I think the P.180 is one of the coolest planes flying. It is fast, efficient, and sexy!! Of course it is Italian. Just my opinion. I was in Portofino, Italy last year and watch them fly over everyday. They are pretty cool!!

bill e. goat said...

Goat pseudo-rant/rambling/babelling/etc...
(part 2 of 2)
-------------------
Rcflyer:
thank you for the reference to Cessna NGP. Looks like a slick 172-ish/182-ish replacement. But: IO580, and 320 HP ???
---
Observation:
The Cessna Caravan does a great job of hauling freight. I have long thought that the world needs a 2/3-size Caravan, for hauling people.

The Caravan has crew + seats for 8-12 pax. Think of something slicked up aerodynamically for more speed, and lighter and smaller (less “rugged”, but faster- although not necessarily a lot faster, for mostly shorter trips, say, 150-400 miles).

Think crew + 4-8 seats (4 “first class”, 6 “business class”, or 8 “economy”).

I think the biggest obstacles to customer acceptance are:

1) “Curb appeal” (apparent size from the outside).
2) Easy of entry.
3) Relative comfort once inside.
4) Cost of service.
5) Convenience (schedule/availability, distance to “catch” the taxi, reliability).

These are my perception of the market place, probably not anyone more knowledgable though (maybe I'm just thinking to "disruptively" :).

I think the Eclipse might be somewhat handicapped by the fact it seems relatively small from the outside.

And sorry, folks just don't like climbing up on top of a wing to get into an airplane (re: Cirrus).

Nor do they like crawling over a seat to get inside (uh, sorry again Eclipse, and almost everyone else).
--------------------

Now thinking about a flying Checker Cab, consider this from Wikipedia regarding the Cessna NGP:

1) Lycoming IO-580 (with FADEC)
2) FOUR doors, PLUS baggage door
3) High wing (keeps the rain off pax while planing and de-planing, and provides a better view of the ground for pax).

Just think, if this Cessna NGP evolved into the next...Checker Cab??? Maybe air taxi stuff isn't so far off after all...
----------------------
Further observation:
What would work great with the above is...a small turbo prop power plant, sort of what P&W did for the small turbofan world with the PW61x family- maybe somebody will do with a small tubro prop?

For typical air taxi stuff (relatively disproportionate amount of ground and holding), the props have it for efficiency.

And oil is predicted to hit $100/barrel next year, and STAY THERE (well, not really- it will continue to go UP). And with green house gas concerns, efficiency is going to be an increasingly large factor for prospective air taxi devices (and ALL devices, stationary as well as various forms of motion).

I think Cessna is playing with diesels too- higher efficiency, and can be made to be more reliable than gas engines (weight, and emissions, are an area of concern though).
----------------------
Anyway, Vern doesn't seem to see the contradiction of saying “air taxi” and Lexus in alternating sentences. But I do think you could say “air taxi” and Checker Cab in the same sentence...

AlexA said...

Black Tulip said “You need to get some more experience with airplanes.” Or maybe Black Tulip it’s an irrefutable fact backed by math. You can’t attack the math so you need to attack the mathematician?

bill e. goat said...

This has probably already been checked out by those interested, but just in case...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_NGP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYq7EVAzch8

Oh, and mouse said a couple of things, ah, interesting- not sure if it pertains to my "Checker Cab" thinking...

"Look for a Proof-of-Concept and then another newer, bigger model"

"Expand your horizons....".
------------
Probably just wishful thinking on my part. I really do like the idea of an air taxi, I just think the "right solution" is something like a 2/3-scale Caravan, not a twin jet...

jetaburner said...

Alexa-

I apologize. You are correct that you have previously posted your information.

Look some guys don't mind flying singles others can't stand it. That's totally acceptable. I don't have a problem with flying a single PT6. It is a very reliable and robust powerplant and therefore I feel comfortable. However, I always feel funny when I go back for my CJ2 recurrent and we spend so much time talking about engine out procedures.

I'm getting tired of go through the analysis of the TBM vs. e-clips or Mustang but here it goes one more time:

The e-clips is a 3 person 700-1000nm IFR plane depending on wx and airspace. Cabin space is a major issue as well as lack of history for both the design and company.

Mustang is a 4 person, 900-1150nm IFR plane depending on wx and airspace.

