I got this email this morning, and felt it deserved a prominent place in our history. I've altered a few lines to protect my sources, one of which you can work out pretty easily....
To: Eclipsectiticng@gmail.com
Sent: Fri May 30 2008
Subject: Announcements
To all Eclipse employees:
Today at our E-rrival customer event, I made two significant announcements. These announcements represent the reality of life as a start up – the highs are incredibly rewarding, but they come with challenging lows.
Let’s tackle the tough stuff first. We are raising the price of the Eclipse 500® to $2,150,000. The increase is necessary for Eclipse to move forward on a financially-sound basis. The reality is that the slope of our production ramp has been slower than we had hoped, and this has impacted our ability to deliver this airplane for the cost we had targeted. While we have pursued many other alternatives to rectify this situation, we now need to take this action to lower our break even and move toward profitability.
In addition to sharing the difficult news of this price increase with our customers, I was also thrilled to have the opportunity to introduce a new aircraft to the Eclipse Aviation family – the Eclipse 400 single-engine jet. This is a production version of the Eclipse Concept Jet (ECJ), which we first revealed at EAA AirVenture 2007. Since that time we have received a tremendous amount of positive feedback from current and potential customers alike.
After completing 10 months of extensive research on the ECJ, we are confident this is the perfect aircraft for the emerging single-engine jet market. As many of you have experienced firsthand, this jet inspires people. It immediately captures their imaginations, and when they look a little closer and begin to grasp the level of performance and value it delivers – they are truly blown away.
All indications suggest that the single-engine jet market will be a major force in general aviation, and the Eclipse 400 will once again give us the chance to dominate by offering the most economical and technologically-innovative aircraft in the industry. We believe we are very well positioned to take the market lead as we have in the VLJ category. With this in mind, we have decided to reward our many loyal customers by allowing them to be the first to place deposits on the Eclipse 400. In fact, today at the customer event we began taking Eclipse 400 orders. We will start accepting deposits from the public at EAA AirVenture in July 2008.
The Eclipse 400 will be powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada PW615F engine. At an estimated 330 knots, it will use less than one pound of fuel per nautical mile — making it the world’s most fuel-efficient jet aircraft. It seats four and cruises at 41,000 feet, nearly four miles above its closest competition. It will also feature the most sophisticated flight deck and complete aircraft integration available in general aviation. The Eclipse 400 is priced at $1.35 million in June 2008 economics. We expect to start delivering Eclipse 400 jets in 4Q 2011.
We have always dreamed of having a family of aircraft, and it is wonderful to begin to realise this goal today. I have no doubt that the Eclipse 400 will be just as wildly popular as the Eclipse 500. I hope all of you are as excited as I am, because we have another challenging and exhilarating task at hand. Yet, while it is exhilarating to launch a new aircraft, especially one like the Eclipse 400, our focus is and will continue to be producing and supporting the Eclipse 500. Opportunities associated with developing and producing the Eclipse 400 will be communicated as we move through the process.
Whether it is the Eclipse 500 of today or the Eclipse 400 of the future, I believe we will ultimately be known as the company that built the best jets in general aviation. We have the talent, drive and assets in place to make it happen, and the customers who have taken delivery of their jets are telling us we’re succeeding. We absolutely have what it takes to create more highs, and avoid more lows. Let’s keep pushing to realise our incredible potential in everything we do.
Sincerely,
Lord Raburn of the Sith
So, there you have it, from direct from the top table. Two long predicted events, linked for maximum impact.
164 comments:
Stan always said Vern would keep the blog interesting, by doing something stupid.
Yesterday, he did several pretty stupid things, all at the same time. I would love to have been a fly on that wall...
And welcome back Goat.
Oh, and I might as well welcome myself back. I was 'out of the pocket' for a few days, but seem to be connected to the web again.
Shane
hilarious ...
when you decipher what's behind those nice words ,this is what you can understand :
all promises from the past have vanished ... ( as for e500)
everybody has noticed we are a failure ... ( may be that is the reason for being widely known ?)
nonetheless , we start again the techno-blabla in our attempt to reach world domination !
Hilarious , i tell you ...
after i stopped laughing :
seems like "snowball lie effect" (when you push a snowball to make it bigger and bigger so nobody can see ahead...)
E500 ... = failure ?
ok , let start to talk about our new concept ...
then =
E500 ? i don't have any memories on such ....!!!
definitely ; it is not a question IF they are going to do something stupid ...
but ONLY when !!! ;-))
The Conjet prototype was composite but I believe the production will be stirfried metal, using as many bits as possible- wings, gear, nose, Avio(NG??). Vern forgot to say: The very same, identical INOP stickers will also fit!
It would fit onto the same production line in a normal factory but at Eclipse???
From the E500 program we know:
Schedule will slip
Cost will rise
Weight will rise
Performance will slip
Mod after mod will be needed
It will be rushed out the door to meet promises
How revolutionary will it be 3 years late to the SEJ party?
Turboprop_pilot
It is going to be interesting to see how they intend to show compliance to FAR 23.841 (a) If certification for operation over 25,000 feet is requested, the airplane must be able to maintain a cabin pressure altitude of not more than 15,000 feet in event of any probable failure or malfunction in the pressurization system.
and 23.831 (b) (b) For pressurized airplanes, the ventilating air in the flightcrew and passenger compartments must be free of harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases and vapors in normal operations and in the event of reasonably probable failures or malfunctioning of the ventilating, heating, pressurization, or other systems and equipment. If accumulation of hazardous quantities of smoke in the cockpit area is reasonably probable, smoke evacuation must be readily accomplished starting with full pressurization and without depressurizing beyond safe limits.
They'll probably have a Vernblower function in the aural warning system, where .mp3's of Eclipse press conferences will be played.
back to some old questions:
1- why would someone pay eclipse $2.x million when they can pay Cessna 2.x million for their jet?
I think Vern knows the answer... there's no real reason, and not many will do this.
- I guess, the Russian facotry (yeah, right) will be building the Conjet
- I guess the US factory will be finished building the e-500 in around 18 months.
Look for "right sizing" again soon.
get it?
(I think I know know why it was called the "500")
Got another email a couple of days ago, but Vern's antics took centre stage. I reproduce it below, as it's pretty self explanatory. Please understand that I don't think Texas is a better place than New Mexico. However, almost anywhere has to be better than working for The Great Raburn!
Shane,
I found your blog and wanted to say thank you for the insight on Eclipse. Eclipse is having a huge job fair in DFW this weekend and people will be googling info about the company. I would post something for people who are considering leaving Texas to New Mexico, like, DON'T DO IT.
xxxxx in Texas
‘Just a guess here, but this move toward the “ConJet” would seem to be a three year window of opportunity to “dump” the E500 for whatever reason . . . maybe through a court-ordered “reorganization” (a strong probability), yet keep a semblance of being in the aircraft business. That’s just my theory.
‘Turning the page to “Chapter 12", the advice for people to stay in Texas is well given. New Mexico is not a business friendly state. And you will not like paying a state income tax.
gadfly
I now believe in reincarnation. Vern has to be P. T. Barnum reincarnated.
My proof? P.T. had Tom Thumb, Vern has the Tom Thumb Jet. P. T. believed there was a sucker born every minute, Vern believes there is an investor born every minute.
Hey Texans, the grass is not always greener...
Cash for the next 12 months?
Take these assumptions:
Orders, excluding Dayjet and air taxis: 950
Deposit before 60%, subject to refund: $150K
Orders with 60% paid, price of $1.6m: 200
Orders with deposits called, price $1.6m: 50
Cost to make one E500 jet $1.8m
In the next year EAC will produce 250 jets and this will cost $450m less a bit because a few are already almost "finished". So say $425m
Cash coming in will be 40% of $1.6m for 200 and $1.45m for 50 for a total of about $200 m. So on the jets alone, it will take $225m to clear the decks of the low priced initial orders.
Add to this the cost of retrofitting 200 airplanes to a greater or lesser extent which is probably another $50m at least.
Then add the return of deposits from 500 orders where the customers decide to take the money back rather than to commit to a new price of $2.3m (including options). That is another $75m.
So my calculation is that it will take $350m to keep the company going to the point that it is clear of the liabilities mentioned. At that point, it would be in a position to fill orders at its new price of $2.15m (without options) with its cost of $1,8m, thus earning a margin or profit of about $300K per unit.
IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO WOULD PUT UP $350 MILLION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING IN THAT POSITION? Does anyone think that 150 or 200 E500 units could be sold at $2++ million when a Mustang or TBM can be had for $3m, or a D-Jet at almost a million less?
Even if someone wanted to be in that position, would anyone get there by putting $350m into EAC? If rather, interested parties (if there are any) just stood by and EAC were to run out of cash, then through the miracle of Chapter 7, one could get to the same position of "cleared decks" by buying some assets from the court for, presumably, a lot less AND without liability for all those jets already in service.
I did not even factor into the above the cash requirements for developing and certifying the 400, together with deposits, costs and other cash considerations. One can only process so much at a time.
When will the wider media or even Vern's media lapdog Darth Campbell bother to ask about the lack of new sales for the E-500? That is far more important than the slow 'ramp up'.
Had they managed to actually meet their ramp up (any of the 3 most recent ones anyway), they would be out of orders to 'deliver' by late this year or early next - given the collapse, sorry, 'postponement' of 1,372 DayJet orders and 'floptions' for the lack of 'growth' capital - umm and passengers.
The inference is that it is poor manufacturing and vendor performance that is causing this price increase when the real issue is a clear lack of demand - kind of like what DayJet has discovered, and Pogo, and others.
Removing the 1,372 E-500's it is unlikely that DayJet will ever take, the order book is cut more than in half. The total reported number of orders has remained essentially stagnant for the last 2 almost 3 years - sales are well below the Eclipse proided 500-600 per year break-even point.
Without accurate inside cost information it is not possible to say exactly how much benefit the increased price of $2.15M will be, or what new break-even number it defines - I say if the number is more than 200 per year it is still in fantasyland.
Credit where credit is due, the price increase was, in my opinion, the right action to take. I have no way of knowing if it is enough, or too little too late, but it is at least a step in the right direction.
As for the E-400/e-CONjet, I find myself wondering how a company that has failed to complete the design, certification, manufacture and support of its first jet project is going to take on a second project without making the same mistakes. Vern has seemed awful slow to learn from his own mistakes.
As others have suggested, it begs the question why the focus on converting E-500 customers who by all rights should have already had their planes (such as they are), and why anyone in their right mind would accept a 3-4 year, or more delay in receiving their aircraft unless many Eclipse customers were really stretching to afford the jet at any of the lower previous price points ($775K, $850K, $935K, $1.15M, $1.35M, $1.59M).
The E-500 is now almost 3 times as expensive as when announced in '99, and almost twice as expensive as after the engine swap only 5 years ago.
The E-400/e-CONjet price point of $1.35M seems more reasonable as a starting point than any previous E-500 price before today, but how are they going to manage two product lines when they have been utterly incapable of completing the first one?
Parts commonality is great (an almost dinosaurish thing to do in fact), but Eclipse's problems appear to be much more than the assembly line - things like quality, supply chain, program management, and in general an apparent lack of adult supervision.
I still find the lack of Avio NfG references in all current press pieces, quotes, leaked e-mails, and even the remastered marketing video pieces about the origins of the e-CONjet program produced by Aero-News to be very, very telling.
In fact, I predict Avio NfG may be DOA. With L3 and Garmin both producing customizable integrated flight deck products for similar product lines I think Eclipse may have to face up to the reality they bit off way more than they can chew with avionics development and integration and the only chance for the E-400/e-CONjet to come in anywhere near on-time and on-budget is to allow an experienced avionics supplier to handle the design and integration - totally.
I predict Garmin at this point, development paid by Eclipse, up front.
I am guessing 100-200 defections from the E-500 to the E-400/e-CONjet by OSH, as many as 100 sales at OSH, and the quiet 'suspension'of E-500 sales to focus on the E-400/e-CONjet by year's end or maybe mid '09.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if DayJet finds a way to get some E-400/e-CONjet's before the end of the year as well - perhaps assisted by Eclipse enabling them to sell their 'completed' E-500s - and then switches their 'delayed' floptions to e-CONjet's.
I basically call BS on the whole thing.
ASPCNDA Disclaimer - No NDA's were harmed in the forming of this opinion/satire. Any elements of this opinion/satire that appeared to palce NDA's in jeopardy were simulated.
Saw this on another web site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npyXpcwhWdQ
Doesn't that just fit the situation perfectly?
"Hey Vern!"
flyger – That’s hilariously on target!
bricklinng, did your numbers analysis take into account the additional hundreds of millions required for the R&D effort for the con jet?
Add in another $300-400m or so over the next couple of years if not.
coldwet , yes i agree with you the whole thing is BS ...
not exactly BS , only a bit like a magician show :
get your attention focused on left hand while stealing your wallet with the right ...!!
the story sounds more and more funny , i almost regret AfricanKen when he was writing "Mustang being 40% more expensive bla...bla...bla"
now with E500 every depositor has about 40% more chances to never get a plane which is 40% less finished , 40% less certified and has 40% more chances to be worthless after BK ....
all of this for nearly the same price =
what a good deal !! ;-))
and about the "russian facotry" (?)
well the million $ question is :
if the "russian investors" are dumb enough not to see what is going on with such a bad management in ABQ...
what are the chances they can do anything better in Rodina with all added difficulties ?
if they are not stupid , why didn't they "disembark" already the management ?
after all it is supposed to be THEIR money which is getting burnt now ...
and they are the "largest shareholders " ...
as usual with Vern/EAC : things don't really add-up !!
i would almost bet that soon a "new giant leap" in some megalo-tech is going to flourish in Vern's mouth .
occulting all others failures , sorry others inside knowledge about some not resolved yet issues , protected by some kind of special NDA ...
remind me of a tutor while doing economics :
"Q:how many fingers do you need to hide a continent ?
A: only one , if put close enough to your eyes !"
i forgot :
please Baron95 , don't come-up with the "they want our technology ..."
Russians (the proper ones) are developing the "RRJ100" ...
may be that is the big difference with Vern , they do not dream about Technology , they just DO it and if they can't ? they buy it , without getting embarrassed with something useless (so too expensive !whatever is NOT working is ALWAYS TOO expensive )for them ...!
I have to say I am pleasantly surprised by the news that Eclipse is both raising the price of the EA500 to $2.15M and have authority from the board to offer the EA400.
The first action is what EVERYONE on this blog has been calling for all along. So I don't see how this can be a negative. It is a necessary step, one that will enable Eclipse to determine the real demand for the product at the realistic price. It still keeps it $30% below the least expensive twin fan-jet (the Mustang, which is bigger, but slower). My guess is that demand will settle on 150-200/year after they work though the backlog. I estimate the actuall backlog (orders backed up by non-refundable deposits) at 500 or so.
The second, cleearly inidcates that the company is not retreating and still has the eye on its initial goal - providing the least expensive fan-jet on the market. looks like they are aiming to undercut the D-jet on price by some 15-20% while offering much better performance. That should generate some 300-400/year demand. My two concerns are: a) I think they'll need the PWC617 (the 615 may be too small) and b) they need deliver on-time and with a G1000 cockpit to play in the SEJ.
Interesting for sure. ETIRC is surelly pumping serious money into Eclipse to allow this to go forward.
airtaximan said...
back to some old questions:
1- why would someone pay eclipse $2.x million when they can pay Cessna 2.x million for their jet?
