eclipse@thefiringline.com
Please review the PDF, which is an image file so the text can't be copied and pasted and use the .xls (Excel) format to respond. Many thanks to Gunner (and Norman) and to all of you in advance for your replies. And if anyone wants to suggest a better way to distribute this, let me know.
eclipsecriticng@gmail.com
Vern has personally provided specific postings from each of the targeted Bloggers to support his claims that some or all of them are engaged in a vast conspiracy to violate Eclipse INDA’s. Our position is that his Declaration actually supports OUR position that he’s on a fishing expedition with nothing less than the First Amendment on the hook.
Please review the attached Declaration for comments Vern has attributed to you. Where appropriate, fill out the Excel spreadsheet titled Blogger_Response.xls, using the same format as Vern’s Declaration. (See the example provided in the spreadsheet)
We don’t need to respond to each of Vern’s claims to demonstrate that he is shot-gunning any negative comment about the company or the plane. Many of the Eclipse-provided posts are self-explanatory.
When crafting a response, avoid long editorial, personal opinion, sarcasm, grandstanding, armchair lawyering, etc. If your original comments stem from publicly available information or simple personal opinion backed by experience and/or publicly available info, say so in a concise, straightforward manner.
Above all, save Blog-appropriate commentary for the Blog. Avoid making this personal. Recognize that your responses and comments may be relied upon by the Judge in this case and he’s not interested in your opinion.
Unfortunately, commentary cannot be copied from the PDF, as it’s in image format. You will need to retype your original comments onto the spreadsheet or copy them from the Blog using the time stamp in Vern’s Declaration to locate your original posting.
All responses must be returned to eclipse@thefiringline.com in the attached spreadsheet format by Thursday evening, June 5th. We will not be in a position to use or respond to comments offered in any other format.
Vern Declaration here
Please review the PDF, which is an image file so the text can't be copied and pasted and use the .xls (Excel) format to respond. Many thanks to Gunner (and Norman) and to all of you in advance for your replies. And if anyone wants to suggest a better way to distribute this, let me know.
eclipsecriticng@gmail.com
Vern has personally provided specific postings from each of the targeted Bloggers to support his claims that some or all of them are engaged in a vast conspiracy to violate Eclipse INDA’s. Our position is that his Declaration actually supports OUR position that he’s on a fishing expedition with nothing less than the First Amendment on the hook.
Please review the attached Declaration for comments Vern has attributed to you. Where appropriate, fill out the Excel spreadsheet titled Blogger_Response.xls, using the same format as Vern’s Declaration. (See the example provided in the spreadsheet)
We don’t need to respond to each of Vern’s claims to demonstrate that he is shot-gunning any negative comment about the company or the plane. Many of the Eclipse-provided posts are self-explanatory.
When crafting a response, avoid long editorial, personal opinion, sarcasm, grandstanding, armchair lawyering, etc. If your original comments stem from publicly available information or simple personal opinion backed by experience and/or publicly available info, say so in a concise, straightforward manner.
Above all, save Blog-appropriate commentary for the Blog. Avoid making this personal. Recognize that your responses and comments may be relied upon by the Judge in this case and he’s not interested in your opinion.
Unfortunately, commentary cannot be copied from the PDF, as it’s in image format. You will need to retype your original comments onto the spreadsheet or copy them from the Blog using the time stamp in Vern’s Declaration to locate your original posting.
All responses must be returned to eclipse@thefiringline.com in the attached spreadsheet format by Thursday evening, June 5th. We will not be in a position to use or respond to comments offered in any other format.
For your Excel sheet, Gunner has posted the location in the fourth posting on the blog. Please click on the link he has provided there.
296 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 296 of 296FlightCenter,
Welcome back from your travels. I was just looking over your summary of deliveries. What do you make of the lack of new certificates of airworthiness, now apparently in its sixth month?
Baron, isn't it a matter of symantics, really.
Vern could have said we are using this plane to see if the market responds favorably, and if so, we'll produce "it".
My sense is, the 400 will not be exactly the plane they showed as the conjet. Symmantics - "“The Eclipse Concept Jet will allow us to obtain real, quantifiable data that looks objectively at this developing category,” said Vern Raburn, president and CEO of Eclipse Aviation. “While today we have no production plans for the ECJ, we are constantly evaluating markets for future Eclipse products. As evidenced by the Eclipse 500 in the twin turbofan segment, our sole focus is the design and manufacture of aircraft that drive significant improvements in customer value and hence, create or expand very large markets. We are anxious to reveal the potential of this emerging category, and our opportunity to add real value to it.” Vern to Flug Review July 23/07... he added "Eclipse's ECJ program is designed to help the company analyze demand trends within the growing single-engine jet marketplace, and gain customer insight on potential future aircraft products and designs".
The concept jet was pitched as analogous to the automotive industry concept cars, show for feedback, but not really produced in the concept form.
I would say Gadfly is basiocally right... but so was Vern in this case, sort of - the Conjet will not be produced exactly as it was produced/shown as a one-off.
My feeling is when it was shown, the pretty much knew the e500 was DOA.
Vern was also combating Epic who could demonstrate the ability to design and produce a flying prototype in a few months - something of great avalue in the industry, something eclipse could not point to.
Just for the record, all of this is just my opinion, based entirely onpublic statements and published materials.
actually, I think tis going to boil down to Vern personally telling the judge:
"Your honor, it's killing me, I need to know who these guys are. Please"
I would say Gadfly is basiocally right... but so was Vern in this case, sort of - the Conjet will not be produced exactly as it was produced/shown as a one-off.
The conjet was a rush kluge job using EA500 parts. If the EA400 ends up being built like how the Conjet was, it will be quite a mess.
By the way, Vern provides us with the latest bit of comedy rhodium:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=20de12c1-9587-499d-826a-e40ac53715b2
Also Vern's ex-wife gets a new job:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080606005126&newsLang=en
Word is that she used the trumped up $3 billion order book size on her resume.
quite amazing ...! (your link about ecj)
change a few words a few dates , the wording seems to be a E500 presentation ...
think N°1 ...
Think cheap to own ...
think cheap to fly ...
think everybody want one ...
watch me in the eyes ... ;-))
i was expecting one of the marx-brothers coming of the side of the screen with a little panel :
"how to blow billion in hiring too many staff to craft words , but not doing the job ! lesson 1 "
then groucho coming to say
" sorry , we spend too much money on lesson 1 , so following lesson will be with same words ..."
Serial 155 flies to Europe
S/N spent 15 days in Denver in mid May after a maiden flight, then it went back to Albuquerque. Now it is flying to Europe. Its registration (perhaps stale) is to an Salt Lake City bank serving as trustee.