TBM850 is a 4 person 1150-1300nm IFR airplane depending on wx and airspace.

So the TBM offers more room, range, and payload than the e-clips. It offers more range, payload, and efficiency than the Mustang.

It lacks 2 engines, jet appeal, altitude and speed. Those are important for a lot of pilots. Totally understand that and I'm not dismissing that. I've experienced it as an SP typed CJ2 pilot. It's pretty cool. But at the end of the day the TBM offers a tremendous value to me for what it offers and the VLJs, with their low speeds and performance relative to bigger jets, don't seem like real jets (IMO).

bill e. goat said...

JetAburner:

I concur- I would have to say, I find the P-180 THE most beautiful GA airplane in the world- an assessment fueled by an appreciation of both it's aesthetics and it's performance / functionality / effectiveness / efficiency.

Truly, a landmark design, regardless of the sales numbers (which, I believe, are increasing of late).

(Portofino sounds like a lovely place, no doubt. Great views, of all things, in all directions :).

jetaburner said...

Goat-

Portofino is off the charts just like the P.180.

They have been selling more them lately b/c they are now owned by Ferrari (I'm sure someone can comment). Also b/c of fractional operator Avantair. 1/16 share for $415k gets you 50hrs a year for 112,800. You don't pay for empty legs. Very interesting but you have to ride in the back!!
Check it out at: http://www.avantair.com/Menu/PiaggioAvanti.aspx

jetaburner said...

Alexa-

Just curious. What single are you flying? Do you have any turbine experience?

AlexA said...

Jetaburner thanks for your candor. There is no question the TBM sounds like a perfect plane for your mission. The TBM would be a logic upgrade to anyone flying a recip twin with the exception of the price point. Let’s take Eclipse out of the picture since it raises so many emotions. With Eclipse out of the picture I can’t see how EADS can justify $600,000 more over the PiperJet. As Mouse has pointed out the low production high price model seems to work for EADS.

I just wonder how much more successful the TBM would be at $1.7M in terms of sales?

Curious do you still have to have the landing gear overhauled at the 5 year mark in France or has this been resolved?

jetaburner said...

Alexa-

-No question that the Socata would sell more TBMs at $1.7M than at $2.8M. That's easy. But the real question is how many more and what would the economy of scales be sufficient to still make a profit. I don't know but a company with the resources of EADS, or any of the other legacy manufacturers for that matter, don't think so.

- Piper Jet has yet to be certified. I don't even know the numbers so I can't compare. At this point it is all conjecture. One thing I have learned is that when aviation companies over promise and underdeliver it is the early consumer who gets hurt by the resale.
- I don't know where you get your info from but the plane doesn't have to go to France for landing gear overhaul. That is just plain wrong.

I've answered your questions how about mine:
Do you have any turbine time? Have you ever owned a turboprop or jet? If so, how much jet time do you have?

jetaburner said...

Alexa-

You (and Ken) seem content on putting down the TBM. I don't know why. Is it threatening to you that people who fly a single turboprop would rather continue to fly that plane, or even buy the new version, rather then spend less money for the e-clips? Why does this bother you so much??? If I didn't like my TBM I would sell it and get a Mustang or CJ. But you can't accept that a guy who has the means and lots of jet and turboprop experience really enjoys the plane. Why might you ask? One reason: Quality. That's probably why it was on the cover of Flying magazine 2x this year.

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

“… OK, if you're right, you won't have any trouble posting the flight history for these serial numbers I found on a quick inspection …”

Ken... here goes;

# 4 MIke Press’s plane blocked (I already covered this)

# 17 no history

# 29 Boxer Properties - this plane has been on the market for a long time – maybe recently sold – probably not AD (pitot) or aero modded. I was told it flew VFR to Houston and it was sitting in a hangar there for at least a month maybe two. Boxer is also selling two more positions 154 and 226.

# 45 blocked (I already covered this)

# 47 Travolta’s plane – Flying? Even if it is, it makes sense for him to block.

As for 48, 51 and 52, they are most likely not flying yet. Maybe they are still in training. Maybe they have CofA but delivery hasn’t taken place yet. Maybe they are in fact “blocked”. Either way, we will probably have a good idea in the next couple of weeks if they dont show up. Its too early to tell.