Because your first x is not the same as your second x.
The numbers are $2.15M for an EA500 ordered today and $3.05M for a C510 ordered today. Both would be delivered around 2011.
That means that the C510 (bigger, better supported, but slower) is some 40-45% more expensive than the EA500.
To give you a basis for comparisson, an S550 at $90K is more expensive than an E550 at $67K by the same percentage. And you don't say there is no market for the smaller/faster car, just because there is a bigger 4% more expensive model on the market.
40-45% price difference is no small potato.
FreedomsJamtarts said...
It is going to be interesting to see how they intend to show compliance to FAR 23.841 (a) If certification for operation over 25,000 feet is requested, the airplane must be able to maintain a cabin pressure altitude of not more than 15,000 feet in event of any probable failure or malfunction in the pressurization system.
Just like the PiperJet will comply. You demonstrate that on an engine failure, the leak rate is slow enough to allow the plane to descend withour the cabin altitude going above 15Kfeet. Do you guys think that Piper and Eclipse don't have certification engineers on staff? Do you think they have not discussed this with the FAA and worked out the certification criteria?
Other ways to comply are having electrical cabin presurization systems like on the original King Airs and B787, either as primary or auxiliary.
In any case, if there is a problem, they can certify to 25Kft, then expand to 30Kft, then 35Kft, then 41Kft.
EA400 News on the Net
EA400 and EA500 price increases are everywhere on the Net.
Also, you guys may want to check out Aviation Week and Space Technology May 19 issue - On the Cover "Turboprops vs VLJs - Battle Over Europe". I only have the print issue.
baron wrote :
"have authority from the board to offer the EA400."
irreverent ! Adolph Hitler made a speech 2 days before committing suicide hidden in his underground bunker in a berlin where not a single building was still erected
about the "new weapons " that would liberate the town from the red-army , and push them back ..
At the expense of repetition:
Let's say you had a company with a totally ginned up order backlog. Let's say your 2,600 orders was proven to be 2,000, then 800, then 600 or less.
Let's further say the attrition to the remaining orders was significant...as in "depositors running for their lives".
And lets finally say you'd already limped out 200 "deliveries" and were quickly running out of callable Progress Payments.
The Piper needs to be paid. Planes have to be "delivered". Cash flow has dried up. What to do, what to do?
Here's one solution:
Tell the world that you have a new product, even more revolutionary than the last. Explain that demand has exceeded your wildest expectations. Then strong-arm those awaiting the previous product to switch their order to the new product, with their agreement to wait another 3 or 10 years.
IOW, buy time and pray for a miracle as production winds down on the remaining orders.
Meantime, if you're REALLY sick.....errr, slick, generate advertisements touting how you always deliver on your promises.
Yep, you couldn't find this stuff in a Jimmy Breslin novel.
Gunner
After an impressive aircraft delivery month in April, the results for May were underwhelming.
Eclipse delivered 28 aircraft in April and 13 in May. The trend is not very promising.
According to the FAA, Eclipse delivered only two aircraft in the last two weeks of May.
The highest serial numbers that are listed as delivered are serial #190 and #191.
3 aircraft have been re-registered to Eclipse after they were delivered to customers. According to the FAA, that makes 178 Eclipse 500s registered to end customers.
The FAA has no paperwork showing the delivery of serial #196, even though it has made a flight to Colorado. Perhaps it is being used as the new demo aircraft.
Baron:
"ETIRC is surelly pumping serious money into Eclipse to allow this to go forward."
R-E-A-L-L-Y?
How much does a press release cost? How much does it cost to offer a plane for sale, and take OPM (deposits)?
I think the decision was a no-brainer.
- our current product requires huge demand that is not there, not even close.
- we lose money on every one we deliver
- there is no end in sight to this "incineration"
How do we stop it and try to remain in business?
Offer the CONjet, and get everyone to switch out of the money losing product. Shut down the factory, or scale it back - way back.
Launch another product, where we can over-promise and not have to live up to anything for a few years.
After all, they were more successful raising money during the "development" phase compared with the "production" phase.
What choice did they have?
ETRICK: "hey Vern, go get more deposit money, we're tired of buring our cash here".
Let's look at the revised value proposition for the Eclipse 500 and the Mustang.
Using Eclipse's own recently updated prices for the Mustang and E500 the Eclipse 500 is $2,150,000 and the Mustang is $2,792,000.
A very well known and industry accepted practice is to calculate the value of an aircraft using the following formula:
Speed x Range x Cabin Volume = Performance
Eclipse 500 = 35,606,000
370 kts x 1125 nm x 85.5 cu. ft.
Mustang = 61,759,000
(73% better than E500)
340 kts x 1150 nm x 158 cu. ft.
You can then calculate Performance / Dollar to get the value proposition for both.
E500 value /$ = 16.56
35,606,000 / $2,150,000
Mustang value/$ = 22.12
(33% better than E500)
61,759,000 / $2,792,000
The Mustang looks even better (60% better value per $ than the E500) if you include baggage space in the cabin volume calculation. The Mustang has 63 cu.ft. of baggage space and the E500 has 16 cu.ft. of baggage space.
Okay Baron - I'll bite:
Just like the PiperJet will comply. You demonstrate that on an engine failure, the leak rate is slow enough to allow the plane to descend without the cabin altitude going above 15Kfeet.
Exactly how do you do that Baron? I did a flight test on a Beech 400 a while ago, and we had a 5500fpm leak rate at FL290 (a fail, as the limit is 3500fpm). I have never yet seen a civil aircraft without a pressurization leak.
Since the single engine jet has no pneumatic supply after an engine failure, and can't afford the electrical load of a load compressor, as the main generator has also just been lost, your leak rate has to go to zero. These small px vessels only need a very small leak to bleed down.
The regulation doesn't state that you have to maintain 15000' for the time required to decend. It say you have to maintain 15000' cabin altitude period! Maybe the descent is part of the Piper and Eclipse ELS case, but they have a long way to go to get certification for it. You can expect that CRI to go to public consultation and get ripped apart by the ATC unions, twin manufacturers etc.
Do you guys think that Piper and Eclipse don't have certification engineers on staff?
We know piper used to. Since the BK the have only done changes, derivatives and STC's. I also think they will struggle doing a full new TC.
Eclipse has some certification guys. They are the ones who are doing such a sterling job on FIKI, convincing EASA that the Partial Eclipse meets CS-23 etc. They were a little surprised when the Pitot system iced up in the NE, as that had never happened during flight test in Nevada....Duh! Vern is really proud that they are not experienced Aviation types.
Do you think they have not discussed this with the FAA and worked out the certification criteria?
Frankly yes! At best I would guess they have discussed this with the FAA and my guess is the FAA leaned back and said that no decision could be made until a substantiation for an equivalent safety case was put on paper, and then proven through flight test.
FC,
I suspect, if you do the same with the conjet vs D-jet, P-jet and The-jet
you may find the same dynamics
PS. some experts say Brand is a huge driver of value in this industry
They wont learn until they put one in the dirt. But someone has to be flying them to do that and when most (90%) of them are not, the skys will still be safe.
"Dave Ivedorne said...
"Any planespotters in the ABQ area could help with this."
They might want to take a look out at Double Eagle while they're at it...
ANSWER:
There are 27 in Gainesville FL. Getting Completed
There are 12 in Albany, NY. Getting Completed
There are 0 at Double Eagle.
There are 39 in ABQ and that is not including a few in the FINAL COMPLETION Hanger and the few in the Delivery Hanger.
ATM,
You mention brand as a driver of value.
Some other factors to consider:
Reliability
Maintenance Down Time
Service Center Availability
Avionics
FIKI
Baggage Capacity
Lav (is it shipping yet?)
The Mustang has the E500 beat by miles on all of these considerations.
This will be reflected in the resale value of the aircraft.
According to the FAA, Eclipse has delivered 79 aircraft to customers this year.
According to 20yrmechanic, 39 of those are currently in GNV and ALB service centers and another 39 are in ABQ.
That works out to a net gain of 1 aircraft flying this year.
EE505,
First off I am not a female as you seem to think. After all you did call me SISTER. No apology needed. My family is from the Chickasaw Indian Reservation in OK. Hence the screen name.
Secondly, you are definitely an "insider", but come on 505 you should not mention names of the leads, QA or other people that have left the company. Some of them may not want to be associated with this august group. Naming Vern, Peg or Todd is fair game.
Were you at EAC for the FAME training?
The one thing I do agree with is the lack of communication/understanding between the floor and management.
I do understand the frustration with the whole router, drawing, reality issue. I could not get things moving faster or change anything either, but the QAs can't change the drawings or routers.
If this is your last week, take a deep breath and exhale. I would tell you it is not smart to burn bridges, but it sounds like you are ready to fire bomb the bridges. Here is the voice of experience; it is better to walk out of EAC with your head held high and with dignity rather than succumbing to the temptation to cause a scene. The good feeling of burning the bridge only lasts for a little while. If you stay in the aviation field you are probably going to see some of these people again.
Good luck on whatever path you take.
EE 505,
There are a bunch of journalists who would love to talk to you, if you will talk to them.
eclipsecriticng@gmail.com
BUT...
Keep away from 'naming names'. Please delete your 12.51 post, rephrase is without specifics and, if you are minded to, post again.
Those who choose to work at Eclipse are entitled to respect as a) fellow humans and b) people with family and friends.
Shane
When you factor the depreciation of a Mustang against the E500, the Mustang wins by a huge margin.
When you subtract the hours that cannot be flown in the E500 due to icing or GPS approaches, the Mustang wins by a huger margin.
When you then add a risk factor for the very real chance of bankruptcy, there is NO CHOICE!!!!
Run those numbers Baron
Turboprop_pilot
20YM-
Is anything going on at AEG? We've read plenty of sound & fury about moving ops there - does it all signify nothing?
EE505-
I'll speak for myself here, but you may be more effective at conveying your point of view to all of us if you moderate the rhetoric a bit so we can focus on the Safety of Flight issues that you raise. ALL CAPS all the time loses its effectiveness at focusing attention after the first or second use. Having "chastised" you thusly, the issues you raise are important to the future of the Greater Albuquerque Incomplete Aircraft Works. Please tell us more...
(pithy sig file omitted due to lack of fresh material)
IANAL
anyone wish to take a stab at the pricing logic for the conjet?
Appears to me as if Vern is counting once again on some large market.
Development costs, around $300M if he's lucky. That's more than $1M for the first 300 planes, alone. $1million net of all costs, etc.
Even the $billion ammortized over the E500 volume makes the whole thing look stupid.
I imagine, without any major "dayjet-type" orders/floptions... and with a moderately healthy "speculator" market, Vern can garner around 400 "orders" for the Conjet pretty fast.
After that, no real orders will come in.
Any clue about the deposit program? Is it non-refundable? Is in escrow until first flight or some milestone? Or are the "position-holders" going to finance the development program?
I feel like I'm watching a
"do over".
Scary stuff.
74 on controller.com
The market speaks....
I think the price increase, although kinda inevitable, might actually be the 'straw'.
As in, 'that broke the camel's back'. The long suffering position holders know that their bluff is going to be called. Pony up extra money for the FPJ, right now, or try and get your deposit back.
?
The alternate which King Vern offers is another, even longer term (His Highness has only nominated 2011) speculation in aircraft futures. And still kiss goodbye to your money.
What's not to like?
Shane
My understanding from those receiving letters from EAC is that 400 deposits are refundable for a year or so, but go straight to EAC. So depositor is unsecured creditor of EAC. Perhaps another reader here knows if there is any separation between 400 and 500 corporations, but from what has been said, I do not think so.
anyone wish to take a stab at the pricing logic for the conjet?
Its intended to show that Vern is master of the long con. He's shown how that he can put his marks over a barrel where they expected to get for the price a 6 seat two engine plane - with best avionics in civil aviation - and now they're left with getting a 4 seat single engine plane for about the same price or alteratively paying way more than they bargained for for a plane with less than the best avionics around and many other issues.
baron95 said...
Just like the PiperJet will comply. You demonstrate that on an engine failure, the leak rate is slow enough to allow the plane to descend withour the cabin altitude going above 15Kfeet.
Max glide from FL410 to 15,000 ft will take on the order of 40 minutes. No cabin is that good. The FAA *specifically* excludes an emergency descent as a means of meeting the rules, and that would dramatically reduce the number of airports you can glide to as well.
The pressurization system has to be able to keep the cabin pumped up below 15,000 ft when the engine fails, and potentially do that for 40 minutes. Remember that the cabin started at 10,000 ft so you don't have much margin to start with! Okay, now assume they can do that, with 4 people breathing already thin air, just how much oxygen is left in that sealed cabin after 40 minutes?
The other issue is that cabins simply can't be sealed that well. A large number of twin pressurized airplanes can't maintain full cabin pressure with one engine out despite the fact they were designed to be able to do so. The wear and tear of routine use simply means the cabin can't do it.
You can't just wave your hands and make the physics go away.
Do you guys think that Piper and Eclipse don't have certification engineers on staff? Do you think they have not discussed this with the FAA and worked out the certification criteria?
Actually, no, I don't think they have worked out the certification requirements for a single engine jet at FL410. This is *exactly* the sort of area where the FAA can (and will) define new rules for certification simply because it hasn't been needed yet. I believe the FAA is looking into this very seriously.
Other ways to comply are having electrical cabin presurization systems like on the original King Airs and B787, either as primary or auxiliary.
Big battery (remember, no engine), big compressor, more weight, more complexity, more money, you would have been better off with two engines to start with.
In any case, if there is a problem, they can certify to 25Kft, then expand to 30Kft, then 35Kft, then 41Kft.
FL250 is a no brainer. Easy to do. All buyers of EA400 should assume that they will never get more than that. That makes it less fuel efficient than the EA500. And fuel *will* be the majority of the operating cost by 2011.
chickasaw said... The one thing I do agree with is the lack of communication/understanding between the floor and management.
That's an understatement! I named them the "morons in the middle".
505 it only took me 4 weeks to want to go home.
In 505's defense.....it's beyond frustrating when your surounded by incompetence all the time and you are powerless to make the needed changes that are right in front of you.
In the words of "Charles Emmerson Winchester" from the TV show MASH
"I do one thing, I do it well and I move on". FPJ burns cash, and they do it well......now they are moving on! LOL
http://www.santafenewmexican.com
/SantaFeNorthernNM/News-in-
brief--5-31-08
FROM THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN
"Company spokeswoman Alana McCarraher said only customers among the 2,600 with outstanding orders who participated in an offer last November to lock in their price at $1.25 million and those who have put down a 60 percent deposit six months before their aircraft is to be delivered will be exempt from the price increase."
Are you kidding me?
"only customers among the 2,600 with outstanding orders..."
Does it REALLY say 2600 customers?
Have they no shame?
Not even close, buddy.
I think Gunner has it down pretty well. Vern has to raise prices, he can't afford to keep selling planes at a loss. This is a major price increase - major! People who have deposits down at the old price and that have not put up 50% will also get a huge increase. Remember many of these guys are in for 1.2 million....and now you are talking about a big increase. Many of them will walk - they probably were stretching like heck when it went to 1.2, and now they just can't afford it. The position is worthless...so they either take the loss or??? Hey why not roll into the Conjet??!!! Yes, I keep my deposit, and with the special discount that Vern is offering me I am in at the same price as I was going to be in on the E500! Sure I am downsizing jets and losing and engine but my dream is still alive. Even better this one will burn less gas then the E500 and have only one engine to maintain so I might actually be able to afford it!