Has anyone seen the e-version of Flying Magazine? There is an article by Ken Wolf, yes the same Ken Wolf who was one of the early poster children for Eclipse. The same Ken Wolf who is one of the first co-chairmen of the Eclipse 500 Owners Club (http://www.eclipse500club.org/about/)
Although he does not bash the Eclipse 500, he did a very logical, complete comparison of the E500 and MU-2. I found it interesting that ultimately he decided the MU-2 was a better fit for him than the Eclipse and according to the article a better 'economical choice'.
Perhaps this is old news, however; I felt it might be mentioning with the new edition of Flying Magazine to hit the news stands soon.
AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, BOTH TIRES BLEWOUT, MIDWAY AIIRPORT, Date: 05-Jun-2008 Time: 6:03PM
City: CHICAGO State: IL
N612KB s/n 000026 is a 2007 Eclipse 500 is registered to and operated on the part 91 certificate, KCEJWP09, of Kiernan Companies LLC in Coronado, California.
on Dorothy's new job...
I am pretty sure she broke an NDA during he previous employment/consulting jobs, (after eclipse) and she's going to break her NDA again at this new post.
I think Vern needs to silence her.
hahahahhaha
Maybe she is... naw, never mind.
http://www.iconaircraft.com/
one of Dotties previous jobs
- anyone know anything about this?
BTW, I guess the FAA always planned on "revolutionizing GA" - see the ICON Aircraft site... but they did it first at eclispe... they certified an incomplete plane for flight.
from now on when you see ;) - it means I'm making a joke or information based on my opinion gathered from publicly available company statements and information.
Proof of concept A/C like the ECJ rarely have much in common with the "complying", "Finished", "Delivered" (tm Eclipse) aircraft. Even less so when the design was outsourced.
I wouldn't bother drawing any conclusions about material used, percentage of commonality, Performance or anything else except the rough layout from this type of exercise.
Look at the shape change between the first and second Djet prototypes.
Normally building non-comforming prototypes is a sign of maturity in GA. Only the amateurs believe they can deign, certify and produce an optimal aircraft off the drawing board.
It is this lack of experience combined with insufficient trial and error in the prototype phase, which leads to kludge ups like the horrible, artifical feel springs in all three axis of the Cirrus flight controls.
Often the first POC aircraft doesn't fly much, as the engineering quickly get enough data to identify where they need to optimise the design. That is not a sign of failure. It serves it's purpose.
I would estimate that a newly formed design team should be allowed three non-conforming airframes if you want high probablity of success.
The German WWII designs normally had about three prototypes, six to twelve pre-series aircraft and then series production. Due to the use of V (Versuch) serial numbers their system is more transparent looking back.
I wonder how the legendary 60 days to first flight P-51 prototype compared to the series A/C. Once again, most of these rapidly designed A/C which hit a sweet spot (Ed Heinemanns scooter also springs to mind) where the result of a finely honed design team with a proven leader, and near unlimited budget.
Unfortunately there seems to be a trend to outsourcing the first POC aircraft. This is done because the second big reason for it's existance (Marketing - it is an incredible marketing tool) in some companies completely sidelines it's engineering purpose.
When that outsourcing of a POC plane happens, you lose almost all engineering value since the team that will design the real plane where not involved. They gain little useable data, have little knowledge of the assumptions which lead to the POC design, and will effectively start again from scratch on the actual design.
Waste of time and money - probably negative value as the kind of company which does this is probably ruled by an impatient demigod. The kind who believes his own marketing and can't understand how he can have a flying prototype and engineers are still telling him they need three years.
San Diego news item featuring the Kiernan (double blowout) Eclipse
With unforeseen irony the pilot says:
"You aren’t going to see six people hop in and fly to Chicago.”
"AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, BOTH TIRES BLEWOUT, MIDWAY AIIRPORT, Date: 05-Jun-2008"
Thought Vern was in his basement showing Michelin how to formulate "rubber". Michelin obviously does not understand "tires". Under the bus with them! Reinvent the wheel (or, er, tire)! And we don't need anti-skid, O.K.? (Even though you can get it on a $12,000 motorcycle)
N612KB just came out of ABQ on June 3rd - wonder what they did to it?
http://tinyurl.com/6679kk
Thought Vern was in his basement showing Michelin how to formulate "rubber". Michelin obviously does not understand "tires". Under the bus with them! Reinvent the wheel (or, er, tire)! And we don't need anti-skid, O.K.? (Even though you can get it on a $12,000 motorcycle)
I thought Vern's excuse for the tires was that it was the pilot's fault. Great customer service - blame the customer and fire the customer service people who actually try to provide service to Eclipse customers. Vern has already fired Skupa who has gotten good reviews for providing customer service and now with Vern's lawsuit he's setting up the VP of Customer Service to be fired for violating the NDA.
Dyson's Vern and Ed show cancelled for lack of interest
Ester Dyson runs a high concept annual VLJ and spacetravel braintrust, and VC dog-and-pony show, "Flight School".
Ed and Vern were scheduled speakers for this years shindig (June 3-5), but the conference got scuttled for "lack of quorum".
Its registration (perhaps stale) is to an Salt Lake City bank serving as trustee.
John-
The FAA owner database shows 4300(!) aircraft registered to "Wells Fargo Bank Northwest NA Trustee" in SLC. They are overwhelmingly turbine aircraft of every age, size & flavor.
I'm open to speculation as to why they are owners of record for so many - it could be that they are in the business of underwriting aircraft leases.
IAN,ANHB,TPOW
Going back to the sworn statement of Vern, I'm once again reminded of one of my favorite comedy shows - Yes Minister.
In Yes Minister there's a quote that goes like this:
"The ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top."
I think it should be changed since Eclipse leaks from the top with Vern and the VPs being the source of the leaks for the confidential information Eclipse is suing about. Eclipse definitely leaks from the top with head PR flack Vern leaking continuously.
Ed and Vern were scheduled speakers for this years shindig (June 3-5), but the conference got scuttled for "lack of quorum".
What does that say about the Eclipse order book.
I'm open to speculation as to why they are owners of record for so many - it could be that they are in the business of underwriting aircraft leases.
I believe Eclipse owners have stated openly that they do this type of stuff as a tax dodge.
Only the amateurs believe they can deign, certify and produce an optimal aircraft off the drawing board.
Well, amateurs and Boeing, anyway...
IAN,ANHB,TPOW
Dave, funny you should mention that, as I wrote a last paragraph noting how I believe that the 777 was the first design Boeing had built without a conforming prototype. But I deleted it as I felt it wasn't relevant.
In the Vern video Vern reveals the Eclipse business plan of 100 400s the first year and 400 the year after that. Where are they going to make them? What will that do to 500 production?
The fireworks should be starting soon...
Freedom-
It was just a punchline waiting to happen. I couldn't resist. Sorry...