The fact is, of the KNOWN flying Eclipse’s, only a few are actually blocked. So, if there is a production “fly away” conspiracy, to hide deliveries from the public, it must be very recent, and it makes no sense.

# 17 is the only plane out of 46 known flying that I can even question.

What’s your point. Why would Eclipse want to hide 48, 51 and 52. Are you saying that these aircraft are blocked at the source? Or is it more likely they just haven’t been delivered yet. Why would Eclipse want to hide the fact they are delivering planes. Or are you just trying to justify the lack of EA50’s departing from ABQ.

The fact is, almost all the Eclipses known to be built and flying are NOT blocked from Flightaware.

Serial numbers 54 thru 62 are DayJet planes, so there probably wont be any “funny business” with blocked flights when these are in the air. According to the announced production rate, they should be heading to Florida in the next few days. I hope so, because I have Eclipse at 130 planes for the year! I hate losing. It appears Eclipse will have to make good on the 1 per day schedule from now till the end of the year, in order for me to win.

GO ECLIPSE GO

cj3driver said...

"So far, the number of Eclipse owners taking advice from your “advisors” … is two."

Ken said'

Well, we know that's wrong. Lots and lots of Eclipse company flights have been blocked over the last year.

Ken, I restate;

"So far, the number of Eclipse owners (of known flying IFR Eclipse's, other than the factory) taking advice from your “advisors” … is two."

Ken Meyer said...

JetA wrote,

"You (and Ken) seem content on putting down the TBM."

Not at all. I think it's a great plane if what you want is a single-engine propeller aircraft. I believe Alex thinks it's a great plane.

But it is certainly far from a perfect plane for the reasons Alex pointed out. And it strikes me as overpriced.

I've said it before; I'll say it again--aviation is a big tent. There is room for everyone.

I don't happen to like the idea of spending more and getting less--a $1.6 million TBM will be a decade or more old, have ancient avionics, have lots of hours, have a bunch of ADs, and only one engine (and that one with a propeller, no less). You believe it is a better value for your purposes. Great. Welcome to the big tent :)

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3 wrote,

"The fact is, of the KNOWN flying Eclipse’s, only a few are actually blocked."

Of course the "known" Eclipse aircraft are not blocked. The only way you would know about an Eclipse would be if it is not currently blocked or was unblocked at some point in the past.

I don't suppose you see the perfectly circular logic you're employing. But either way, you inadvertantly made my point for me--

One cannot reliably judge precisely how many Eclipse aircraft are flying because many of them do not appear on Flightaware.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

Interesting DayJet Article

DayJet to have 20 Eclipse 500s next week.

Ken

airsafetyman said...

Piaggio is totally reorganizing their production of the P.180 line and is trying to get production up to one a day. The demand has been quite strong. With the turboprop engines it is looked at as a "green, environmentally-conscious" airplane. At the same time it will carry eleven people and blow past several small jets in cruise.

AlexA said...

JetaBuner said “You (and Ken) seem content on putting down the TBM.” Sorry JAB that’s just wrong. I think the TBM is a great aircraft with great performance but way way overpriced.

When I looked at the economics of the TBM 700 IIRC the landing gear had to be removed and sent to France for overhaul. You posted “plane doesn't have to go to France for landing gear overhaul.” That wasn’t my question; Does the gear have to be overhauled every 7 years? Does the gear have to be sent to France for overhaul?

There is a great piece on the internet published by TBM owner’s group that discusses some of the benefits and drawbacks of the TBM.

http://tinyurl.com/2euear

airsafetyman said...

"Does the gear have to be overhauled every 7 years? Does the gear have to be sent to France for overhaul?"

The gear is almost certainly made by Messier. A true aviation person would instantly know that Messier has an overhaul facility just north of Dulles airport in Virginia, off Route 28.

Stan Blankenship said...

Eclipse is an ANN sponsor for the AOPA 2007 EXPO (of course this won't compromise the unbiased reporting from Capt Zoom).

In the puff piece this morning, ANN reports 31 deliveries at the end of the second quarter and that 50 units are ticketed with a C of A.

The industry reports deliveries not C of A's. We are well into the fourth quarter, how many third quarter deliveries were made?

bill e. goat said...