This is the thought process Eclipse wants people to go through. I think there will be some who do this..I also think many will walk realizing that they can always just buy a completed aircraft in 2011 (grin, yeah right) when the ECJ is available. Also think about the age of many of these pilots...they put down deposits many years ago - add in another 5 or 6 year wait for the ECJ and will they still have a medical to fly.
Do you guys think that Piper and Eclipse don't have certification engineers on staff? Do you think they have not discussed this with the FAA and worked out the certification criteria?
With Eclipse in particular they haven't exactly shown that they're good at hitting their deadlines or delivering what they promised. Just because Eclipse says they'll make the EA400 to FL410 doesn't make it so...look at Eclipse claiming that they'd make a six seat twin engine jet for under $1 million and that Avio would have avionics like the 777 and the F22 and they go with the Garmin 400.
Ballyhoo: “to advertize or publicize noisily or blatantly”.
You know your welcome is wearing thin when the major local newspaper uses such terms in reference to your latest announcements and price change. (Ref: Albuquerque Journal, front page, 31 May 2008)
The “announcement” of the E400 reminds me of the man who took a short-cut through a “cow pasture” in the middle of the night. And his “beret” (hat) fell off into the muck. Searching in the darkness, it was only on the “fifth” try that he found a hat that fit.
Now, I’ve lost count . . . whether this is the “third” or “fourth” attempt . . . but it still doesn’t quite “fit”.
gadfly
(But at least it was “warm and soft”.)
Bricklin-
Perhaps another reader here knows if there is any separation between 400 and 500 corporations, but from what has been said, I do not think so.
If the intention has become to bankrupt the FPJ corporation while the ConJet corporation is intended to succeed without any of FPJ's financial commitments, separate corporations would make sense.
Notably, John found two Eclipse CIK #s on SEC filings. CIK #0001130020 ("ECLIPSE AVIATION CORP" in all caps) shows investment activity from March 2002 through March 2008. CIK #0001368545 ("Eclipse Aviation CORP") shows investment activity only in June 2006 & January 2008.
It is possible that the different CIKs were autogenerated by SEC for a single entity due to some esoteric bug in their systems. It is not inCONceivable though, that the spelling "difference" is intentional, and that the dual CIKs represent genuine separate entities. If CIK #2 is the ConJet entity, the initial investment is CONsistent with the time frame that Swift Engineering would start to require cash to proceed with design & fab work on the proof-of-CONcept that appeared last summer. The recent investment would be CONsistent with startup expenses for a ConJet marketing/manufacturing effort.
Let us not forget that the Swift Engineering vehicle has a composite structure, and presumably the ConJet will be stir-fried aluminum; therefore, the ConJet has not yet flown. I suspect that the announcement at this time is intended to accomplish two things: one is to distract the viewing public of Vern's consistent record of non-performance on the FPJ. The second is to intercept deposit commitments from many who might be more inclined to go in the Cirrus Jet direction - I predict first flight on the Cirrus for July 8th (based on nothing in particular...)
Would you like a Chalupacabra?
IANAL
Back to the Google Subpoena for a moment. I hold in my hands a couple of absolute bombshells, if only for their hilarity. Reference Declarations of one Vern Raburn and declarations of one Raymond Barratt in Support of Eclipse's Opposition to Motion to Quash.
These were FedEx'd to me; thus, I
don't have them in electronic form. I'm on the road thru Wednesday and WAY behind the work curve after that. If ANYBODY is able to download and post these Declarations, PLEASE have at it.
These documents detail Vern's position on "proprietary" company information and then go on to quote specific posts from each of the Chosen Few which demonstrate "inside information". Barratt's Declaration is notable in the following assertion which concludes his argument for indulgence from the Court:
"Among the information recovered from Mr. Skupa's hard drive was an email sent from him to [name redacted by Gunner] on April 16, 2008, which states in part:
'Yes, I am almost a daily reader of this blog too now. Sometimes they're off by a mile, other time they're so close to the truth that there has to be someone on the "inside" feeding them info, because one couldn't guess and be that "on target"..."
People, I am NOT making this stuff up. Eclipse is arguing to the California Courts that their "evidence" for insider involvement in this Blog is the opinion of a former employee whom they accuse of lying in the first place.
And it goes downhill from there.
For example, Niner Zulu must have violated his NDA because he has had the temerity to quote a dissatisfied Depositor from the Owners' ClubHowze. CWMOR had "inside information" when he reported the management vacancies that were published on Eclipse's own website.
Ladies and Gents, I kid you not. This is the level of paranoia that exists around Corner Office. This same guy just sold jet aircraft to several dozen of our own fellow pilots. Prayers to follow.
Dear Vern-
Forgive me while I point out that you do insult to the entire Phylum Nematoda.
In counterpoint, however, you provide greater comic relief to us all than Snoopy in his Sopwith Camel.
What a World Class tool!
Gunner
Pity the poor members of the Eclipse 500 Club – “owners and enthusiasts of the revolutionary jet”. They’re planning their first fly-in at Sunriver, Oregon in September.
Imagine a scene at a newly-established small orphanage. The children are together for the first dinner, and the boys and girls begin comparing notes. They are shocked to discover they all have the same parents. Not only that…the parents are living nearby and their mother is pregnant with a new child!
Now if I were a vendor that is owed multiple dollars (which I am not), why in the heck would I want to jump in and vend MORE non-paid for parts?
But ...if I was a mechanic (which I am) I sure as hell would not let myself build a new jet so Vern can tell all that he made a mistake by hiring "experienced" aviation people...
This guy still REALLY pisse me off
Gunner,
where can we find that. Everytime I try to check "case info" on the web site, it says it's down for maintenance. (CA Superior Court)
eclipso-
Everytime I try to check "case info" on the web site, it says it's down for maintenance.
Al Petrofsky noted the same thing, starting on May 19th. I was able to get in here. Click on the "Civil, Family, Probate" button. Then (up at the top) click on "search by case #". Enter 108CV110380 (the case number in the Santa Clara Court), and follow the prompt.
It appears that the two declarations Gunner referred to are 0015-000 & 0016-000, dated May 23rd.
The most recent document is a bit curious: 00018-000 appears to be a request of the Court by "eclipse-vs-does.blogspot.com" who is none other than Al himself (no relation to this guy that I'm aware of - Al's actually funny when he wants to be).
Eat here, or to go?
IANAL
People, I am NOT making this stuff up. Eclipse is arguing to the California Courts that their "evidence" for insider involvement in this Blog is the opinion of a former employee whom they accuse of lying in the first place.
Isn't that inadmissable evidence due to it being hearsay?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law
I don't see how some email from some non-expert giving their personal opinion is worth a hill of beans...it also seems pretty stupid considering how Skupa isn't exactly Eclipse's friend anymore and wouldn't exactly be the most supportive to them if he was deposed or was otherwise drawn into the Eclipse v Doe litigation.
For example, Niner Zulu must have violated his NDA because he has had the temerity to quote a dissatisfied Depositor from the Owners' ClubHowze.
Note to Vern - GIYF.
In counterpoint, however, you provide greater comic relief to us all than Snoopy in his Sopwith Camel.
I love the comedy rhodium being mined out of ABQ!
To give an idea of acceptable cabin pressurization bleed down rates, a new Hawker is considered good if it bleeds down from 5 psi to 4 psi in no less than 45 seconds.
gunner ...
about the subponea ,if you wouldn't have written "i kid you not" ...
i would think of insanity ...!
if stupidity , ignorance and embarrassment would be lethal , Vern would drop dead just NOW ! ;-))
i wrote it before , whatever is the way you take the whole story , things NEVER add-up , nothing seems to fit together ...
do you see a pattern here ?
one million $ question :
something not really good proposed to sale at 1.5 M $ ...
does it make it better by itself , if suddenly you sale it for 2M$ ? (the crucial question would be then : do customers unsatisfied with your promises have to care about the survival of your venture ? which is a very good indication on "how much of an hostage" customers of EAC are taken for ... in other words : pay in again or loose what has already been paid in )
this is hilarious !!
when a product is not very what is supposed to be ...
do you rise the price or to lower it ? (may be all firms around the world are wrong to do reduced-price sales on items "not really as good as supposed to be "
?)
may be it is a new concept of R&D ?
you take investors money , you half develop something then ask some others to bring the money in to finish it , if they ask why ? just answer because selling value is getting higher and higher ...!
if they accept to bring more cash in , then you spend 33% in medias -buzz
[ ouchh , hit the wrong button !]
then spend an other 33% in "lauching" a new product ...
and finally spend the 33% left in making some court-case-fuss against peoples using exactly the same means than you did to spread your lies (Internet)
it can goes on for ever this way ...
just HILARIOUS , how about a Vern's MBA ?
Baron95, I wrote a rebuttal of your post on the certification issues of the 400 Eclipse, but it looks like I forgot to post it. Doesn't matter as Flyger and Paul hit all the same points.
I think Piper is going to struggle certifying their jet also. Since BK, they have only certified changes and derivatives right? I don't know have many of their cert team have done a whole new A/C project, but my bet would be on them also having a steep learning curve.
The eclipse team will have certainly learnt from some of their many mistakes (at least the ones who are still there). I would hope next time around that the do at least some of the flight testing in a place with moisture. Given the great progress on FIKI and EASA cert, doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the next new jet will be easier for them.
Baron, how would you propose certifying a single about FL250? How do you maintain ventilation per 23.831 and pressurization per 23.851 while still having a door, control systems and wiring harnesses passing through the pressure vessel, and insufficient backup electrical capacity to drive an emergency compressor?
I would guess that only manufacturers who promise FL250 certification have a grip/ are being honest.
Whatever equivalent safety case the first of Piper/eclipse/cirrus (are they offering FL250+?) propose, you can be sure that CRI will go to public consultation, and be slammed by the ATC Unions, the twin manufacturers, likely the single turboprop manufacturers, and many transport safety boards.
In Europe the singles will be excluded from commercial IFR (so far the Swiss have been lobbying hard on behalf of Pilatus, but without success) so your European market is going to be a handful of private sales a year.
I wonder where the 300+ Million for this projects development is to come from?
How many new customers has the PArtial eclipse gained in the last three years?
freedom...
are you suggesting someone trashing some 300 millions$ in EAC should ask "how the money is going to be spent ?" or "what are expected results?"
what a disgrace !!! didn't you understand by now ?
E500 is NOT working on results , only on faith !!
if this would be a movie , most peoples seeing it would say : " good movie but authors had a little too much imagination ..."
What are reasonable cost and time estimates for the EA400 to reach going into approval...both for how long in general it takes/costs aircraft manufacturers and how long/expensive given Eclipse's history? There would seem to be two huge questions as to what the production aircraft will be made of...metal or composite. Also with the EA500 history assume instead the EA400 has no engine issues during development. How long did it take Cessna to go from concept to delivery?
I saw this, and I just HAD to share it. I have of course made some small changes, to a) protect my sources and b) annoy Vern.
Well, it is Sunday and I am bored!
From: Eclipse Aviation Pre Sales
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008
To: Mugs everywhere
Subject: Eclipse 400 Position Registration Information
Hello Suckers,
I announced yesterday at the Customer E-rrival in Albuquerque that Eclipse Aviation will move forward with production of the Eclipse 400 single-engine jet aircraft. Launching the process to certify and produce a new aircraft is a tremendous step for Eclipse Aviation, and for our customers.
As a current Eclipse Aviation investor, sorry postion holder, you can take advantage of three Eclipse 400 offers available only to you. This is our way of thanking you for your loyalty to and support of Eclipse Aviation.
You can be first in line for the Eclipse 400. Current Eclipse Aviation customers can place a deposit on an Eclipse 400 immediately, and before deposits are taken from any one else. The price of the four-passenger, single-engine jet is $1.35 million (June 2008 U.S. dollars and subject to CPI adjustments). The deposit for an Eclipse 400 is $100,000. Next week we will mail you a packet about the Eclipse 400, including information on placing a deposit.
Your Eclipse 400 deposit will be fully refundable and transferable until November 30, 2009. All deposits will be placed in a non-escrow account segregated from the general funds of Eclipse Aviation.
As an Eclipse Aviation customer, we are pleased to offer you a $125,000 discount on the final delivery price of an Eclipse 400. This discount is available exclusively to current Eclipse 500 customers and owners. This offer expires on Friday, July 25, 2008, at which time we will begin accepting deposits from the public at EAA AirVenture 2008.
To take advantage of this limited-time offer, please visit our Eclipse 400 Serial Number web site at: http://customers.eclipseaviation.com/e400. For the purposes of this offer, you may use the following User Name and Password to log in:
USERNAME: anothersucker
PASSWORD: looseloadsofcash
Once at the site, you will have the opportunity to select your own Eclipse 400 serial number. The Eclipse 400 deposit agreement and funding instructions are included on the site. If you need additional information, please call us at (phone number deleted to protect the naive, Shane)
Once you submit your request to reserve a serial number, you will have 10 calendar days to fund your deposit toward the purchase of an Eclipse 400. If funding is not received within this timeframe, the serial number will be released. Customers who attended the E-rrival had an opportunity to pick Eclipse 400 serial numbers on Friday. Starting today, this offer is available to all Eclipse Aviation customers.
It is always exciting to launch an entirely new aircraft, especially another revolutionary, game-changing jet like the Eclipse 400. Our target is to deliver the first Eclipse 400s in Q4 2011.
The Eclipse 400 is the logical next step for Eclipse Aviation. We see great growth ahead for the single-engine jet market and believe the Eclipse 400 will lead this emerging - and exciting - market segment.
Sincerely,
Vern Raburn
Duke of New Mexico
Part time President and CEO
Eclipse Aviation
Maybe in all the confusion, Vern got confused. What he probably meant was you can get a fully functional eFIVE 500 in Q4 2011, after BK and REAL aircraft people.
Dave, thanks for the link. The AL link is funny. I don't care who you are....
paul said...
To give an idea of acceptable cabin pressurization bleed down rates, a new Hawker is considered good if it bleeds down from 5 psi to 4 psi in no less than 45 seconds.
At FL410, the Eclipse cabin differential is 8.3 PSI for a cabin altitude of about 8,000 ft, total air pressure of 11.1 PSI. You have to maintain a cabin of 15,000 ft to meet the rules, and that's a total air pressure of 8.3 PSI. So you have only 2.8 PSI to loose.
If we generously assume the Eclipse has the same cabin volume to leak ratio as the *new* Hawker, and accounting for the higher starting differential than the test conditions used by Hawker, then an Eclipse cabin will cross 15,000 ft after engine failure in 78 seconds.
That's right, you have 78 seconds from the engine failure until you bust the rules.
An emergency descent (which is *not* a valid means to meet the rules says the FAA) would require a descent rate of 20,000 feet per minute. That's 200 knots vertically! This is simply not achievable in an Eclipse airframe without *massive* speedbrakes, which it doesn't have.
Physics ruins many dreams, and this is one of them. These planes are really spaceships and the pressurization system is absolutely critical to safety. That is why the rule exists.
Serial 138 flies to Europe
Quite the migration.
Shane-
Duke of New Mexico?
Are you trying to get the blog sued by Beechcraft too - this time for defamation? The Duke was an attractive aircraft of decent performance that has served many, and served them well. A noble - if high maintenance - "organism".