Your fundamental point is, of course, correct. Even Boeing knew that it was taking a tremendous risk - a bet-the-company risk - on taking that approach. Perhaps the truer statement would be, "Only amateurs would believe that anyone could design, certify and produce an optimal aircraft off the drawing board - without redefining financial risk."
The "amateurs" in this case being the investors (who overwhelmingly came from outside the aviation world) who have granted Vern his fat salary lo these many years.
For his accomplishments in fund raising, Vern deserves a Lifetime Achievement Award from Kool-aid. For his accomplishments as a manufacturer, employer & careful steward of his investors' money, he deserves a flaming bag of poo on his front steps.
For the record, Vern is lying when he says my post of February 19, 2008 11:17am is “Commentary based in part on confidential information, not available to the public”.
Here is why he is lying:
1. I said “Looks like Eclipse is running out of money…again”.
Eclipse regularly needs cash infusions because they aren’t making any money. This is no big secret. Eclipse has a long track record of pulling deposit-grabbing stunts when the money gets tight.
2. I said “A depositor with a serial # in the high 370’s is complaining he has been asked to put up his 60% deposit. “”Am I the only one objecting to putting up a deposit when the likelihood of a 6-month delivery is extremely slim?”
This was a quote which an Eclipse position holder posted on the internet, which was viewable by hundreds of readers. In fact, it wasn’t even the original quote, but a reproduction of the original post, so by the time it got to me it had passed through two other hands. I am but one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who read it.
3. I said “Sure, Eclipse will revise the schedule, AFTER they obtain money from the position holders. Same as last time. HELLO! WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN, OH, THE LAST 2 YEARS OR SO! WHY ARE YOU SO SURPRISED? DID YOU NEVER DO YOUR HOMEWORK, PERHAPS READ THE ECLIPSE AVIATION CRITIC WHERE YOU COULD HAVE LEARNED YOU WERE BEING SCAMMED”.
This is my own commentary, based on the fact Eclipse pulled the same stunt last year when it forced hundreds of position holders to ante-up their 6-month-60% deposits when Vern knew full well that the 6-month delivery schedule wouldn't be met. In fact, it was only a couple of weeks later that Eclipse parted ways with Avidyne and set back the delivery schedule by months. I'm willing to bet the problems with Avidyne had been brewing for quite some time before Vern shamelessly demanded a "free loan" from his first and most loyal customers.
So here we are, 4 months after my post, and serial numbers in the 370’s are still a LONG way off - about 8-9 months based on Vern's own comments about delivering "20 jets per month".
I was right, the customer WAS scammed, and Vern got a free loan.
So there you have it.
Vern, I know you or one of your paid toadies read this blog, so please consider this my formal demand that you remove my name from your subpoena.
And while you're at it, kiss my arse.
I was right, the customer WAS scammed, and Vern got a free loan.
Yes and Vern is upset because only insiders were supposed to know it was scam.
niner ...
take it easy ...!
if you keep on revealing so many trade secret , you 'll be sent to court covered with chains and handcuffs ...
to say "Vern is a Liar " is either a scoop or a breach of NDA ...
i tell you : be careful ! ;-)))
I just read this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_hi_te/philadelphia_newspapers_fake_ads_5;_ylt=Amj8LfR1du73KxEBBI3o8VsE1vAI
Perhaps DayJet should be named Derrie-Air. At least with the ficticious company it only charges you more if you weight more instead of leaving you on the tarmac.
while i am at it ...
niner , i join you in asking "my name to be removed" ...
on the latest list i am on it only indirectly thou a shane's post ...
where shane was saying "fred has INSIDE knowledge (of Russia)"
wait one second ...
somebody calling my little finger ...
yes ... yes... ok !
ok , so it appear i am on hit-list because the monkeys reading the blog on Vern's behalf are not supposed to understand what is an "unsaid statement" or because the whole of Russia is under NDA !!
vern , while you kiss niner's bottom , mine is at your disposal ...!!
anyoneknow how much a booth at OshKosh costs?
I will provide inventory of "Verntasic Flavor" cool-aid... puprple, of course, to ofer for sale at EAA.
... better name suggestions are welcome, of course.
I think we should sell T-Shirts:
I'm the real AIRTAXIMAN
I'm the real GADFLY
I'm the real FLIGHTCENTER
etc...
Takers?
From Avweb:
"The crash on takeoff of a 509th Air Wing, Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber, February 23 operating at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, was caused by water in the aircraft's sensors, according to an Air Combat report issued Thursday. Specifically, moisture in three port transducer units "distorted data introduced by a B-2 Spirit's air data system" which led to flawed information entering the bomber's flight control computers. The aircraft was reacting to inaccurate airspeed and a "perceived" negative angle of attack. This resulted in an "uncommanded 30 degree nose-high pitch-up on takeoff," according to the Air Force."
Makes you think harder about Eclipse's AD for the pitot/static system, huh?
Turboprop_pilot
FROM
JOE SHARKEY
The New York Times
Sunday, May 25, 2008
"Our target was to wind up the year with about 100 aircraft and something like 30 to 40 markets fully developed, which we considered was critical mass," Iacobucci said.
Can DayJet make it without expanding to that critical mass? "Absolutely not," Iacobucci conceded. He said he nevertheless believed that critical investment would materialize as it became more clear that air taxis were practical and would become more so in the future. "For us, it's all a matter of timing," he said.
Also...
"SATSair says it operated 16,000 flights in 27 states last year - 60 percent more than the previous year."
At some point, we'll be laughing at this whole thing. I just don't think a prop is the barrier Vern/Ed thought.
For the short missions, the prop wins hands down.... and the jet is silly. The more fuel becomes an issue, the more the prop will succeed in this market.
Airplanes are designed for missions, and it appears as if the e500 missed its mark, but a HUGE margin. There's no huge taxi market for the plane, and there's no other huge market either.
The whole thing is DOA.
Now the 4-place, that's a game-changer! C'mon man... give me a break. Next we'll be down to a two place, and Jim Bede will be left in the wings while Vern claims the 2-place market.
Making smaller and smaller planes isn't making the plane much cheaper, now is it Vern?
wake up... you need to make the right product for the market... so far, you have not demonstrated the ability to hit the broad side of a barn on this one.
PS. the ANN video showed Vern enamoured with the feedback on the daisy-wheel control. Proudly proclaiming a 50-50 split on the feedback.
Guess what? THIS HAS ZERO BEARING ON THE PRODUCT. It was a meaningless thing to test, and no one will ever buy your plane BECAUSE of that thing. Why waste any time on it? It is of zero value.
'Cause you can't help yourself. This seems to be the biggest problem at EAC.
;)
(remember what this means, now....)
RE: Fishing Trip
I just wanted to point out a few of the more laughable NDA violations in the declaration.