CJ3driver:
"I have Eclipse at 130 planes for the year! I hate losing. It appears Eclipse will have to make good on the 1 per day schedule from now till the end of the year, in order for me to win".

There is a disincentive for Eclipse to make more than 134 airplanes before Avio-NxG is ready, because they only have 134 shipsets of Avio-Pre-NxG.

So, with Marion Blakey gone from the FAA, I guess they'll be relying upon Santa Claus to "deliver the goods" on Avio-NxG before Jan 01???

(I think Santa's sled might be, ah, a little late- maybe that cold weather battery thing or something...:)

mouse said...

Poor Miss Alexa,

She is so stupid she does not know that a single engine airplane has no climb rate with it's only engine shut down...

Perhaps she should consider an Eclipse since her thinking is so clouded... oh wait, she is considering an Eclipse.

Miss Alexa, the climb rate scenario is lot like the navigation and maintenance issues with the EA-500.... No performance because the items don't exist either....

ExEclipser said...

FYI Everyone, DayJet is now allowing you to price trips without being a full fledged member. Just as a registered site member (meaning you've registered for emails - FREE), you can price DayPort-DayPort one way, multi-leg, and round trip prices as well as DaySpot trips anywhere in their system.

Niner Zulu said...

Is the TBM really overpriced?

In 2001, I believe they were somewhere around US$2.2 milllion, and the Euro was worth about $0.80. That's about $2.75m Euros to the manufacturer.

Now, the TBM850 is around US$2.8 million and the Euro is $1.40+. To TBM, their market price in Euros has dropped to around EU 2 million. In other words, they're really taking a haircut on the selling price because of the weak dollar.

If anything, I'd expect prices of the TBM to increase, not decrease, but of course it is market demand that will set the price TBM can obtain and the factory will have to adapt.

Comparing the TBM with the Piperjet. Well, performancewise I have to agree the Piperjet does look pretty good. Quality wise, there is no comparison between the TBM and Piper. I like my Mirage, but it's no TBM.

These types of comparisons are pretty meaningless because you're comparing apples and oranges. Why do people pay $4200 for a Vespa LX150 when they could buy a Yamaha motorscooter with same or better performance for less than half? Or $80 for a French burgundy when they can get a bottle of "Two Buck Chuck" at Trader Joes for $2.00?

hummer said...

Stan and all
I have a general question overall.
This blog has got to create a lot of problems for Eclipse as a company in almost every area of business. Almost everything can be cross checked for accuracy. Also, without this cross checking, arguments both pro and con can be evaluated, and any one with a half of brain can draw an accurate conclusion.
So my question is why doesn't Vern shut you down? Why doesn't he have this blog closed?
You may state freedom of speech,
which I say RIGHT?
All he has to hire a private investigator and dig up some dirt on you (Stan) that you don't wish exposed.
Or make some lawsuit with his many attorneys such as libel,
slander or some other charge to
secure an injunction.
If those methods are not successful, then get Luigee and his brother, you know the guys in the black hats and baseball bats
pay a visit to you.
Why does this blog still exist when you are definitely a "thorn in Eclipse's side"?

hummer said...

Further, I couldn't log on yesterday.
All he has to do is take about half of those guys working on AvioNG and apply there dubious skills on this blog and no one would ever get logged on. It wouldn't require a lot of effort.

jetaburner said...

Alexa-

Thanks for the link to the TBM powerpoint. I have about 400hrs in the plane found it pretty accurate. Yes it is true the gear has to be overhauled at 7 years. Really not a big deal and pretty typical for a lot of turbine aircraft to have time limited systems that have to be overhauled. It is part of flying turbines and it is what keeps them safe. I don't mind.

I agree that the TBM is expensive. I remember when I owned my Meridian and I used to look at the TBM guys and laugh that they paid over $1m more for a similiar plane with an old cockpit. Ahh... How naive I was at the time.

See I bought my Meridian in 2001 b/c of the new glass cockpit and low price of $1.5M (they were selling at $1.65M at the time). The Meggitt cockpit, which was new and therefore didn't have any history, ended up being a huge problem for me. It caused 4 AOG issues (2 ADAHRS failures and 2 PFD failures). There were also 2 autopilot failures, both in IMC over the Rockies and the yaw dampner never worked. Did I mention I had smoke in the cockpit as well and had to declare an emergency? The icing on the cake was when the prop rpm gauge failed and I had to land and put everyone on a commercial flight. The plane was later red tagged for a crack in its elevator. It took Piper 3 months to fix.