To properly "entitle" Vern, we need to find a lightweight single-pilot jet that was underpriced and overhyped, ended up in bankruptcy leaving multitudes of depositors holding the bag, had safety of flight issues related to inconsistent build quality & CG problems, and most of which are now best suited to employment "on a stick" outside an airport (if not in a metal recycling facility).
In light of that, I hereby nominate Vern for the title of "The BD-5 of New Mexico".
A little Salsa Caliente for your burritos?
IANAL
John-
Serial 138 flies to Europe
Quite the migration.
Quite the info contained in the various aircraft equipment tags.
Taking just the Friday & Sunday flights: we have /W for the all-US-airspace legs, so RVSM without an FMS, GNSS or RNP (no surprise on the last one); we have /A crossing into Canadian airspace (DME & Mode C only - no GNSS claimed); and for the all-Canadian-airspace legs we have /G - approved GNSS but no RVSM (page 4).
I wonder if N100VA has the Garmin 400s installed? It's curious that while Vern was quick to describe to the position holders that the Garmins fulfilled the FMS "promise", his ferry pilots aren't so eager to do so with regulating authorities.
While Vern can be indemnified from personal liability for his statements by investor-paid insurance, pilots aren't afforded the same protection from misrepresenting the "state of things".
Any thoughts, Vern?
IANAL
Duke of New Mexico
I think Baron of New Mexico is more appropriate given how he's a long con artist:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/0128azjournal0128.html
James Revis, hoever, was a much better craftsman.
flyger, in your 78 second figure, are you accounting for the slowing rate of cabin pressure drop as the aircraft descends?
Dave,
I must apologize.
The intention, as declared earlier, was to annoy Vern. A wordplay was also at the back of my mind, as in ABQ and Duke. But what I was really getting at is the American difficulty with TITLES.
Sir Vern Raburn is not enough. Or too much, depending on your point of view.
The Right Honorable Vern Raburn is, well, 'untrue'.
Knight Commander of the British Empire?
Lord Vern Raburn of the Eclipse...
So I said to myself, a Duke was just about right for him. I must also say 'sorry' to the entire population of New Mexico.
They, after all, will pick up a large part of the tab at the end of the day.
Shane
I found this gem in the Eclipse v Aviace lawsuit. Sorry judge, but I don't think Eclipse's plans to increase production came to fruition then nor have they come to fruition now:
During the delay occasioned by the engine change, Eclipse also made plans to increase the production rate for its aircraft so that more aircraft could be produced in a shorter time period; these plans came to fruition after Eclipse had provided production sequence numbers to Aviace for purposes of bank financing.
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/files/pdf/usdcace.pdf
I guess Aviace's mistake that caused all this litigation was taken Eclipse's stated production rate as the truth.
I don't think the Hawker time to drop from 5 to 4 psi is actually relevant (it's a tiny leak rate - a few ml per second, by my - probably faulty - calculation). There'll be an 'in-service maximum permitted leak rate' for the E400, which would be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher than the leak rate during production tests.
A quick look at some of the Lear certification documentation available online shows that the FAA will be interested in the cabin altitude not rising above 15000ft with (e.g.) a slightly leaking door seal. The situation that the E400 has to cope with is an engine failure when the leak rate is at the maximum in-service value.
I think - but I'm anything but an expert in all this.
Some further speculation: I'd guess that in twinjets the max in-service leak rate is set to be slightly less than the compressed air delivery of a single turbine, so that a single engine failure is easily tolerable from the pressurization POV. The manufacturers will keep this value high to allow a/c to be kept in service more easily.
Probably Eclipse can try to get the FAA to accept a much lower in-service leak rate for the E400 to enable a battery powered or compressed air cylinder mechanism to maintain cabin altitude.
As I say, this is all guesswork - I'm sure there are people out there who've got much more concrete info on this. It would be useful to know typical/max leak rates for the E500...
"I guess Aviace's mistake that caused all this litigation was taken Eclipse's stated production rate as the truth."
the truth is, Aviace was no operator, and eclipse was no aicraft company.
Somehow, the judge ruled in Vern's favor... imagining that they in fact could meet the stated delivery rate.
Every position-holder is in the exact same position as Aviace. Vern CLAIMS to be able to deliver... and somehow, even after all the pooch-screwing - someone in a chair BELIEVES this.
Reality is, Aviace had no business the day Vern agreed to deliver them planes, and Vern had no business either. ON the day Aviace lost its deposit, they still had no business, and Vern had "timing" in his favor.
Now, it s pretty much money under the bridge, so to speak.
CAVEAT EVERY DEPOSITOR - this could happen to you. You may one day face a bald-face claim, and lose your deposit money over it, as you amy in fact not want any Eclipse-delivered-POS that claims to meet some spec... but is really dissappointingly unfinished/incomplete/lacking/missing.
Say, avionics functionality...
CAVEAT
Dave,
I just skimmed through, but have to wonder: How can ANY 10%, 60% any % payment be made when there are 0% ZERO, NADA, NONE aircraft completed according to the provisions og EAC....
did I mention this guy REALLY pisses me off?
I'll take the fries....please
Gunner,
if Vern can somehow pinpoint the breach of NDA by remarks made on this site... perhaps he should know the source.
I think it might be, raw intelligence, speculation or rumor. If its rumor. It goes like this:
Someone who knew something, told someone, who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...who told someone who told someone...
you get the pciture.
Seems like he could more easily and constitutionally search from within. He found one guy - perhaps he can figure out who was allowed to know what, and back track?
Otherwise, the image of a wild goose chase comes to mind.
Hey, in fact this is the same iage that comes to mind regarding the whole Eclipse busiess... a wild goose chase for depositors, a large market and investors.
Fredomjamstart said ... Baron, how would you propose certifying a single about FL250? How do you maintain ventilation per 23.831 and pressurization per 23.851 while still having a door, control systems and wiring harnesses passing through the pressure vessel, and insufficient backup electrical capacity to drive an emergency compressor?
Fredom, Flyger, thanks for the posts - it is good to read, every now and then, someone bringing well informed/researched points.
I am not a presurization nor certification expert. I also haven't had time to research this issue. But, I can make the following comments to answer your points.
First, lets assume that the E400 design point will be an 8,000ft cabin at its design ceileing of 41,000 ft. That means the cabin will be at 5,000 ft (give or take) at FL250. Lets also stipulate that normal descent after engine failure is 1000 ft/min (makes the math easier).
It is obvious that the E400 cabin is tiny (being a 4-place jet) and it takes little compressed air to blow it up to 8PSI or so.
So lets say that Eclipse certified it to 25Kft, with a 5K cabin. Lets say that I am given the job certify it up to 30Kft.
First, we flight test it. At 30Kft and 8PSI, the cabin will be at about 6,000 ft. We idle the engine, and glide at 1,000 ft/min down. It takes 15 minutes to go from 30Kft to 15Kft. If the cabin leak rate is such that the cabin climbs at 600 ft/min or less, then there is ABSOLUTELY no work to be done. Submit the paperwork and the plane can now go to 3Kft (assuming all the other stuff is there (RSVM, O2, et).
If the cabin climbs faster than that, say at 800ft/min than I simply need an aux compressor to make up the difference (200 ft/min). That is a very modest compressor. I'm not sure is compressed air or an electric compressor (battery or RAT powered) would be best.
I've been on reccord that for a light, relatively short ranged SEJ, going above 30Kft is not very valuable, but you can take the above example to 35Kft and 41 Kft.
I'm sure you don't doubt that you can do 26,000 ft. 27,000? Why not 30? The point is there is a low hanging fruit to go a bit above 25Kft. At some point, as flyger pointed out, it gets harder and the equipment gets heavier. There is a point (I think it is around 30Kft), where the weight of the extra equip, negates the lower fuel flow of going higher for the typical 500nm mission.
So we have Diamond and Cirrus going for 25K, Piper going for 35K and Eclipse going for 41K. I'm playing arm chair SEJ designer and declaring that 30Kft is prob the optimum certification altitude to ballance fuel consumption with equipment weight. I may be wrong, but I've been around aerospace for a long time to be wrong by much.
What is your opinion? Where do you think the low hanging fruit ends for SEJ max op altitude? 25? 30? 35?
As for equivalent levels of safety, the TBM850 and PC12 all have 30Kft max op altitudes. I know the FAA is brain dead and has a different standard based on the size of the fan (if it is big enough and is called a propeller the rules change), but an E400 at 30Kft would not be any less safe than a PC12 or TBM at the same altitude (presurization wise), agreed?
Sometimes I amaze myself,
Any entepreneurs with T-shirt or hat supplier connections?
Since airshow season is here. I would like to purchase some T-Shirts. I have 3 concepts in mind.
1. I'm a critic. Subpoena me!!
2. Eclipse Critic. Overt Lies or Over Truths?
3. Eclipse Critic (slashed out), Eclipse Critic NG (slashed out), Eclipe Critic 400. The trutrh is out there somewhere?
Anyone else with some great ideas? I'd imagine these would be a great hit wit the masses. Of course the proceeds should go in part to the quash the subpoena request ICO Norman Malinski.
I know of at least 28, I mean 29, (Sorry Gadfly)who would buy one.
great idea...
perhaps drive Vern nuts (nuttier) and haev shirts that say:
- I am the real airtaximan
- I am the real gadfly
- I am the real flightcenter
etc...
What is your opinion? Where do you think the low hanging fruit ends for SEJ max op altitude? 25? 30? 35?
Just throwing something out...
This is more a question about science than aircraft-specific. Are smaller aircraft at a disadvantage compared to larger aircraft due to surface area-to-volume ratios?...Relative to its size would a smaller aircraft be more sensitive to leaks due to SAV. I don't know if this is already addressed in aviation because smaller aircraft don't attempt to be as fully functional as their larger cousins with that being due to various scientific ratios meaning that either the equipment doesn't exist or is too expensive to make a smaller aircraft perform similar to a larger aircraft.
Court documents; Skupa hearing on Thursday; court website info:
Gunner wrote: "Declarations of one Vern Raburn and declarations of one Raymond Barratt in Support of Eclipse's Opposition to Motion to Quash ... were FedEx'd to me; thus, I don't have them in electronic form. I'm on the road thru Wednesday and WAY behind the work curve after that. If ANYBODY is able to download and post these Declarations, PLEASE have at it."
Unfortunately, it's not possible for anyone to simply download the documents from the court's website (some other courts are set up for people to be able to do that, but not this one). In fact, it's likely that no one will be able to get these documents from the court (even people who show up at the courthouse in person) until at least another week from now, after the hearing is over.
If you FedEx the documents to me, I will take care of scanning them and will post them at Eclipse-vs-Does.blogspot.com. You can find my address on the Media Request I filed with the court on Friday (which requests permission to make an audio recording of the June 6 hearing; if the request is granted, I will post an mp3 of the whole hearing).
Skupa hearing:
In case anyone in the Albuquerque area is interested: there will be a hearing on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 9:30 A.M. MDT (-0600) in the Eclipse Aviation v. Brian Skupa case, on Eclipse's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, before Judge Clay P. Campbell in Courtroom 616 at the Bernalillo County Courthouse, 400 Lomas Blvd NW, Albuquerque NM 87102. (This is per the docket listing from nmcourts.gov/caselookup.)
In response to Eclipso's and Dave Ivedorne's comments about the California court's website:
The sccaseinfo.org website was down from May 9 to May 30. (For the first two weeks, they said this was "for system maintenance", but then they changed their story to "This site is being updated to better serve the public".) When it came back up, the site looked pretty much the same as before, but the URL scheme had changed a little bit. Here are the new direct links for info on Eclipse Aviation v. Does:
http://sccaseinfo.org/pa6.asp?full_case_number=1-08-CV-110380
http://sccaseinfo.org/pa6.asp?process_name=process_calendar_case_number& start_date=&end_date=3000&case_number=108CV110380
(The docket currently shows the caption as "Eclipse Aviation Corporation Vs Google, Inc." and it lists a few documents as having been filed by Google, but those are just entry errors by the clerks. If you look at the documents (at eclipse-vs-does.blogspot.com), you'll see that the actual defendants are John Doe et al. and that the documents that are listed as filed by Google were actually filed by Does.)
Check the following page to find out how recently the court's internal database was last copied over to the database that is used by the external website (it currently says "The information provided is current as of 9:00 PM, 05/30/2008"):
http://sccaseinfo.org/pa6.asp?subroutine=welcome
I Like the shirt or hat idea. I would definately buy one(or more).
The best way to make it work is to get tons of people at these venues to wear the same shirts. "I am - - - -" Talk about mind games.
Dave-
I don't have it all in front of me right now, but seem to recall that Aviace managed to actually make Vern's Folly seem semi-sympathetic in the lawsuit.
eclipso-
Re: I'll take the fries....please
Based on the context of your reply, my guess is that you're mixing up your 'Daves'.
I'm not "Dave".
And actually my name isn't Dave. It's John. Long story, involving drive-thru windows and not being a lawyer. I spare you the grisly details.
But I'm not "John", either. I've never seen "John's" birth certificate, so I'm not sure that his name is actually John.
I'm not sure either, whether "Dave" is actually named Dave. I hope his name isn't John - that would be really confusing.
If there was no 'r' in my "name", my real name would be Dan. But there is, so it isn't. It's John. But not "John".
I do feel comfortable that "Al" is actually named Al. I'm not Al, either.
Feel free to call me "Dave" as it suits your mood. Call me "DI" if that seems clearer, but understand that I am not, and never have been, the Princess of Wales.
Hope this clears that up for you...
Would you like the Jumblaya?
IANAL
ATM said:
..great idea...
But how 'bout airtaximan wearing freadomjamstarts' shirt
turbo_prop pilot wears gadfly's shirt
gadfly wears chickasaw's shirt...
you get the idea...Vern could have an out-of-body experience
Now I don't know WHO the heck will wear Dave's shirt...
....perhaps John...with an R
Jake Pliskin said...
flyger, in your 78 second figure, are you accounting for the slowing rate of cabin pressure drop as the aircraft descends?
Gold star for you. No I did not. But the change in time will be small because the aircraft won't be much lower than FL410 when the cabin altitude hits 15,000 ft. The leak rate at the start (41K to 8K) is not a lot different than at the point it ends (say 39K to 15K). That's a change of only 27%, or 13% on average over the event, so the time would end up being 88 seconds. Not materially different.
Europe Ferry flights, Equipment tags and Flight level
TAIL .. S/N .. FL .. US .. xBorder .. Arctic
N500UK .. 51 .. 39 .. NA .. NA .. /Q
N514EA .. 53 .. 33 .. /L .. /L .. /Q
N36FD .. 137 .. 27 .. /Q .. /G .. /G
N113EA .. 152 .. 27 .. /R .. /R .. /Y /S
N513EA .. 9 .. 35 .. /T .. /Q .. /Q
N117EA .. 104 .. 27 .. /A .. /A .. /G
N911MX .. 99 .. 27 .. /A .. /A .. /D /G /A
N100VA .. 138 .. 27 .. /W .. /A .. /G
I just posted the Hawker leak rate to provide what the factory requires from the aircraft before delivery. However the leak rate increases dramatically below 3 psi as the drains in the door are no longer held closed at that point.
baron95 said...
First, lets assume that the E400 design point will be an 8,000ft cabin at its design ceileing of 41,000 ft. That means the cabin will be at 5,000 ft (give or take) at FL250.
Actually, you are penalizing your situation. If the cabin can do 8.3 PSI, then at FL250, the cabin can be at 1,800 ft. At FL210, the cabin can be at sea level. There's no requirement the pressurization differential has to be linearized all the way to FL410, you can reach max diff at your cruise altitude.