Flightcenter post #2, pg 15
How many times did FC state that the information came from the public FAA database? And Vern claims this is "confidential information"...
Flightcenter post #5, pg 16
FC repeats the joke about stock options. And Vern claims this is "confidential information"...
Airtaximan post #2, pg 18
AT points out a safety defect that anyone who has been in the plane could discover. And Vern claims this is "confidential information"...
Metalguy post #1, pgs 19-20
Mr. metal clearly states there is an unspecified "rumor" about Garmin. And Vern claims this is "confidential information"...
Turboprop_pilot only post, pg 20
TP speculates about the production slowdown. And Vern claims this is "confidential information"...
I could go on, and on, and on...
But what's the point? This is obviously a SLAPP against anyone who dares criticise Lord Vern of the Sith.
FC repeats the joke about stock options. And Vern claims this is "confidential information"...
Yes, I found that so funny since the original post was clearly a joke, but now Vern has validated in court what poor shape Eclipse is in. Vern has come off like an idiot in the past, but the more he says, the more his true idiot colors are revealed. He's insecure because he lacks intelligence and so he tries to compensate.
anonymous,
I am surprised he didn;t go after every blogger who contributed to the survey of how many planes EAC would deliver in 2007... becasue we were dead nuts on, collectively that is.
What a moron.
My post in question related to a previous blogger's claim that there wa a door problem... I just made a swipe at EACs safety culture.
They should have called me, and I would have assembled at least some juicy tidbits for them to show the judge... all this stuff is silly nonesense.
In reality, I do not think there is one fact they refer to that is not in the public domain.
Sad.
Metalguy post #1, pgs 19-20
Mr. metal clearly states there is an unspecified "rumor" about Garmin. And Vern claims this is "confidential information"...
And I didn’t even start the rumor! It was just something that had been previously discussed.
Brain dead I tell ya..
The hearing on the Motion to Quash was stayed until August 1, following 50 minutes of oral argument this morning.
IAN,ANHB,TPOW
I've added an Eclipse 400 tab on the Eclipse vs. Critics projection tracking spreadsheet.
It now includes the numbers for the E400 from Vern's presentation, his press release and an article published by AOPA.
Eclipse Aviation Projections
The hearing on the Motion to Quash was stayed until August 1, following 50 minutes of oral argument this morning.
Vern still hasn't delivered on something he started 10 years ago and now before finishing his first project, he's off distracting himself with launching another new plane from scratch and all the time and money that entails as well as distracting himself with this lawsuit. Vern simply doesn't have the discipline or intelligence to manage in a highly regulated manufacturing environment, so he's continually throwing others under the bus. All investors, Eclipse employees, businesses who contract with Eclipse, EA500 owners, EA500 position holders and potential EA400 position holders should read Vern's blogger declaration and then see if its really in their best interest to have anything to do with Eclipse given how the Eclipse CEO acts.
Perhaps DayJet should be named Derrie-Air...
LOL - an oldie but never-the-less a goodie!!!
Actually, as I understand it we got a fair amount more than a stay. The sealed complaint from NM became a real issue for the Judge and was finally surrendered to Norman Malinski. Though it remains "sealed" for now, that may be a an issue we wish to take up in the near future.
Additionally, from what I've gleaned, Eclipse should be about ready to dismiss about 20+ of the 29 targeted individuals after this first hearing; internally, I suspect Vern will explain it to Roel with an "Oopsie, I didn't know these guys would actually fight back."
The complaint is, without a doubt a SLAPP action; the Declarations backup were as poorly designed and as sloppily kluged together as...well, as the EA-500.
I think maybe it's time we take this little skirmish to Vern's back yard. What do you say, Vern? How 'bout we show your sealed complaint to the world....and the local papers? I think the New Mexico taxpayers have a right to know. Don't you?
Gunner
gunner :
YOU're the man , man !
whatever you decide , whatever you do = i'll be proud to back you up ...!
how about some T-shirt with on it :
"I know Gunner !"
Though it remains "sealed" for now, that may be a an issue we wish to take up in the near future.
I think there's many different angles it can be challenged. Both challenged so that it can be viewed by the named parties as well as challenged so that the public can see it at least in redacted form.
Additionally, from what I've gleaned, Eclipse should be about ready to dismiss about 20+ of the 29 targeted individuals after this first hearing; internally, I suspect Vern will explain it to Roel with an "Oopsie, I didn't know these guys would actually fight back."
Eclipse is in a no-win situation with that.
The complaint is, without a doubt a SLAPP action; the Declarations backup were as poorly designed and as sloppily kluged together as...well, as the EA-500.
Everything I've seen from the case seems to be that way. Way for Vern to waste money on a PR disaster.
I think maybe it's time we take this little skirmish to Vern's back yard. What do you say, Vern? How 'bout we show your sealed complaint to the world....and the local papers? I think the New Mexico taxpayers have a right to know. Don't you?
Show everything that isn't protected by court order. We've got nothing to hide, just it is Vern who does. Many of the same reporters would remember who said those very things Eclipse says now are confidential or they could be reminded to a link back to their original stories. Almost everything cited by Vern looks like a clear footbullet that will be fired off whether Eclipse continues with the all the named bloggers or dismisses...dismissing bloggers results in a footbullet but keeping it up against bloggers based on a obviously shabby case also results in footbullets. The more the media know the details of this case, the worse it is for Eclipse since Eclipse is clearly in the wrong.
Thanks Gunner; we all owe you quite a bit. As for a SLAAPback countersuit, as far as I am concerned, go for it and get your money back.
Thanks for the update Gunner.
As with so many other things, Vern appears to have misunderestimated the resolve of we little ol' bloggers and our willingness to take it to him.
Interesting that the Judge took exception with the sealed motion which quite obviously has NOTHING to do with the attempt to silence criticism masquerading as an NDA witchhunt.
The fact that Vern has created an environment where he believes his own employees are apparently routinely violating their NDA's has nothing to do with the sealed case - and furthermore, none of the posts quoted in Vern's declaration and associated 'who's who' had anything to do with the company that was subject of the sealed order - it is a company the blog has not ever talked about to my recollection.
The apparent fact that Vern has engendered such animosity towards his own leadership, among his own people, is very telling (if he is even correct which I am not sure he is) but it should in no way trump the 1st amendment or the right to anonmyity.
If I were Vern I would quietly drop this thing now before he pokes the wrong sleeping bear and gets way more than he bargained for and out in the clear with no cover.
The worse thing that could happen, and which appears ever more likely, is for more of this story to be picked up in the media, and then for Vern to publicly lose or worse yet, to have some of the kind of truly damning information many of us suspected and which Vern's declaration appears to validate, come out in the media.