I sold the plane in 2005 for $1.1M. New planes almost always depreciate especially new models that will surely get improvements. I was expected that but not a 26.7% drop. If I had paid retail it would have been a 33.3% drop.

I've flown the TBM for 2 years and 400hrs with not one AOG or major issue. Very nice. You know the saying: "you get what you pay for?" Well in Aviation it is really true and I learned the hard way. So I bought a 2 year old TBM700 C2 in 2005 after doing an extensive comparitive analysis between the CJ and TBM. My budget was $2 to $2.5M. I was also typed in the CJ2 and had close to 100hrs in the CJ and CJ2. So I was very familiar with the product. I chose the TBM because it did what the CJ did (range and payload) for about half the cost. On my typical flight to California the TBM would arrive about 30 minutes after a CJ. After reviewing all of the NTSB accidents and getting a lower qoute from AIG for the TBM (1.07% vs. 1.20%) I determined that the TBM was a very safe airplane. Obviously the insurance company thought so as well as they were willing to give me better coverage at a lower price for the TBM over the jet despite having almost 100hrs in the CJ and not time in the TBM.

So I bought a used C2 because I knew the 850 was coming out. I figured I would own it for a 2-4 years and either upgrade to the TBM850, Mustang, or CJ1+. I'm now in that process and will probably go with the 850. Lots of people feel the way I do who understand the value of quality. By the way, my TBM has not loss a penny of value.

So.. the TBM really isn't that expensive to operate. It costs me about $120k for 200hrs and I haven't lost any value. That's about 600 per hour to operate. I figure it is about 800 to 900 per hour for the Mustang and current fuel prices and I know it costs about 1000 for a CJ1 and 1200 per hour for the CJ2. I'm not qouting those numbers from C&D but I'm sure someone will post them. They are from my own experience and calulatons.

In addition, my TBM hasn't lost any value in the last 2 years. So it is actually very economical to operate.

I would be extremely worried about the long term value of my e-clips due to:
- Volume business model will mean e-clips will have to keep pumping them out. That keeps the supply high but what about the demand? Big concern here with new competition coming and competition from the used e-clips market.
- previous history of the company to over-promise and under-deliver.
- number of speculators who have below cost positions, this will strongly undermind e-clips' ability to sell their new aircraft for $1.9M.
- Complete unkown how the plane will do in the real world over time. How will the components age? Will the Avionics ever work?? If they do, will they be reliable or prone to crash, etc.
- The company tells a great story about how they are building the ultimate airplane with the ultimate systems but that couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is that had delivered or are still delivering the airplanes without certified avionics, pitot static problems, pre-aero mod, known windshield issues, etc. That behavior does not give me confidence in their product or claims.

All or some of these isues could really hammer the value of your e-clips and that's assuming the company survives. Way too much risk for me. And I fly a single!!
-

jetaburner said...

9Z-

Great analogy w/ the scooter (I actually have a Yamaha!!).

Stan Blankenship said...

hummer,

Anything is possible, it only takes a few hundred dollars to file a lawsuit.

And as far as my personal background, that's an open book. Google my name and I think the worst you can find is that I am a duly elected Republican Committeeman for the City of Kechi.

As far as Lugiee, I have more concerns with the dozens or hundreds of speculators whose investment today is probably worth less than what it was a couple of years ago.

I suspect if Eclipse were to shut down this blog, six more would pop up.

Years ago, I was having trouble dealing with customer concerns about the Learjet accident record. Harry Combs gave me some good advice. Harry for those who don't recognize his name, was the president of LJ and the founder of Comb's Aviation.

He said, "If you have a pot of shit, don't stir it. You will only make it smell worse. Let is set and it will crust over and quit smelling."

sparky said...

NBAA was good, if a little quiet. Not as much hype as the recent years.

I have to agree with the opinion on Piaggio. Absolutely one of the most beautiful aircraft flying today. Recent numbers put production at @ 40 a year with a three year backlog. They recently moved their operations to Denton, Texas for their state-side completions with private and fractional ownership running about even.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 343   Newer› Newest»