It is obvious that the E400 cabin is tiny (being a 4-place jet) and it takes little compressed air to blow it up to 8PSI or so.
I estimate you will need about a 2 horsepower compressor to do the job, 1.5KW, so you need a pretty hefty battery to run it and it isn't terribly light.
So lets say that Eclipse certified it to 25Kft, with a 5K cabin. Lets say that I am given the job certify it up to 30Kft.
First, we flight test it. At 30Kft and 8PSI, the cabin will be at about 6,000 ft. We idle the engine,
You actually have to shut it off or close the bleed air valve. Idling still compresses.
and glide at 1,000 ft/min down. It takes 15 minutes to go from 30Kft to 15Kft. If the cabin leak rate is such that the cabin climbs at 600 ft/min or less, then there is ABSOLUTELY no work to be done.
The Hawker criteria (1 PSI in 45 seconds at 5 PSI) was a climb rate of about 5,400 feet per minute. The Eclipse cabin, having more surface area and penetrations per unit volume, will do worse. You are off by one order of magnitude from making this work.
If the cabin climbs faster than that, say at 800ft/min than I simply need an aux compressor to make up the difference (200 ft/min). That is a very modest compressor.
Unfortunately, it is not. You are going to need at least 1 and more like 2 horsepower to do it, plus the battery power to do it. Realize that the battery is also now critical for other things since there is no second engine with a second generator, so this may require a *separate* battery for safety reasons.
The cost, complexity, weight are going up. You the supposed advantage of the single engine is eroding.
I'm not sure is compressed air or an electric compressor (battery or RAT powered) would be best.
A RAT could do the trick. It obviates the battery issue. But it is complex for such a small airplane and it will cost nearly as much as another engine. Plus, you can't typically retract it once deployed, and that affects your glide range (which you so critically need with the engine out).
I'm sure you don't doubt that you can do 26,000 ft. 27,000? Why not 30?
Actually, based solely on leak rate, you might not be able to do it at anything over 25,000 ft. It might not even work at 20,000 ft.
The point is there is a low hanging fruit to go a bit above 25Kft.
Not really, as soon as you cross 25K, then you have to test down to 15K, so it is a step function at that altitude.
So we have Diamond and Cirrus going for 25K, Piper going for 35K and Eclipse going for 41K.
Diamond and Cirrus are being honest. The others are asking their customers to take a risk.
I'm playing arm chair SEJ designer and declaring that 30Kft is prob the optimum certification altitude to ballance fuel consumption with equipment weight.
So both Piper and Eclipse aren't going to meet their ceiling specifications? Basically, you are saying that customer should be prepared to accept that.
What is your opinion? Where do you think the low hanging fruit ends for SEJ max op altitude? 25? 30? 35?
25K. After that, the rules dramatically favor twin engine designs.
As for equivalent levels of safety, the TBM850 and PC12 all have 30Kft max op altitudes.
The rules were changed after these airplanes were certified. They have been grandfathered (the 850 is a modification of the 700 TC).
an E400 at 30Kft would not be any less safe than a PC12 or TBM at the same altitude (presurization wise), agreed?
Well, maybe a little less safe. The turboprops can descend much faster due to the prop drag at flight idle. But overall, it is pretty close.
An EA500 is *much* safer than all the SEJs. An engine out at cruise is hardly an annoyance, not a full blown emergency affecting nearly every system in the airplane. This is one case where the single engine pilot is overwhelmed and the twin pilot is hardly taxed at all.
paul said...
I just posted the Hawker leak rate to provide what the factory requires from the aircraft before delivery. However the leak rate increases dramatically below 3 psi as the drains in the door are no longer held closed at that point.
Won't matter. By the time the cabin diff is down to 3 PSI, the cabin altitude is long above 15,000 ft. The critical phase is from 8.3 to about 6 PSI diff.
Flyger said Unfortunately, it is not. You are going to need at least 1 and more like 2 horsepower to do it, plus the battery power to do it. Realize that the battery is also now critical for other things since there is no second engine with a second generator, so this may require a *separate* battery for safety reasons.
OK - let's call it 2kw (2.6Hp) @ 240volts = 8.4amps for 30 minutes.
You will need a separate 240 volt, 4.2AH (amps per hour) battery. Toyota claims their Prius NiMH batteries pack the highest power per weight ratio - about half a kilo per KwH at something close to 240 volts from memory. So that would be a 0.5 KG NiMH battery running a 240v motor drawing 8.4amps for 30 minutes. Add to that the weight of the electric motor, compressor and inverter, and there you have it....I am guessing the whole thing would be no more than 50kgs. Feel free to pick apart my basic knowledge of electrical engineering, but I think I'm within the ballpark - in terms of weight at least. Of course, I do not know if NiMH technology is safe to use in hypobaric conditions, but I am sure there will be something on the market that is acceptable - again within the ballpark of what is needed. PS: I did not take into account inverter efficiency losses and other likely things that would suggest a larger battery capacity, but it is still not adding much.
The question is can the ConJet take what could be a 50kg (110#) hit???
SM
...make that about 500W/kg - which would make the battery weigh 4kgs - not 0.5kgs - apologies.
this is becoming a real satirical "thing"
baron95 , i understand very well the need for anyone to be able either to defend himself or at least to have someone undertaking this chore ...
but it sounds strange to my hears ( yes you can argue "i am never being serious")
this is exactly what i wrote before ...
peoples starting to compare or analyze possibilities of doing a single-engine jet made by a firm
who so brilliantly failed their unfinished first attempt ...
i am no expert of US legal tricks , but to me , it sounds a bit awkward : you kept referring about "After BK" as something without any strings from the period under Vern's enlightened rule ...
does this means : all peoples who committed themselves to EAC , are going to loose any hopes promised by the "Duke of New-Mexico" ?
what a very good way to attract new customers , since it is like with computer = why buy today ,tomorrow i will be able to get one for half the price and double capacities !
(with lots of due apologies to the inhabitant of this state ...!
by the way , did you know that the first "duke of Arkansas" was John Law [a Scott] appointed by the French Regent [the one in-between Louis XIV and Louis XV ] he didn't finished his life too well ...)
sounds very strange ...
but that wouldn't be a first timer ...
a bit like "EASA has no real jurisdiction over E500 , so it can be #"operated"# in European Union with US Reg. N° " (your own statement or so )
or
"the plant in Russia will be among the thing to hear news about in 2009 ..." (Vern's statement)
Ho yea ? ok , so let's get back to some basics (well researched or informed or whatever suit you ...)
so the plant has to be re-build !
(if you take into consideration that if russian want E500 to get "new Techs" (?)[again , your statement] , a plant build in the 60's and close down since the last 10/15 years has little chances to be "good enough" for producing a 2009/2010 aircraft
=
delays , not taking into consideration : this part of russia has quite tough winter , so what is "normal period of building" ? probably very far from a full year ! )
then the plant has to be certified , that alone rises some concerns :
certified by WHO ?
FAA ? well i am not really sure the russians are going to be happy to see a bunch of guys coming in their homeland to start "evaluating how good they can be "
( honestly , i am not even sure they would get the visas ...)
EASA ? same problem than above ! on top , i very highly doubt they would care about certifying a plant to build an UNcertified plane ...(the same applies to service center in E.U. ! that would be a very strange thing to certify a service center for a plane which is NOT certified ...;-)) and a quite comical way to allow something supposed NOT allowed )
Russians ? yes , the best probability , but i suppose they will do exactly the same than their european counterpart = First certify the plane THEN certify the plant to build it ( otherwise they would sell the bear's skin BEFORE killing the animal ...)
to my knowledge , even Cessna Mustang will be waiting to be fully certified (russian cert.) to up to 2010 and their cert.processing has been spotless ! one can imagine what a pain it is going to be for EAC !
(oh yes , i forgot , silly me , they want the "techs" as if they wouldn't able to figure out "how to buy a few fully finished WORKING planes with the interesting techs ALREADY on it " ...)
so what is left to "attract" focus ?
i really do not see ... ;-))
may be a new bird ... and all the technicals going with it ...?
like this aftermath = quite easy to sort out 2 types of readers :
the Technies : simple keep them busy with tons of data (desinformation ?)
others : who cares about someone not even able to understand the beauty of "venturi effect" ?
if it wouldn't be a satire and if it would be about dogs ...
i would suggest "it is giving away a bone to gnaw !"
i am no expert of US legal tricks , but to me , it sounds a bit awkward : you kept referring about "After BK" as something without any strings from the period under Vern's enlightened rule ...
does this means : all peoples who committed themselves to EAC , are going to loose any hopes promised by the "Duke of New-Mexico" ?
It depends on the type of BK and the rulings and the judge who handles the BK.
Under one type of bankruptcy the business is liquidated where people buy the assets themselves without buying the underlying business. The money received from the asset liquidation is then distributed amongst the creditors. Eclipse 500/400 owners could be considered creditors and they would get whatever the court determines they are entitled to from the liquidation.
Alternatively there is another type of BK that allows for restructuring. The business remains, but there are significant changes and the court can take over management of the business and fire the executives.
Under both types of BK the court wants to do what is best for creditors and there are various types of creditors...not all creditors are created equally. BK courts can for instance wipe out some creditors if it will benefit the most creditors overall.
BK courts have been abused, but filing for BK does not mean management gets off scot-free with a clean slate. A business essentially rolls the dice if a business leaves things up to the BK court. One trick used is to file for BK to put creditors over a barrel and force them to settle for pennies on the dollar and then cancel the BK once the one filing gets what they want, however, that trick most likely wouldn't work for Vern.
Also we don't know what documents are at Eclipse, but if Eclipse 500 owners/depositors were to obtain evidence of fraud those debts couldn't be discharged through BK...BK courts don't like to reward frauds and can exact penalites on them. Alternatively, if any Eclipse executives considered altering, destroying or creating false documents, they could face time in the federal prison because that's a Sarbanes-Oxley violation (though SARBOX is most widely known as applying to publicly-traded companies, parts of it concerning document fraud apply to all businesses including private businesses and charties).
So in summary a BK can be a fresh start, but that doesn't mean that Vern personally would benefit. Also if there is evidence of fraud and it is pursued by creditors, that can't be discharged in BK. Until and unless Eclipse begins the BK process, we can't really see how things operate under the hood in any great detail to see how a BK court could best resolve the situation.
thanks dave for clarifying ...
i was rather being confused by the confusion ... ;-)
i was (am) curious about answers that brings in more nasty questions than real answers ...!
thanks again ...!
Flyger said... So both Piper and Eclipse aren't going to meet their ceiling specifications?
As I said, I'd have to run the numbers and have access to the FAA compliance agreement. If the FAA allows emergency descent to 15Kft to satisfy the requirement, then I think they'll all get there.
If not, I think they'll settle on something below 35Kft as the practical limit. The PiperJet, being heavier can accomodate a heavier backup system than the E400, so it may got a bit higher.
Maybe it will end up being 30Kft for the E400 and 35Kft for the PiperJet.
(P.S. Thanks for the detail info and taking the time to run the actuall cabin altitude numbers).
On the RAT, I used to fly a Saratoga that had a pop-out RAT-like device that would provide 20AMPS and 28V - that is 560 WATS at 120KTS. It was, IIRC, a $4K STC and weighed only like 15 lbs. (do a google search you may find the STC)
So, I'm faily confident, that getting backup power on engine failure for a SEJ is NOT that hard a problem.
Baron-
Help me understand this, please. Are you honestly attempting to demonstrate, by mathematics, that Vern's claim of of certifying an SEJ, with a cabin the size of a compact car, to Flight Levels never before achieved is pretty much doable especially in light of his long record of abject failure at meeting similar claims?
Or are you arguing that Vern is, once again, promising performance he can't possibly deliver?
Secondly, can we agree that both arguments are ringing endorsements AGAINST the decision to plunk down a hundred grand deposit on the ConJet?
These are not trick questions, I promise. I really don't see where you're coming from.
Gunner
Help me understand this, please. Are you honestly attempting to demonstrate, by mathematics, that Vern's claim of of certifying an SEJ, with a cabin the size of a compact car, to Flight Levels never before achieved is pretty much doable especially in light of his long record of abject failure at meeting similar claims?
Just as a general comment I would find it helpful if physics and the like was discussed. No NDAs can possibly be harmed by discussing pure physics/math and I think it would allow those not familiar with aviation-specific tech to gain an understanding what exactly is and isn't being proposed. I believe this has been done previously explaining the physics of the jet engines for a smaller jet versus a larger jet. I'd find it useful if there was a pure math thread on achieving FL410 in a large jet versus a small jet. I think this is important because intuitively doing some things for a smaller jet would appear easier when they are in fact harder to achieve and nobody can say there's an NDA on some standard math/physics formula.
You can find some information on the RAT at basicaircraft.com. Seems a litte small. Your next step up is a Hamilton Sundstrand unit for about 300K.
A note for the record.
I asked, more than 48 hours ago, that Eclipse Employee 505 rephrase a post which named specific individuals at EAC (other than Vern) in terms that I found offensive.
EE505 chose not to do so, which left me will no alternative. For the very first (and I hope, last) time I've deleted someone else's post.
Not an easy thing for me to do, in the context of where we find ourselves. But I made my mind up when I saw the original post, and gave EE505 time to edit it. 48 hours might seem too little for some, or too long for others. To me, it was about long enough.
Shane
Dave-
Spot on. The physics is actually pretty straightforward. Design compromises of the pressure vessel for wiring, cabling, tubing and controls would be about equivalent for a Citation as for a ConJet. Thus, ConJet pressure loss rate will be significantly higher on pressurization loss. Similarly, as has been pointed out, breathable air volume will start out considerably lower in the Con.
Next, add in the qualitatively known factors: Cirrus, with a history of successful designs is not pushing the Eclipse promise. Neither is Diamond with a similarly successful design promise history.
Eclipse, OTOH, with its perfect record for broken promises of price, performance and technology advances claims it can provide what others have deemed impractical. Seems to me they already played these cards, Big Time, with FPJ. The results were reminiscent of a bad Three Stooges skit.
Time for Ken to arrive with reams of disocciated regs and "facts".
Gunner
Vern has been more up front than usual with his letter to the investors (sorry, position holders) to explain the detail of the price increase and the offer of the Con Jet.
Basically, and not to string you along, it's a classic 'bait and switch'.
Pay up the balance of your E500 by x date, or else.
If you decide you can't afford the new, (third or fourth price, I've lost count...) NEW price of $2.15 million, then you can have your money back.
DO YOURSELF A HUGE FAVOUR!
Take Vern up on the offer. Get your leg out of the bear trap before it snaps.
However....
If you decide NOT to pay the 60% (or take your money back) then you will pay the contracted price, + the CPI and on top of all of this, $450,000 more than you thought you would.
OR
You can choose to transfer your investment (sorry, deposit) in EAC to the Con Jet. The sub text of the letter is very much 'pretty please, pick the Con Jet'.
Now I have a question, which I think anyone with half a brain would ask.
How many people have REALLY paid a deposit on an FPJ and are in a position to take up this offer?
And the follow up question would clearly be, how many 'orders' will Vern claim to have after the dust settles?
Finally, who cares!
Shane
If you decide NOT to pay the 60% (or take your money back) then you will pay the contracted price, + the CPI and on top of all of this, $450,000 more than you thought you would.
OR
You can choose to transfer your investment (sorry, deposit) in EAC to the Con Jet. The sub text of the letter is very much 'pretty please, pick the Con Jet'.