"The sealed complaint from NM became a real issue for the Judge and was finally surrendered to Norman Malinski."
Vern: "rats, foiled again!"
Gunner, what is Malinski's moniker on this blog... I'm going to be looking for some juicy posts in the near future!!!
kidding of course.
Gunner, Norman... great job.
Thanks
It is amazing to me that Vern did not sue Mike Press. Mike Press admitted his newsletter regarding the terrible financial condition at EAC was confirmed by information he received under NDA.
- I guess I know why, though.... has anyone seen a Mike Press Newsletter in the last few months? No... I guess he's been SILENCED.
No need to sue him.
CWMR
"and furthermore, none of the posts quoted in Vern's declaration and associated 'who's who' had anything to do with the company that was subject of the sealed order - it is a company the blog has not ever talked about to my recollection."
I almost hate to ask... how do you know this?
If its just your opinion, in the public domain, or an unsubstantiated rumor, perhaps we should know what company you think is the subject of the sealed motion?
Just thought I'd ask... I am sure inquiring minds want to know.
;)
(remember what this means)
Gunner
Thank you!
gadfly
I agree this case makes for a great press story. However, for valid reasons, I expect the press to hold off for a bit. At the current stage, it's difficult to summarize what's going on in a manner that's coherent and interesting to general readership.
Once this works its way take thru the courts and we have a ruling and actual comments from a sitting Judge, the Media will pick up on it. Of course it'll only receive a two paragraph mention, but what's that worth?
Legal Fees: $XXX.XX
Court Costs: $XX.XX
Travel: $XXX.XX
Two paragraphs in the mainstream press affirming that Vern Raburn is a world class tool AND a LOSER....
Priceless.
;-)
Gunner
Freedomjamstarts said ... Normally building non-comforming prototypes is a sign of maturity in GA. Only the amateurs believe they can deign, certify and produce an optimal aircraft off the drawing board.
You mean amateurs like Cessna with the C510 Mustang, Embraer with the Phenom 100, Boeing with the 787, Gulfstream with the G650, etc? All of whom have built, are building and will build production jets with the first article being a fully compliant plane built on production tooling.
Airplane design has moved away from non conforming prototypes into fully digital design and production articles off-the bat. Only cash-strapped companies (like Adam) or not-fully commited companies (like Diamond) buid non-comforming prototypes these days.
Having said that, there is a place for concept planes when you want to go into new markets. Williams built the VLJ prototype (in association with Eclipse) to showcase the small turbofans and test the VLJ market. Eclipse did the same with the ECJ.
Now that they have the feedback and decision to launch, they will design, test, certify the real plane. And you ca bet that the first flying article will be a comforming and built on production tooling.
I didn't see it reported in print, but Vern actually announced some key facts in the taped launch video:
1 - E400 will be sold based on serial numbers, not positions.
2 - Production of 100 is 2012, 400 is 2013.
3 - Claimed they will be close to 400 EA500s this year.
There was no hint of slowdown at Eclipse from him - not saying much, but...
Not sure why the press is leaving out these hard numbers mentioned. It would be a good part of the company record to come back later and check. Being in a video makes it hard to quote.
"You mean amateurs like Cessna with the C510 Mustang, Embraer with the Phenom 100, Boeing with the 787, Gulfstream with the G650, etc? All of whom have built, are building and will build production jets with the first article being a fully compliant plane built on production tooling."
The leading design software is the CATIA software used by Boeing and Airbus and many smaller aviation firms. It is a development of Dassault Systemes, part of the Dassault Group, headed up by Sergio Dassault. The group also owns Dassault Aviation who makes the Falcon 7x with the (according to you)
horribly outdated "S" duct for the center engine.
not so fast, my friend:
"Having said that, there is a place for concept planes when you want to go into new markets. Williams built the VLJ prototype (in association with Eclipse) to showcase the small turbofans and test the VLJ market. Eclipse did the same with the ECJ.
Now that they have the feedback and decision to launch, they will design, test, certify the real plane. And you ca bet that the first flying article will be a comforming and built on production tooling."
The conjet was a complete BS stunt. What feedback did they receive that will make any difference tht they could not have gotten with a spec on paper? None.
The daisy wheel? c'mon.
They did it to compete with the competitor de jour, Epic. To show they could produce a rapid concept plane, and in doing so, blew a lot of deposit money.
The place for a proof of concept is to try new things. Nothing in the concept is really new. Nothing is technically novel and risky, so why bother? (perhaps you'll say the whole design in risky, but thats the config they chose already... so I guess there is some sense they have this one licked... I wouldn't hold my breath".
Deposits/Press/Stunt - that's it.
Regarding the test bed for the FJX(2), it was Williams that built the V-Jet... not Eclipse. If you are refering to the initial flight article for the EJ-22 variant engine... well, if memory serves, it was touted as a conforming plane, not a prototype.
Reality is, unless its your very first time, or something technically challenging or unproven, and difficult to model using advanced design tool, a prototype is a waste of time.
PS. some of the larger companies (dinos) use mockups to verify dimensions, positioning layout, market feedback etc. Some are still cardboard... it certainly beats a lot of money spent for nothing on a non-conforming prototype.
Byt, we're talking Vern Raburn here.
;)
remember what this means
PS> I would have like to have seen a wind tunnel test, rather than the waste of time and money invested in the con-stunt
The ConJet as a carefully thought out "concept" plane in 2007.
Built to test market feedback.
Brought into production by overwhelming popular demand.
Sheesh, Baron, why'd you wait to quote Vern in June 2008; you could have quoted several Critics on this o full year ago. After all, predicted these exact statements way back then. And we didn't violate even a single INDA in doing so. That's just how "transparent" the Shogun of Opacity has become.
The ConJet as a carefully thought out "concept" plane, built to test market feedback? It has such a Verntastic ring to it, it was worth repeating, if only for the Comic Relief.
Personally, I think Vern should rename the proto, "The Ponzi II". With supporters like yourself, I've no doubt the plane will be financially successful...for Vern Raburn. ;-)
Gunner
Don't forget, the daisy wheel throttle does not appear to meet the current regulations which require tactilly obvious controls for power, flaps and gear.
Of course, when has that ever stopped the Vernperor?
I am a big fan of BAron...
He knows a lot, and is very smart. He plays devils advocate well, and he's very balanced.
Lets be respectful... he's a great guy, with his opinions. He's never really way out in left/right field... just provides another view.... usually worth debating.
Its obvious there are at least a few hundred folks that agree with most of what he says...
Thanks Baron
"tactilly obvious"
Seems like the vernerator could argue his wheel meets the standard... could argue the plane is finished, could argue its revolutionary, could argue he built 100 in the first year of production, could argue he has (had?) 2600 orders, dayjet ordered 229 plus 70 options, the plane was designed to airline durability standards, 29 bloggers violated NDAs...la-dee-da...
This one should be a piece of cake.
;)
AT said ... Nothing in the concept is really new.
Really?
Has there ever been a single engine, pod-mounted, v-tail, 4 place jet flown before? Didn't think so.
The ECJ has probably provided good data on cabin size-layout (yes a mockup could have achieved some of it). It probably provided A LOT of data on handling of the v-tail design. It probably provided A LOT of data on the airflow/efficiency of the engine mount design. It probably provided some data on the effectiveness of the E500 wing mated to the E400 fuselage (airflow around the interface, etc).
Yes, it was a nice marketing coup. But it also is a valid engineering concept article given the amount of new things being tried at once.
I think the folks that are still in thid blog (the "old timers") are by and large well informed and I'm OK with the strong opinions and curve balls.
I have nothing invested in Eclipse's success or failure, other than love of aviation and a desire to see the price of jet flying come down.
I like to use one measure. The price of the least expensive jet compared to the median price of homes in my zip code.
The two have converged now with the housing recession and the E400 launch ;)
Not bad.
Sorry Baron, everything old is new again.
http://www.antaresmodels.com/verReview.asp?id_review=1061557001
baron... buddy.. get serious - we're in the comuter age.
a) V-tail - 60 years ago or more.
b) 4 place - this changes nothing, if it was a 5 or 6 or 8... really nothing to need a prototype.
c)pod-mounted - nacelles are very well understood these days.. been around for many, many years.
I simply do not agree that there is anything they gained from the one-off. If they were trying to prove some NEW aero, some new technology, even a new material, perhaps... but this was simply amateur hour.
Perhaps ego-hour.
Who knows. I believe the only thing they learned from the con-jet was that the press picked up on it, and that people might be convinced to switch from the sill-born e500.
They could have discovered this with a wind tunnel model, if there is any intersteing aero to learn, plus computer models and a spec.
What coulda, woulda, shoulda cost $1M max... probably cost $20M.
Sound familiar?
Sound like a good approach for the world's cheapest jet maker?
Thought so.
PS. would you like me to dif up where VErn claimed the worlds most advanced computer design tool, eliminating the need for a POC for the e500?
thought so.
baron,
you need to consider the falling prices... what you could get for $1.5M now costs you over $2M... if there are any buyers...
capice?
CW,
nice find. I sincerely hope EAC looks at this model for tire sizing!
Between Heinkel, the Hortons, Arado, Junkers, Daimler-Benz, BMW, Willie Messerschmidt (Bayerische Flugzeukwerke), and Kurt Tank (Focke-Wulf) there is truly very little new under the sun in the last 60 years, including early composites, rocket planes, swept and variable sweep wings, flying wing jet bomber designs, v-tail designs, forward sweep, pod mounted jet engines, and much more.
I like to use one measure. The price of the least expensive jet compared to the median price of homes in my zip code.
The two have converged now with the housing recession and the E400 launch ;)
A good idea in concept, but I wouldn't use the EA400 or even the EA500. The EA500 has not been delivered as promised and for all we know, it might never be. Also with the EA400 you are comparing prices to homes of today versus something that wont at best be delivered until 2011. I think you'd have to use Cessna Mustang or one of the other aircraft that are delivered complete for an apples-to-apples comparison.
Richard Aboulafia has a new article out talking about the power and strength of the high-end of the market - interesting read.
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/Industry%20Insights_Aerospace_JUN2008.pdf
There have been a number of comments about V-tail aircraft with respect to their flight characteristics. I have had the opportunity to very briefly fly two types of V-tail aircraft, a Bonanza and a Fouga Magister, and in the case of the Fouga I had the opportunity to do some acro. I thought the airplane flew very well, and had no bad characteristics that, with my limited knowledge and experience, I could attribute to a V-tail.
I would be interested in learning why some on the blog have suggested that the V-tail configuration has inherent stability and control issues, or did I misunderstand?
Thanks,
--Trog
http://www.thefougaspecialists
.com/home.html
fun with reality
Trog, thanks for your post. There is nothing wrong with V-tails and the Fouga is there to prove it.
JF,
opinion pls...
con-jet= useful prototype or marketing stunt?
If you were involved with a similar program, would you suggest Vern's path, or another?
Also, how much will change from the con-jet to the 400?
Jet-Fumes and AirTaximan, I was referring to the post by AirSafetyMan...
AirSafetyMan said: “The V-tail is another huge problem waiting to bite the pilot. Can't Eclipse learn from the mistakes other manufacturers have made?”
In what way? AirSafetyMan, were you referring to the short coupling of the ConJet, or to an inherent characteristic of a V-tail aircraft?
Thanks,
--Trog
"A series of fatal accidents caused many to suspect flaws in the V-tail structural design. An exhaustive study by Beech concluded that the cause was primarily the prevalent use of the Bonanza for long-distance travel in all types of weather, and that the inflight breakups were mainly the result of excursions into extreme turbulence (as might be found in thunderstorms), not any inherent flaw in the design. Other types, such as the Cessna 210, that were similarly employed did not have the same breakup rate as the Bonanza, and a more likely explanation was that the leading edges of the stabilizers were cantilevered too far ahead of the main spars. FAA issued two Airworthiness Directives covering the V-tail. The first (AD 2002-21-13) applied only to the earliest 35, A35, and B35 models built in 1947 to 1950, and mandated a detailed inspection and repair procedure. The second (AD 94-20-04 R2) required a one-time inspection of the empennage structure, reinforced the need for correct balancing of the control surfaces and tensioning of the cables, and included the installation of a cuff securing the leading edge of the stabilizers to the fuselage skins.
In 1982 the V-tail Bonanza was dropped from production, though more than 6,000 V-tail models are still flying today. In general aviation circles, the epithet "fork-tailed doctor killer" became a familiar denigration of the V-tail model. Many V-tailed Model 35 Bonanzas are still flying, and they command a premium price on the used aircraft market."
from Wikipedia.
Perhaps Vern chose the design due to the value in the aftermarket... since this seems to be where all the current eclipse sales are?
Hardy-har-har...
;)
ATMan
Very funny...but I doubt V-burn has thought it out that well as it would represent a marked departure from the rest of his MO.
--Trog
Another validation of the baseline numbers we have been discussing here all along.
Dubai's investment to 'complete and restart' the Sino-Swearingen line with an 80% stake is estimated at $150M. That is after a reported investment of $700M over 13 years.
This again points to very low valuations for 'troubled' aircraft programs - and Sino does not have the added challenge of nearly 200 incomplete, partially functional preemie jets to retrofit, at their cost.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/dubai-investors-buy-majority-stake-in-sino-swearingen/
Do you suppose that the Emirates and AIN Online realize they are getting into 'inside information' about Eclipse by providing validation of the kind of industry standard numbers we have discussed here?