It's a Hobson's Choice. Hopefully people will see that Eclipse can't keep their word and if the EA500 is any guage on what to expect with the EA400 - it will come in later than stated, be more expensive and will be considerably less functional than what Eclipse originally touted.
I think a VERY INTERESTING question would be why is Eclipse actively cannibalizing their own product - the EA500? There are very good business reasons for companies to actively cannibalize their own products (companies too frequent don't do this to their severe long-term detriminent), but those reasons wouldn't be good for those who either currently own the EA500 or are position holders who want to stick with the EA500 instead of switching. Eclipse talks about having a product line, which is good, but you don't cannibalize a product you intend to stick with.
Those with a horse in this race (investors, EA500 owers and EA500 position holders) should ask what does Eclipse intend to do with the EA500. Eclipse isn't treating the EA500 and EA400 as equal products in a product mix - it's the EA500 that's being sold down the river.
From Shane Price's About Me:
"Name calling is childish and will be dealt with."
However, Gunner repeatedly calls Vern Raburn a "tool".
Shane refers to Vern as "His Highness, Vernicius the First" and "Lord Raburn of the Sith".
Shane, how do you explain the discrepancy here? Does the name-calling rule not apply to you and Gunner?
G
"it will come in later than stated, be more expensive and will be considerably less functional than what Eclipse originally touted."
the current speed spec is ALREADY 10kts slower than intially claimed
Given the Eclipse 500 price increase, I'm wondering which assembly line is actually more efficient - the Mustang's or the EA500's? The price difference is narrowing, yet the Mustang is better equiped and performs better than the EA500. I think Eclipse is spending more per plane, but are the increased costs due to mismanagement or due to the production process itself?
"How many people have REALLY paid a deposit on an FPJ and are in a position to take up this offer?
And the follow up question would clearly be, how many 'orders' will Vern claim to have after the dust settles?"
Shane, I have another question -
how long before you see a Con-jet delivery position for sale on Controller?
Dave:
"forward pricng" to attract a large market... then Dayjet evaporated... and there's no prayer for any economy of scale.
Gunner said...
Baron-
Help me understand this, please. Are you honestly attempting to demonstrate, by mathematics, that Vern's claim of of certifying an SEJ, with a cabin the size of a compact car, to Flight Levels never before achieved is pretty much doable especially in light of his long record of abject failure at meeting similar claims?
Nope. I am on reccord saying that any new SEJ design should be cetified first at 25Kft and then have an envelope expansion program to take it to 30Kft or so. I see absolutely no value for a SEJ with a 700nm realistic max range and M0.55 Max speed to carry the extra weight to fly at 41Kft.
I simply disagree with the blanket assertion that a SEJ is not certifiable at any max op altitude above 25Kft because of the pressurization rules. I think 3K is definetely doable, 35K is probably doable for the larger/faster/longer ranged SEJ (like Piper Jet), 41Kft is a waste for a plane such as the E400.
People seem to forget, but some planes like the C500 citations could barelly reach 30Kft and airliners cruise every day at 29Kft, 30Kft, 31kFt.
Gunner said... Secondly, can we agree that both arguments are ringing endorsements AGAINST the decision to plunk down a hundred grand deposit on the ConJet?
I would never, ever, in a million years put down a deposit on a paper plane from a startup company, unless it was kept in a reputable escrow account with a decent return.
As I said before, the odds for a startup company to succeed in bringing a brand new turbofan design right off the bat is very close to ZERO. Learjet was the last one to do it 45 years ago, and even they had to file for Ch11 and Bill Lear lost control of the company in the process. All the other attempts, resulted in total failure before as much as a VFR TC or even a flying conforming prototype.
Have $1.4M in the bank and want a SEJ? Buy a used SETP (Meridian or Malibu conversion are the only options at that price) and build turbine time. In about 5 years, we'll find out if any of the 4 contenders is a viable option. Then go buy a used one or a soon to be delivered position.
Putting unsecured deposits on these things is just plain silly.
I could be persuaded to put a deposit on a D-Jet if it is in escrow and my mission was just the HPN to MVY day VFR day trip.
a37pilot said...
You can find some information on the RAT at basicaircraft.com. Seems a litte small. Your next step up is a Hamilton Sundstrand unit for about 300K.
Thanks A37 - that is what I had in the Saratoga I used to fly many years back. It was a really cool concept. I do not know why this is not used in the SEJ electrc planes. A befier model would be a great addition to a Meridian, TBM, D-Jet.
It looks like I was a bit off on the power capabilities - it is about 350 watts at 150KIAS - still, even that can run a small compressor. A sate of the art, permanent magnet system, at 180 KIAS and weighing 50 lbs could easily do 1500WATTS which is about 2HP that Flyger calculated.
So, I really see no barrier to running an electric presurization system (back up or even dual primary) to achieve 30Kft presurization.
Loose ends, as it were:
1. Shane, you’ve been more than patient . . . and need no apology for deleting comments when they cross the line.
2. All this talk about de-pressurization . . . any good company would build a “vacuum chamber/atmosphere chamber”, that can be quickly “depressurized” and/or “cooled” for testing . . . this is low tech stuff. A chamber big enough for the fuselage of the E500 or E400 is rather simple to achieve . . . coupled to a “Roots” blower, and a method of chilling the incoming air to minus forty C or F (they’re the same at -40) . . . and you have everything you need to check the “leak rate”, etc., at altitude/humidity/temperature. In fact, you can even do “icing” experiments with the “pitot” tube system. We’re talking “low budget” forty-to-sixty-year-old technology, here. (And you want some “trans-sonic experiments” using the same equipment? . . . that’s a slight step up, and requires just a few extra “smarts”, but still no big deal. You’ll need to add some big bottles of “compressed air” and a couple “piston pumps” in line, but still a lot cheaper than flying all over the world looking for “ice”, etc.) “Been there/ done that.” And, yeh, the “gadfly” is “that old” . . . and then some.
3. Concerning wearing “tee shirts” with someone else’s name on it: Other than hoping the thing was “washed” before the switch, . . . let’s just say that if you see someone, sometime, with “gadfly” on the label, you’ll find “me” inside. The use of a “pseudonym” doesn’t necessarily mean “fear” on the part of the author, but may be an attempt to not involve others in the comments . . . to protect “others” such as “family members” or “OUR employees” . . . or even “customers” from any repercussions.
4. Concerning dinosaurs: Strange as it seems, I would agree with the “little bird factory” in Albuquerque that not only the competition, but much of the manufacturing in this country is based on dinosaur techniques. And when new methods are offered, the “old” methods are treated as sacred. However, if you claim something “new”, it better be based on knowledge, skill and experience . . . and therein is the major flaw of what’s going on at the local “Air-Craft Fair”. They lack all three . . . and true innovative talent.
5. (Somehow, I dis-remember my next point . . . )
gadfly
(“Here come de judge!”. . . soon . . . and if you need a clue, the “gadfly” grew up in “Beautiful Downtown Burbank”.)
actually, I'm a little surprised at the conjet...
I expected a twin, EJ22 powered 4 place.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAH!
Dave said...
Given the Eclipse 500 price increase, I'm wondering which assembly line is actually more efficient - the Mustang's or the EA500's? The price difference is narrowing, yet the Mustang is better equiped and performs better than the EA500. I think Eclipse is spending more per plane, but are the increased costs due to mismanagement or due to the production process itself?
Do you even need to ask? A company that has been building jets for 18 months can not possibly have the mature processes, know how, controls that a company that leads the field in GA jets and has been doing it for 3 years. It is just not possible. In addtion, Cessna can spread its overhead of sales, support, reccord keeping, certification, etc across multiple products, some costing 10x the cost of a Mustang. Eclipse has to burden all the costs on a single lower priced product the EA500.
Just like Ford loses moeny on the on the Focus to make money on the Expedition, Cessna can if they choose, to have smaller proffit margins on the C510 and make it up on the C560.
Eclipse has no where to run. The only way to keep prices down it to suck in more investor maney till their mannufacturing costs go down with experience nad mature processes.
The only thing on Eclipse's side is volume, which tends to drive lower component costs and size, which, in theory means lower parts counts, lower material costs and lower labor costs (all else being equal) - e.g. a BMW550i will alway cost less than a 750i because of higher volumes and lower material costs (even though the architecture is the same).
GAd,
re: no.3 above...
I was thinking selling the shirts... so many folks could wear them.
Imagine 39 gadfly's buzzing around, all wearing shirts that say:
"I am the real gadfly".
and yeah, you could wear one, too.
Can someone answer these questions:
1 - Does the EA500 purchase agreement gives the buyer the right to terminate and get deposit back for a price increase?
2 - Same question if Eclipse offers to deliver a plane that is incomplete (e.g. no FIKI, no FMS)?
If so, for crying out loud folks, just walk and take the moeny if you can.
3 - I am assuming that the EA500 price increase is not retroactive, that it is for new orders only. Can someone confirm or dispell this?
Price increase IS retroactive Baron, at least the amount of ~$500K is. Articles are stating earlier depositors who are anot at 50% or more in will see 'a commesnurate' price increase.
As for the other 2, I think Eclipse only 'guaranteed' 4 or 5 things and equipment was not one of them but I could be wrong.
I would think though that an aircraft that does not actually perform the functions the contracted equipment SHOULD perform might be an interesting tactic.
I am starting to wonder if the intent is not to drive customers who were reaching for the lower price E500 to the E400, but rather to create a run on deposit refunds that puts Eclipse 'unaviodably' into BK proceedings. CTRL-Alt-DEL, do over.
airtaximan
"Imagine 39 gadfly's buzzing around . . ." That's too many "flies" for the imagination. "One" is a great plenty . . . "and that's a fact!"
gadfly
('Buzzing off!)
Baron,
good question.
I thought, from reading the press that its a price increase for all e500's...
...and at the new price, there probably won't be many new orders, anyhow.
I also, can't imagine Vern admitting he's losing money on every plane, to the tune of perhaps around $500k... and NOT reuiring the price change on planes to be delivered.
Can you imagine the loss on the planes guaranteed at $1.25 million. That's around $1M per plane. Are these delivered complete? I don't think so...avionics, boots, etc? BIG money.
Incineration, in fact.
Anyhow... how does one decide where to draw the line on old pricing vs. new pricing?
I think the new price is to drive as many people out of the 500, becasue I sincerely believe the program is DOA.
No large air taxi market
No ESA
Where's FIKI?
- probably some performance guarantee issues, if the plane was ever really finished - just a hunch.
Anyhow, I hope someone answers your question... is this price change retroactive somehow? I think so - hence the option to ask for your money back if you don't like the new price.
So, its a Conjet or a $2.1M E500.
Door number 3 is asking for your money back - where's THIS money coming from?
Intelligent choice for Vern, though. I'll give you a plane and lose $500k, or I'll give you back your deposit money.... or I'll keep your money for another 3 years, free.
"Guarantee" - redefined
Gorak.
I think what Shane is talking about is each other on the blog. We have stuck together through a lot and because we have the sensible knowledge of what we're saying....whereas...Vern has maniuplated EVERYONE he has dealt with. That being said, Vern is a Tool, Vernacular, His Highness, His Lowness and .....did I mention...really PISSES me off
eclipso,
Thanks for clarifying that for me. Also, thanks for pointing out the perspicacity of blog participants. As one of said participants, I guess my statements will also now be above reproach, thanks to your imprimatur.
Perhaps to clarify things, Shane's rule should say that name calling is childish, EXCEPT when Vern is the target. Then Gunner et al, can proceed with their puerile pursuits.
G
The blog is coming to grips with the gravity and magnitude of the price increase for people who have an Eclipse 500 on order. I’m a little surprised Eclipse hasn’t gone after current owners with a retroactive price increase. Vern should attach liens to their houses or garnish wages to get what should fairly belong to Eclipse. Disruptive technology at such a bargain price – it ain’t fair.
Last week I was headed across the ramp and ran into an Eclipse pilot. I’ve known him for years and asked him how he liked the plane, parked nearby. He stiffened and rolled his eyes. I observed there were no clouds in the sky so icing should not be an issue. He replied, “Yeah, but what I really want is a flight director.” I tried to comfort him by saying that flying raw data approaches would make him a very sharp pilot. He said, “I don’t want to have to be an above average pilot to fly this plane.”
I think the chances of the Eclipse 400 being certified for 41,000 feet are nil. On sudden depressurization, the time of useful consciousness is supposed to be about 15 seconds. Ram air turbines, compressors, batteries are all impractical and an air hose or extension cord would have to be way too long. Maybe everyone onboard could wear a pressure-demand mask above 35,000 feet, if the FAA would allow a change in the regulations.
For those who still enjoy the Kool-Aid, I look to Vern to announce a novel emergency descent system. An aneroid switch is rigged to close at a 14,000 foot cabin altitude. It activates explosive bolts which shear off the wings and tail surfaces, applies full power to the engine (if running), drops the masks in the two backseats and squawks 7700. The former jet, now escape capsule, departs 41,000 feet and arrives in breathable air in no time at all.
Like Little Boy and Fat Man, the little craft is now supersonic. A two-stage ballistic reserve parachute slows the Eclipse with less than 8G loading. This smart looking arrangement lands on the median strip of the interstate highway. The four occupants step out into the noonday sunshine and address the growing crowd. The wings and tail feathers flutter down into a Wal-Mart parking lot raising great curiosity.
eclipso,
Thanks for clarifying that for me. Also, thanks for pointing out the perspicacity (SCREWDNESS)
of blog participants. As one of said participants, I guess my statements will also now be above reproach, thanks to your imprimatur (APPROVAL).
Perhaps to clarify things, Shane's rule should say that name calling is childish, EXCEPT when Vern is the target. Then Gunner et al, can proceed with their puerile (JUVENILE)pursuits.
G
Hey buddy, that was a lot of work!
airtaximan,
You are indeed a screwd fellow to translate my work.
G
this blog is a fun place, and a great resource, contribute and enjoy.
I learned 3 new words thanks to you!
I am ashamed to say that, in the heat of blogging, I too fell into name-calling, from time to time. Its silly.
I believe I invented "Vernacular" "CONjet" and I used to call eclipse "E-clips", until they were actually producing planes. Its more fun to poke fun, this way. I do not think it's rude...
No more rude than VErn calling his own position-holders "Die-Hards"
No more rude than you calling yourself "Gorak".
(man, I hope that wasn't offensive)
The price increase could be a sign of mature managment direction from the chairman of the board (ETIRC).
Set the price at what it needs to be and let the chips fall where they may.
From the answers above, it seems like the consensus is that the price increase applies to all orders beyond the next 200 or so that have the 60% progress payment in. So all the other orders prob have an average of less than $100K in deposits. So the choice is give them $100K back or take a loss of $1M by delivering them a jet way below cost. Seems to be a no brainer to me.
I'd expect some 90% of the order book to vanish. Still, that is good. They'll know the actual hard numbers of the order book.
I suspect it will be 200 or so already at the 60% mark plus 200-300 at the new price. Set production at a realistic 150-200/year and that is a 2-3 year back log. That means that they have to sell another 150-200/year to remain viable. Which means that they need to have a compeling (read completed) plane in the next 1-2 years to start rebuilding a decent 2-3 backlog.