Well, I don't have any time in the Magister. I do have some time in V-tail Bonanzas, and the straight tail Debonairs, and a lot of time in T-34s. It just seems to me, and other pilots I have discussed it with, that the V-tail is not as stable as the others; it takes longer to dampen out oscillations. Beech did make one twin-engine Bonanza with a V-tail and quickly shelved the idea after they flew it. As far as the V-tail Bonanza sheedding its tail, Beech finally did go back and redo the stress analysis on V-tails (after a lot of failures) and found that the earlier models were not quite as strong as they thought, and came up with a leading edge cuff at the fuselage juncture. Beech doesn't make the V-tail any more, which should tell you something as well.
Trog
Please notice the “plan profile” of the two earlier aircraft . . . either “straight wings” or slightly “swept”, and a tail that is almost straight in leading edge.
Now, go to the official “Eclipse” website, and take a “look-see”.
http://www.eclipseconceptjet.com/
You’ll notice that the wings are slightly “forward swept” (although the leading edge is straight), and the tail plan is “swallow tailed”, like a ‘couple of “flippers”. There is a strong opinion (of myself, and probably some others) that the sweep back in the tail is going to come back to bite them . . . especially, if electro-mechanical actuators for basic control, or “trim”, should ever malfunction and/or the electronics should ever “poop out”. Of course, we know that those things never happen, so the “fly-by-wire” will always correct for pilot error. But “just in case”, it would be nice to have an aircraft that, if properly “trimmed out”, would continue straight and level if these other minor things should ever “mess up”.
The dinosaurs have for whatever reason, maintained the “slight sweep back” on the wings . . . under the false notion, no doubt, that it gains stability and speed . . . and that conventional tails and/or vee tails with near-straight leading edges gain control over “delta” tails in slower aircraft.
At any rate, it has been long held that wind tunnel testing “at speed” would have been most helpful for both models . . . and I don’t mean the limited 175 knot max velocity of the wind-tunnel that was used a few years back.
But the design was probably done on "Porpoise"! . . . ('sorry 'bout that! . . . the word was just sitting there waiting for me to use it somewhere.)
(The data on the wind tunnel was on the university (Oregon?) website a long-long time ago.)
gadfly
(And I venture, Fouga probably used a “cable control system” . . . a nice thing, should electrical or hydraulic power go out.)
Don't lose sight of the fact that the original Bonanza was designed in the mid 1940's, was the first metal monococque general aviation plane, and it was in continuous production for almost 40 years in the V-tail form and remains in production today, MORE THAN 60 YEARS and 10,000 units later. As ASM pointed out, over 6,000 of the V-tails are STILL FLYING.
The number of accidents for the V-tails, while slightly higher than average, is NOT abnormal for aircraft in the same performance category. The 'turbulence' was typically related to weather, making most of those accidents pilot-error, the planes were not just coming undone while cruising along - they were being flown into situations they were not designed to handle (this is CAR 3, way before FAR23 was even a gleam in anybody's eye).
Yes, Beech did design the cuff fix, there was also some corrosion issues with the original magnesium skins. But these were not contributory to the highly publicized, but in actuality very infrequent accidents.
It is very similar to the 'reputation' the Malibu and MU-2 have as well. They are not inherently unsafe or poorly designed aircraft, they are just very high performance for their category and are unforgiving of any carelessness or neglect and that has always been my major concern about the Eclipse. Only I am no longer sure about the quality of design at Eclipse. Not because of what the designers/drafters originally created, but what the pressures of the apparent unstable management and hit-and-miss quality system result in insofar as the 'finished' product.
I have lots of time in straight and V-tail Bonanza's among other planes. The longer body V-tails are very nice, the shorter body V-tails do have a tendency to hunt a bit but are also nice - I never gave any of them a moments' second thought - I trust them completely.
Here's a more reliable summary of the Bonanza V-tail history than wikipedia. The authors definitely take exception to the turbulence theory. It's also interesting to note the attempt at blaming the pilots. I guess Vern didn't invent that little technique.
Engineering ethics
Maybe Mr. SLAPPhappy should pay attention to the ethics part.
Gadfly,
Last aircraft that I can think of with forward swept wings was the VisionAir Vantage, which went nowhere. As I recall that the forward sweep was an attempt to keep move the center of lift forward with aft mounted wings to increase cabin space. I also seem to recall, though I cannot find the source at the moment, that a forward swept wing tends to stall at the tips first.
Agree that there appears to be an aggressive rearward sweep of the tail surfaces. Would like to understand why this might be a problem, as sweep tends to be more of an issue at high angles of attack, where a tail surface shouldn’t operate (unless you’re worried about tailplane icing). Center of lift tends to move AOA, I think, so I suppose you might need more trim input?
There have been several references to the ConJet being fly-by-wire on the blog, including in your last post. I haven’t yet found a reference to fly-by-wire on the Eclipse site -- was it in one of the briefings? I cannot imagine that fly-by-wire could get certified in this jet, if for no other reason than that triple redundant systems would be prohibitively expensive and heavy, not to mention backup sources of electrical power. I would NEVER fly in such an aircraft.
My Fouga manual was, unfortunately, victim of a recent move. My recollection is that the ailerons are boosted, but the tail surfaces are not, and function with conventional cables.
--Trog
The old Hansa jet had forward sweep. The idea was to have a mid-wing design for drag reduction and the forward wing sweep allowed the spar to go through the back of the cabin so there was more room for passengers. Seemed to work well for the Germans, but a little odd anyway. Of course they had a pod mounted engine on on top of the the V-1 "Buzz Bomb" fuselage also. All it needed was a V-tail and four seats.
Black Tulip,
We all know that any aircraft flying has to have a CofA to be legal.
The question is what kind of CofA?
Eclipse is making multiple major changes to the aircraft.
FIKI, Avio NG, Garmin 400Ws, the list goes on.
One possibile reason a CofA may not be listed in the FAA registry database is because the aircraft has been issued a temporary CofA because it is not in full conformance with the current TC datasheet.
We saw this first at the transition from the pre-aeromod to the post-aeromod aircraft configurations. CoAs were not registered for several months.
For example, serial #37 was delivered on 8/15/07 and was issued a CofA against Type Certificate Datasheet A00002AC, Rev 1, Revised May 9, 2007 and was listed as in compliance with AD 2007-15 at the time of delivery.
The data on record for serial #37includes an 8130-6 Application for US Airworthiness Certificate, a copy of the special airworthiness certificate used during production flight test and the standard airworthiness certificate issued on 7/27/07.
All the i's were dotted and all the t's were crossed.