As for the E400 chances, assuming they are starting with a completed EA500, they can prob share the wings sans tip tanks (a plus) flight deck and most systems. So it is really an airframe job. I'd be surprized if it cost them more than $100-$150M to do it. Four years should be enough assuming the concept validated the aerodynamics/performance substantially and they can go straight to conforming test articles built with production tooling without first flying a non-comforming prototype. If they go prototype first, add $50M-$1M and 18 months to schedule.
It will continue to be fun to watch and see if they can beat the odds and survive. Every month they continue to operate and pump out planes I find it amazing.
airtaximan,
If the name "Gorak" offends you, or anyone else, I sincerely apologize. It was not intended to be offensive.
Kind regards,
G
baron,
I think this is a hige admission of one basic fact - there is no huge market for this plane at anywhere near $1.5M.
Imagine if Vern went the other way, and said, we're lowering the price on the plane to $1M.
This is more in line with the "value proposition" to change the way the public flies, no?
Anyhow... perhaps he already knows there is no way he can ever sell 1,000 planes a year. The pricing from the suppliers is going up, due to limited volume production.
I personally don't think he'll make money even at $2.2M.
I also don't think the market for THAT plane from THAT company is another 150 planes/year above what left after whats left of the evaporated order book.
I think its over.
The CONjet is all they have, and its being under-priced based on volume as well. How do I know? Becasue this is bascially the same price point as the e500... right? Is this a "better" plane at that price? I do not think so - its a step down. So, how large is the market? Divided among how many SEJs from Diamond, Piper and Cirrus?
He might get Con-jet deposits from the die-hards... and maybe there's some speculators... I say max 400 deposits, without an Ed-order.
I think he basically blew his head off with this move, but he had no choice. His forward priced jet killed him, and now he's forward pricing another jet.
Someone will say "Diamond is doing it"... so can VErn. The jury is still out on the Djet, IMHO.
Just one taximan's opinion.
Gorak,
nope, no offense, what so ever. I was hoping my remarks did not offend you.
But, I think you knew that.
Black Tulip said... Like Little Boy and Fat Man, the little craft is now supersonic
Hey BT, do you have an actul source that claims that LB and/or FM broke the sound barrier? With their shapes, I'd doubt very much they'd go supersonic when dropped from the 31Kft down to the 2Kft detonation hight - atmosphere is pretty dense there.
I could believe a terminal velocity of 500MPH, but don't think the boy or the man broke the sound barrier. In any event, I believe that drop travel times remain classified.
Baron is correct from that hight....but it probably broke the sound barrier horizontally after the detonation
Set the price at what it needs to be and let the chips fall where they may.
Agreed 100% – to artificially low-ball the price on the hopes of miracles happening in engineering and a flood of currently non-existing customers (air taxi) is just a silly basis for a “real” company to exist.
I'd expect some 90% of the order book to vanish. Still, that is good. They'll know the actual hard numbers of the order book.
Probably very true, but the public will never know the real numbers… However, this should help edge them to reality, then see what they can do from there.
…they can prob share the wings sans tip tanks (a plus) flight deck and most systems. So it is really an airframe job. I'd be surprized if it cost them more than $100-$150M to do it. Four years should be enough//
So, since it is Eclipse after all, add a 375% margin. Don’t underestimate how much this will dramatically change each and every “black box” on the aircraft. One has to assume that the dual-redundant nature of the E-500 cannot simply be reduce to a single chain simply be removing half of the equipment. Think MAJOR software and architectural modifications to just about everything. $350M / 3 years minimum for the first “beta certification”, $450M / 4 years until actually “Cessna complete”.
Plus they have to re-layout the panel to make room for the Garmin 400. HA!
FIKI where are you? Here boy, here boy…
Shane,
For what it is worth, I agree with your decision. Some one using an alias should not be mentioning real names.
Baron95,
In Paul Tibbets’ book “Enola Gay” he cites a 43 second delay between release at 30,000 feet and detonation at 1,800 feet. That works out to 650 feet per second or 390 knots AVERAGE speed. Wonder what the peak speed was?
Gorak-
Tell ya what. When the day comes that I repeatedly insult an entire industry of my superiors, rip off hundreds of your compatriots for tens of millions in "progress" payments, try to force you to sign a new contract 48 hours after taking your money on the original contract and attempt to strip a few score of your colleagues of their First Amendments rights, you have my permission to call me exactly what that would make me.
I promise not to take umbrage at epithets like Tool, Hump, Worm, Maggot, Oxygen Thief, Putz, Coward or Dipstick. Come to think of it, I don't think I'd have a right to take offense to any insult you might throw my way, were I to voluntarily sink that low on the Food Chain.
OK?
Gunner
"Think MAJOR software and architectural modifications to just about everything."
If I remember my tour of the Beech factory years ago the fuselage of the Bonanza/Baron gets quite far along in production before the decision is made to complete it as a single or twin. In Eclipse's case the aerodynamics of the V-tail look very squirrley to me. Since the Eclipse 500 is practically a four-seat airplane anyway, why not just take an EA-500, bury a single large turbofan in the aft fuselage (like the L-39 Albatross) and be done with it?
baron95 wrote :
"The only thing on Eclipse's side is volume..."
sorry , i disagree !
this is exactly what Vern want you to believe ...
in reality what was on the side of EAC is/was :
to be quite small , a bit like a family = quite easy to spot the ones not really pulling their own weight and get ride of unnecessary expenses ...
Costs production management ...
fatherhood like way of dealing with things ... (ethics)
but this was way not glamorous enough for Vernperator !
airtaxi...
yes , i think you might be right !
let's try to "imagine" a bit :
you promised a revolutionary jet for a decade , to make it happen you already blew-off a Billion something , you are so late that what was quite good conditions then , has vanished into some others times much tougher ...
you are running out of nearly everything ( time , money , customers patience , credibility , etc ...)
you know perfectly well that the one whom put some cash in the venture are going to hang you up ( really or only as an image) if they find out (let's say "if they have no other choice than to acknowledge what has been a rebutted fact by themselves is a real truth ...) that the amount of orders (or floptions ...) is drastically much smaller that what you touted for so long ...
what are you going to do ?
buy time by launching a new product ?
offer "conversion" to new product , then after a while just drop the first product with a speech " it is with great sadness we had to take the step as to terminate the E500 program , it was a brilliant success , but it didn't meet its " target customer " ?
or do a little bit of both , in order to avoid direct responsibilities in the course of events ?
I promise not to take umbrage at epithets like Tool, Hump, Worm, Maggot, Oxygen Thief, Putz, Coward or Dipstick. Come to think of it, I don't think I'd have a right to take offense to any insult you might throw my way, were I to voluntarily sink that low on the Food Chain.
Gorak's posts are very telling in what they leave out. The most Gorak can muster is pleas for politically correct treatment of Vern right after Eclipse announces a whole new product. Then again if Gorak did say anything substantial, Gorak knows Vern might sue. Vern has done a very good job scaring off the Faithful with his shotgun lawsuit.
DayJet's PR firm wins awards:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080603006004&newsLang=en
It seems odd that this PR firm would get an award seeing how unsuccessful their PR for DayJet has been. This is the same PR firm Iacobucci used at SCO, which similarly was met with little success.
9Z-
We seem to have two schools of thought regarding the price increase: the first is that adults are now at the wheel; the second is that Vern is attempting to tank the E-500 program.
I believe the latter for a couple of reasons. Most important, if adults were finally running the company, Vern would be out or relegated to a fund-raising only. Second, Eclipse's most successful period (cash flow wise) was when it produced noting but timelines and development promises.
The company has failed miserably from the moment provisional TC was awarded. I think Vern must yearn for the days when there was no product to criticize; the days when he could poke fun of dinosaurs and use terms like "disruptive" and "value proposition"; the days when the only demands on cash were for R&D.
That was Eclipse's heyday. Vern has been far more accurate than me in his understanding of just how many people you can fool and for how long. Perhaps he's right with the ConJet gambit and can actually turn the clock back 3 or 5 years. In order to do that the E-500 needs to "go away"; best way to do that, price it where it needs to be for break-even and watch Cessna bury it deep.
Gunner
Serial # 190 flies to Europe
This is reregistered to the Turkish Gold magnate Cihan Kamer of Atasay Gold.
Etric had announced a 120 firm and 60 option sale to the Turk in May 2007. Etric has an additional 40 craft in an earlier order.
Retrofit problems at Eclipse?...was there an older Eclipse stuck at Eclipse service for 3 months to get Performance and Avio NG? If retrofits are taking multiples over the publicly stated times to get done, what does that mean both for cost and schedules?
It wouldn't surprise me if Vern offers trade-ins to get people out of the EA500 and all the retrofitting that has to be done.
Black Tulip said...
Baron95,
In Paul Tibbets’ book “Enola Gay” he cites a 43 second delay between release at 30,000 feet and detonation at 1,800 feet. That works out to 650 feet per second or 390 knots AVERAGE speed. Wonder what the peak speed was?
I'm well aware of Tibbets recount, but most experts have come to the conclusion that he was mistken on that and that the flight time was actually longer. In any event an 9,000 lbs aerodynamic shape achieves terminal velocity very fast, certainly within the first few seconds. In fact, LB was probably slightly decelerating as air density got higher in the descent. I'd say terminal velocity was probably 500 knots or slightly less.
eclipso said...
Baron is correct from that hight....but it probably broke the sound barrier horizontally after the detonation
LOL. Very true indeed.
Did you realize that (IIRC) only 0.6 Kg of the 4,000KG of LB was actually converted to ennergy? Quite amazing.
P.S. Yes, I do realize the gravity and the human consequences of the actual events 63 years ago.
Fred said... what are you going to do ?
buy time by launching a new product ?
I'm sorry, but Eclipse's execution so far on the ECJ/E400 has been very, very shrude and well planned.
While Cirrus was going around with a cardboard cabin mockup and powerpoints, Eclipse flew and landed their concept at Oshkosh - they maintained total secrecy and outmanouvered everyone.
Then, they properly (apparently) took their time with evaluating and getting feedback on the concept before a formal decision to offer for sale (close to 1 year. That again is spot on.
If ETIRC or other investors continue to pump the necessary money in, the E400 can be a best in class product. With D-jet in the midst of an engine change and severe weight problems and Cirrus being notoriously slow in designing and certifying their planes, Eclipse has a nice shot at it.
AT Said.... In Eclipse's case the aerodynamics of the V-tail look very squirrley to me. Since the Eclipse 500 is practically a four-seat airplane anyway, why not just take an EA-500, bury a single large turbofan in the aft fuselage (like the L-39 Albatross) and be done with it?
I think the aerodynamics look spot on. Jet engines like to be in pods in clear air. Mechanics like jet engines to be in easy to access pods. Air going into jet engines does not like to make roller coaster style turns. So DJet, Piper and Cirrus all fail in one or more of these.
My only concern over the E400 design is it being a 4-place jet. I think the class will be defined by 5-seat airplanes (D-Jet and Cirrus). I hope Eclipse has really gotten customer feedback that 4 seats is competitive.
9Z said... - There is no way Eclipse can make a profit selling 150 jets/year at their new selling price.
Why is that? If Beech can (suposedely) make a profit selling a dozen or so C90GTis a year at $3M and Cessna can (suposedely) make a profit seling 50-70 C510s at $3M a year, why is it that Eclipse can't make a profit selling 10x or 2x the number of planes each of which has significant lower parts and material costs?
Yes, Beech and Cessna have the advantage of a broader product line and established processes, but at 150 jets/year, there is enough economies of scale to be had on that alone.
I am assuming that the EA500 new price is based on current costs plus small return. And the $2M price has been the most often used estimate in this Blog as to where the EA500 needed to be priced at.
So why are we now saying that 150 planes at $2.15M is a receipe for perpetual losses? I think the critical items is finding 150 new replacement orders per year after 2010. Price is in the ballpark.
"There is no way that Eclipse can meet their goal of selling 500 jets per year. That demand didn’t exist at $1.5 million in a good economy with low fuel prices, and it certainly doesn’t exist at $2.x million in a faltering economy with fuel prices headed higher."
- AND the demand DOES NOT EXIST for a smaller (4-place) con-jet at the same price. Why should demand for the same price plane be higher, if capability and performance are lower?
What's the joke?
I feel like I'm watching one of theose guys on NYC sidewalk with a makeshift cardboard table and three bent playing cards.
Gunner said...
9Z-
We seem to have two schools of thought regarding the price increase: the first is that adults are now at the wheel; the second is that Vern is attempting to tank the E-500 program.
I believe the latter for a couple of reasons.
In a investor-funded pre-profit company like Eclipse, ALL actions are geared towards impressing the next set of potential investors. And I do mean ALL actions. That is all that matters, because if you run out of cash with negative margins you are dead.
So you need to see all actions from that point of view. Eclipse's board is relaly trying to demonstrate two things:
1 - We are not a one-trick ponny - we have a follow-on product. This is a key gate for potential investors.
2 - We have (or will soon have) positive margins on our current product.
They are clearly dressing the company up for future investment rounds or an acquisition.
If they want to tank the EA500 or file for CH11/7 they can do that at any time. They don't need to play coy on it.
There is one more bitter, critical and risk pill for Eclipse to swallow. They need to switch to a G1000 system or they will be pertually at a desirability disadvantage. It is like Acura not having a rear wheel drive platform or a V8. They can build wonderful cars, but Lexus, BMW, Mercedes will always rank higher in desirebility and command much higher prices.
In my mind, the only thing they trully lose is the autothrotles, but they gain a lot. SV for example will be huge.
Baron-
Thanks for your earlier clarification.
As to your latest pronouncements on Eclipse's marketing prowess, you're killin' me.
Shrewd? The ConJet rollout? You have GOT to be kidding! Nobody was impressed by the plane, Baron. Not the press and not those in attendance. With very few exceptions, only the Fluff boy Posse raved about this funny looking little craft. (The D-Jet is hardly a handsome plane; but it looks positively elegant by comparison.)
And so we have history repeating itself all over again. When will we hear about the burgeoning orders for the ConJet? The Air Taxi promises probably won't materialize, but certainly Vern can think up a huge military or corporate training order, say from East Central Uzbekistan.
Once again we have claims of never before seen feats of technology (eg: FL410)...so long as the plane remains in the R&D stage.
I've been impressed by your ability to defend Eclipse without falling for their hype, Baron. But surely you don't believe the ConJet offers the same type of revolutionary Value Proposition over the Diamond and Cirrus offerings that the E-500 once offered over the Cessna Mustang.
This company is in enormous trouble, Baron....and not just from a leadership standpoint. Their flagship product offering has tanked before it's even been finished. Do you really believe this company can start out, years behind their competition and seize the SEJ market as the E-500 had promised to do with the twin counterpart?
Gunner
baron, the last comment was for ASM not ATM... anyhow..
I do not think eclipse can make money on the e500 at $2.1 million, unless the sell a lot of them... I think the plane MIGHT be an inherently slightly lower cost design, MIGHT be, but not by much.
I'd say the avionics and other systems are priced around the same for Cessna nd Eclipse, with a cost penalty for eclipse being higher risk, a start up, etc, cmpared to Cessna.
That ebing said, at around the same volume 200 Mustang 300 e-500s... they proabably cost around the same to make, all parts, systems and structure considered. Maybe eclispe got a break on the engines, being lower thrust... maybe they saved $100-$200k total.
Today, I would imagine the cost to deliver an e500 (really) is $2.5M a pop. WIll it improve, perhaps, but volume WILL fall. They will likely produce 300 or so planes this year, and then wonder what to do next year with not enough orders left.
I do not envision eclipse producing even 300 planes a year for very long - like you said, the demand is really not there. Cessna Mustang has sustainable demand at 200 units a year. AT this rate, they should be priced about the same. Problem is, there's NO market for the e500 at the same price as Mustang.
PS. there's no large market for the conjet at the same price as the e500, either. We already know this.
"Jet engines like to be in pods in clear air. Mechanics like jet engines to be in easy to access pods. Air going into jet engines does not like to make roller coaster style turns."
Well, Dassault makes three different three-engine jets with "S" ducts, the latest, the 7x, has a backlog of 200 airplanes at 40 million dollars apiece. You do the math. I would say Dassault has gotten it right. The old T-33 had a single-engine jet in the aft fuselage. You rolled a dolly up, removed the aft fuselage and slid the engine back on rails. the engine change time was measured in minutes, not hours. Ditto for many, many other single engine military jets. The E-400 just looks like it will have GC range measured in millimeters. Eclipse designed a cramped, useless for six, EA-500, now they are designing a cramped, useless for four, EA-400. You could have a single-engine EA-500 with four or five seats and have decent range, cabin room, and payload. Waaaaaaay to easy. Got to reinvent the wheel again.
Guestimate Spreadsheet of EA500 Cash Flow Budget, July 2008-9
I prepared a rough cashflow analysis of the "optimisitic consensus" scenario of revenues and costs as predicted on this blog.
Obviously, the spreadsheet is littered with assumptions. ATM and Baron have presented variant cost estimates for the airframe. This might include labor costs, for "structure".
This spreadsheet should be considered a alpha 0.00 edition, and will be revised (sporadically) as others chime in.
The "jetComplete" program is likely running at a loss, since it was budgeted for a high production rate (presumably), and actual craft in service to private owners is low.
This spreadsheet should be considered a alpha 0.00 edition, and will be revised (sporadically) as others chime in.
I think Eclipse might be paying more than other manufacturers for the same volume of orders because Eclipse negotiated lower pricing based on very high yearly sales and companies got burned. Signing a contract with Eclipse is very risky due both to uncertain volumes and also because Eclipse uses contracts against those who partner who with it by publicly attacking them in the media and suing them.
If ETIRC or other investors continue to pump the necessary money in, the E400 can be a best in class product.
Best in class? What, from a worst in class non-manufacturer?
Then there are the lousy actuators (same as the E-500), Avio NFE (non friggin existent) as well as a host of other issues. This will be the next joke amongst the dinosaurs.
Although I’ve mentioned it before, I’ll say it again. Watch out for stability problems with a “forward swept wing*” and a “delta tail”. No, I’m referring to the “leading edge” of the “vee tail” of the E400. The long delta leading edges of the horizontal/vertical “ruddervators” will increase the problems of a “vee” tail.
The dinosaurs have already been down that road . . . and learned some hard lessons. The “swept back” wings, and “conventional tail”, although rather mundane, happen to be a good compromise . . . especially for a rather slow speed aircraft.
The “swallow tail” may look rather fancy, but until the complex control system is perfected for “low cost general aviation”, this is simply begging for disaster.
gadfly
*Although the “leading edge” of the wings on the E500/E400 appear to be “straight”, Stan pointed out years ago that the average cross-section is a “forward sweep”. This may be “good” on final approach, at low air speeds, but creates a series of control problems at higher velocities. The Japanese designer of the Mitsubishi A6M “Zero” fighter, Jiro Hirokoshi, put a slight “washout” into the wings of that famous fighter . . . and a “funny thing” here is that the A6M exceeds virtually all specs of the “ConJet”, including SPEED, altitude, range, payload, and almost “double” the MTOW. And I venture that the “ConJet” could not come close to the overall performance of the “Zero” . . . but then, the “Zero” lacked a jet engine and relied on a “mechanical” control system . . . ‘like the Americans continued to do up through most of the early jet airliners. ‘Stupid Japanese . . . relying on old proven concepts . . . and almost “cleaned our clock” in the early days of “the war”.
baron95 said...
If ETIRC or other investors continue to pump the necessary money in, the E400 can be a best in class product.
I would just like to point out the fact that a seemingly endless supply of money did not result in the EA500 being the best at anything.
OK... I lied. It was definitely the best at hype.
RE: SEJ@FL410
I don't think anyone questions whether it can be done. The question is whether it can be done at a reasonable price point and reliability. Backup systems are already available but they cost money and add to complexity. The real question is whether an inexpensive and reliable system can be developed. Given their record, I have my doubts.
RE: Gorak
Yippee!!!! internet drama
Advice: Don't derail the discussion.
Black Tulip said...
I’m a little surprised Eclipse hasn’t gone after current owners with a retroactive price increase.
That's easy, charge for the IOU upgrades (aero mods, FIKI, AvioNG 2.0, FMS (sic), etc). The existing owners now have airplanes worth $500K more than they thought, so they can cough up the extra dough to pay for upgrades. They are captive, they know the value of their airplanes will suffer greatly if they aren't upgraded (particularly FIKI) so they will do so because they are pot committed.
Breaking the IOU contract (which might not actually exist anywhere on paper) seems a lot easier than the sales agreements they just shredded with the price increase.
baron95 , you're making my day ...!
i am laughing so much that i'm sure nothing will tarnish the big smile you put on my ugly face ... ! :-))
ok so as i think just about nothing is going to remove your pink-glasses , let me point out a very few things
(i apologize by bowing in front of the crowd if i write things written in past ... did you say many times ? ;-)) )
B95 =
"I'm sorry, but Eclipse's execution so far on the ECJ/E400 has been very, very shrude and well planned.
While Cirrus was going around with a cardboard cabin mockup and powerpoints, Eclipse flew and landed their concept at Oshkosh - they maintained total secrecy and outmanouvered everyone."
=
yes , but should i remind you : they did not do it themselves ? and about powerpoint : please remember the very good looking presentation of E500 in the time of all-promises on computer screen ...
"the board is getting adult"
=
sorry , personally i knew that i was becoming an adult when i understood this " Young kid should never be left alone playing with matches ..."
i could write stuff like this for a day or two ...
but i prefer to give you a hint on what is the subject here :
i never made any secret about the fact that i don't have such a great knowledge about all technical aspects of G.A ...
but in my job , i had long ago to understand a simple thing " to approach technical wisdom on things crossing my road for work-purpose , it would take me at least three lifetime ... i understood as well i am very far from being as clever as i thought to be ... and no way i can make it ...!"
so i had to find some other ways to do it or to stop doing something i like very much (my job)
so my (too) little brain worked out something = anything on earth has a weak-point ... if this said weak-point is coherence = it is because (may be) the whole thing is incoherent !
ok ?
so let's take a blank page , draw a line on it , put on one side what is good and coherent and on the other what is less good , incoherent or just "not known yet" (i put this on such category as "it is always better to be surprised than deceived ..." or "no deal is better than bad deal")
ok? , the good side :
well apart fund raising , i don't see much ...! but money is a tool , NEVER a goal !
i almost forgot : hype !
but something REALLY substantial ? where ?
the other side :
the list may get real long and boring ...
but just as an resume and explanation : if the whole story would be movie , what would be the chances to find it credible ? not a lot !
or , if this would be a puzzle , one could see pieces don't fit together ...
they don't fit for a SUCCESS !
but if you take the other way around , one can "almost see a pattern" =
like the "Russian Plant" :
it is not coherent ! on occasion E500 is presented as the top-notch disruptive technology ...
so what are the chances a 60's Soviet aviation plant , closed down for the last 10/15 years can be any good enough for such a high-profile production ?
about none without re-construction of the said site ...
but if the whole plant has to be re-constructed , why not build it brand-NEW in an area with special economics rights ?
especially when you understand those zones are granted a NON-TAXABLE right ...
and they can give you a long-term bail on the land ...
and if not enough , they will back you up with loans or/and federal guarantee on loans directly linked to product made in the said plant ...
so why , choosing such a lousy place as the plant they picked-up ?
apart the fact it has been the BIGGEST aviation plant in the world ever in service !
BIGGEST ? don't you see a pattern here ?
as the same as " our bird will darken the sky..." or " we will bury all the dinosaurs ..."
i wrote it before : in its latest declaration Etirc said " Russia will be a production plant and a service-plant is to be set-up more in the West ...
west in that meaning is either
Belarus :
with Lukashenko as a president , the soviet system has still some nice days ahead ... so a "deficient" capitalist and imperialist venture has little chances ...
on top of it , E.U. is extremely cautious of whatever is coming from this country ...
Ukraine :
well known for its double , triple sometimes even quadruple standards way of doing business ...
still not a part of E.U. (and at least for the next 20/25 years ) so remaining very suspicious as granted a "free to produce/serve"...
European Union : (which is all what is left apart Balkan and Moldavia )
how in hell are they going to have a service-center certified to serve a plane which is UNcertified ?
that would be what is called in European Laws "jurisprudential " in other term : if you cannot succeed in getting something accepted in E.U. because it isn't good enough , build a "service-center" or a "customer-service" and the product will be allowed ...!
do you really believe they are that stupid ?
so is that become "adult" for you ?
you see not a single piece seems to fit with others ...
unless you take it as desperate attempts at finding new excuses , new potential culprits , discharge of responsibilities ...
Regarding the questions about how to show compliance with the FAR's on cabin pressurization, a Cessna DER gave a very nice presentation on this several years ago at an SAE AC-9 meeting. I wonder if flyger was there?
Applicable FAR's are not only 23.831 and 23.841, but all special conditions. Typically for such aircraft, I would expect special conditions include 25.841:
Sec. 25.841 Pressurized cabins.
(1) If certification for operation above 25,000 feet is requested, the
airplane must be designed so that occupants will not be exposed to cabin pressure altitudes in excess of 15,000 feet after any probable failure condition in the pressurization system.
(2) The airplane must be designed so that occupants will not be exposed to a cabin pressure altitude that exceeds the following after decompression from
any failure condition not shown to be extremely improbable:
(i) Twenty-five thousand (25,000) feet for more than 2 minutes; or
(ii) Forty thousand (40,000) feet for any duration.
(3) Fuselage structure, engine and system failures are to be considered in evaluating the cabin decompression.
Now, as flyger said, you can't use emergency descent procedures to comply with the 15k cabin altitude (AC23-17b), but you CAN use it to comply with the 25k and 40k cabin altitudes, but these are, for instance, in case you lose a window or have a rotor burst that causes a decompression, improbable failures. So the KEY thing here, is the language "probable failure." With modern turbofans I believe they will attempt to certify an in flight shutdown of the engine as improbable. They will basically be required to have 2 of everything as if they had 2 engines, BUT only the one engine because every other part (i.e. fuel and ECS components) will be considered probable failures. Of course, this will create weight and cost problems for the programs.
Oh, check the world of turboprop singles that exist today (Meridian, TBM, PC12). Why do you think they were certified with 31k ceilings? Because this is what FAR 23 used to read, it has been lowered 25,000 feet to align with FAR 25.
flyger has this pretty much nailed.
baron95, your compressor idea doesn't work as well as you imagine. Basically such a device is a turbomachine to get the required pressure ratios and efficiencies and it's not something that will work at the prices these guys are talking about. If money is no object, power is a problem, as is pointed out by flyger. Physics and economics are neither one on the side of this working.
As for the low hanging fruit, once you go above 25,000 feet life gets complicated unless you can say that in flight shutdown of the engine is improbable. As flyger has said, you've only got a couple psi to work with, or in terms you can do math with, about 1.1 lbs of air to work with at 25kft, 5kft cabin. So, you have 10 minutes from 25001 feet (your math) to 15kft. In that 10 minutes you can't leak out 1.1 lbs of air. No airplane is going to meet this, even if the ONLY leakage is the leakage of the cabin pressurization valves which are now in the fully closed position. Math and physics are not on your side.
flyger said"
"Gold star for you. No I did not. But the change in time will be small because the aircraft won't be much lower than FL410 when the cabin altitude hits 15,000 ft. The leak rate at the start (41K to 8K) is not a lot different than at the point it ends (say 39K to 15K). That's a change of only 27%, or 13% on average over the event, so the time would end up being 88 seconds. Not materially different."
Note that the flow will be sonic in all conditions, therefore the change is simply the change in cabin pressure, not in the pressure differential, so it's actually a little lower than calculated here.
flyger wrote:
"You actually have to shut it off or close the bleed air valve. Idling still compresses."
and the bleed valves (there will be 2EA in the design) will leak, a lot. You will likely have to shut the engines down to show compliance. Not a fun flight test.
"Actually, based solely on leak rate, you might not be able to do it at anything over 25,000 ft. It might not even work at 20,000 ft."
"25K. After that, the rules dramatically favor twin engine designs."
"The rules were changed after these airplanes were certified. They have been grandfathered (the 850 is a modification of the 700 TC)."
All correct.
Some time ago I suggested to people at Diamond not to consider certification beyond 25k, and I think they're probably glad they followed this path.
flyger, what are your thoughts on going for in flight shutdown as improbable?
CPC No. 500-2008-010 Throttle Lever Force June 9, 2008
Page 1 of 1
CPC Form
Rev A 09/18/07
2503 CLARK CARR LOOP SE
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87106
TEL 505 724-1200
WWW.ECLIPSEAVIATION.COM
CPC No. 500-2008-010
Customer Pilot
Communication Date: June 9, 2008
Subject:
Throttle Lever Force
Model:
EA500
Effectivity:
All Aircraft
THIS IS NOT AN ECLIPSE AVIATION SERVICE BULLETIN.
1. PURPOSE:
This CPC is issued by Eclipse Aviation to provide timely aircraft operational information to Eclipse aircraft
operators. It is for informational purposes only, and all recommendations are advisory in nature.
2. SUMMARY:
An Eclipse 500 pilot recently experienced a dual engine control failure after applying forward force on the
throttle levers resulting in exceeding the design throttle range of operation. This situation resulted in an
inability to control engine thrust through normal means. Eclipse is working with the NTSB to investigate
this occurrence, but is issuing immediate guidance to Eclipse 500 pilots to avoid excessive forward
throttle force against the throttle stops.
3. BACKGROUND:
Following a reported windshear encounter on final approach, an Eclipse 500 pilot applied full throttle using
enough force against the forward stops to result in exceeding the design throttle position signal maximum
range. This out-of-range position signal for both throttles subsequently activated the ENG CONTROL FAIL
CAS message for both engines. Since this fault mode was caused by invalid position signals, the system
logic held the engine thrust settings at the last known throttle position, which was maximum.
Following a balked landing, execution of the L(R) ENG CONTROL FAIL checklist, and shutdown of one
engine, the pilot was able to return around the pattern and land the aircraft with no injury or substantial
damage, although both main tires were blown during the event. Initial throttle quadrant testing indicates a
force in excess of 30 pounds against the forward stops is required to cause the out-of-range condition.
4. ECLIPSE ACTION:
After becoming aware of this occurrence, Eclipse immediately notified the NTSB and FAA. An Eclipse
Safety Investigation Team was dispatched to the aircraft and is currently participating as a party to the
NTSB investigation. In accordance with NTSB rules, we cannot divulge details of the investigation, but we
are aggressively working to determine the root cause and implement permanent corrective actions. We are
also working on an immediate Temporary Revision (TR) to the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to address this
situation. In the meantime, we have determined that communicating this issue to operators now is essential
in preventing a similar occurrence.
5. RECOMMENDED OPERATOR ACTION:
Eclipse 500 operators should avoid applying excessive force to the throttle levers against the
forward throttle stops.
Post a Comment