Not so for the paperwork for serial #40 at the time of delivery. (8/14/07) There was no 8130-6, and no standard airworthiness certificate.
For a more recent example, the data on record for Serial #150 includes the following:
1. Aircraft Registration Application
From Eclipse to Owner dated 4/4/08
2. Aircraft Bill of Sale dated 4/4/08
3. Aircraft Registration Application
From Eclipse (a US corporation) to Eclipse (a non-citizen corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Delaware) dated 2/26/08
4. A letter from the FAA assigning Mode S coode.
5. A request to reserve an N number
from Title company
6. A request to reserve an N number
from the owner
7. A request to reserve an N number
from Eclipse
Notably absent is the 8130-6, the special airworthiness certificate and the standard airworthiness certificate.
Serial #150 still has to be scheduled into the service center for retrofit before it will conform with the promised configuration.
Trog
There is simply too much to discuss here, but let’s deal with some of the issues.
“Safetyman” mentioned the Hansa jet (with the forward swept wings . . . much more aggressive than the E500) . . . and there have been others that didn’t get much beyond early development. Forward sweep gives an aircraft extreme lateral control at low speed (velocity . . . I’ll use the word “speed” most of the time). You mentioned the problem of “stall” at the wing tips of a forward swept aircraft. It’s a problem for straight-wing as well, but with a “forward sweep”, the “flex” of the wing causes a forward swept wing to twist upward at the tips, during times of “high angles of attack”, so such aircraft must have an extremely rigid wing to counter that problem . . . meaning stiffer alloys and/or greater weight. A swept back wing, on the other hand, is some-what “self correcting” in this regard.
A forward swept wing requires constant control . . . and puts an extreme work-load on the pilot. So, the only practical method is to have 100% computer control, with a completely reliable input, and “output”. But a “swept wing” is far less demanding, since the “pitch” of the aircraft is automatically corrected. That’s why we don’t put “forward facing fins” on the front of arrows, bombs, darts, and torpedos. The slightest “error” suddenly becomes too great to be corrected.
A straight wing also needs something to counter the “low speed tip stall” . . . the A6M Zero, for instance (and this was discovered on the captured Zero in the Aleutians, and brought back to the “states” for evaluation), had “washout” in the “wingtips”. That is, the wings had a built-in “twist” toward the tips, to lower the angle of attack . . . allowing the Zero to “turn on a dime” without losing control from “wing tip stall”. It would be most interesting if the Eclipse had anticipated this, and included it in the design. But I cannot tell from the pictures.
When I said, “Fly by wire”, I was using the term in a general sense . . . as it is my understanding that the control system is an “electro-mechanical” control system, rather than a “boosted” system, such as most larger older aircraft, that use a “cable system” throughout, with either electric or pneumatic units to “boost” the direct physical “push/pull” of the pilot. (The “fly-by-wire” in the strict sense is obviously my mistake.)
Concerning the long tapered control surfaces: A narrow rudder/elevator/aileron gives a more precise control of forces to change direction than a surface that is “long” from front to back. Examine most control surfaces on ships, submarines, aircraft of all types, . . . and the best/most maneuverable use narrow control surfaces. And here is the “compromise” . . . a single cantilevered surface needs “strength”, but those aircraft, such as the Lockheed P-38 “Lightning” could use a long “skinny” elevator, because it didn’t require a cantilever support.
Another time, we can discuss the advantages of a “wide” wing, and the range limits of “C-G” . . . but not now. Everything in design is about “compromise” between the many needs of an aircraft. In my thinking, the “little jet” compromised everything for control during “touchdown”, . . . and “novelty” . . . at the expense of almost everything else in the book.
gadfly
(Now to duck the “flack” from the “incoming”. Back in the “old days”, we’d just “take her down” a few hundred feet, and quietly leave the area.)
Thank you all for your thoughtful answers. I will now retire to my cave and ponder...
--Trog
Trog
This "blogsite" becomes fun, when we can ask and answer questions, and learn something new. To endlessly criticize, without offering remedy, soon begins to feed on itself . . . and becomes a malignant cancer. Sharing thoughts on design and operation may even (perish the thought) help those who are attempting to build and "fly" little aircraft.
The bottom line, here, is to make our much loved industry better in the process.
gadfly
(Did I say all that? . . . no way!)
flightcenter,
Thanks for your interesting analysis of Eclipse certificates of airworthiness. We can watch for new COAs implying updated mod status.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with forward swept wings. My concept airplane that still waits for an acceptable 210 HP engine to be developed has 13 degrees of forward sweep at the quarter-chord. Click on the airplane image at www.aerotalk.com.
The advantage of forward sweep is to minimize tip losses which makes the wing more efficient and typically leads to great stall characteristics.
Disadvantages - the wing needs to be stiffer to avoid flutter and needs more vertical tail volume to offset the destabilizing affect from the forward sweep.
The Hansa Jet was heavy and underpowered but otherwise flew great and had great stall characteristics.
Stan Blankenship
Former Marketing Manager (1970)
Hansa Jet Corporation
HPN
If Vern thought he could SLAPP Eclipse blogs out of existence, he's sorely mistaken. It's only resulted in the opposite happening with new blogs being created and more message volume along with coverage in the press.
New headline post up now. I think this is the biggest ever number of posts to one of our threads, and it is all great stuff.
I'm going to have to give up the day job to keep up!
Shane
EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
Aircraft Certification Service
Washington, DC
www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
DATE: June 12, 2008
AD #: 2008-13-51
Discussion
Following a windshear encounter on final approach, the pilot applied full throttle using enough force
against the forward stops to exceed the design throttle position signal maximum range. The
associated fault mode held the engine thrust settings at the last known throttle position, which was
maximum.
Following the balked landing, the pilot elected to shutdown one engine. Upon shutdown of one
engine, the opposite engine thrust reduced to idle and was unresponsive to subsequent throttle lever
movement. The pilot was able to land the aircraft with no injury or substantial damage, although both
main tires were blown during the event.
Exceeding the throttle position signal maximum range could cause loss of left and right engine
control, which could result in the inability to maintain desired airspeed and/or altitude with
consequent loss of control.
FAA’s Determination
After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have
identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type
design. For this reason, the FAA has determined that AD action should be taken to reduce the
likelihood of the throttle position signal exceeding its maximum range, which could cause loss of left
and right engine control. The FAA has also determined that AD action should be taken to provide an
airplane flight manual (AFM) procedure for responding to dual engine control failures. This
condition could result in the inability to maintain desired airspeed and/or altitude with consequent
loss of control.
AD Requirements
This AD requires the following:
• Insertion into the emergency and normal procedures sections of the AFM temporary
revisions No. 005 and 006 to AFM part number (P/N) 06-122204, temporary revisions No. 007 and
008 to AFM P/N 06-121654, and temporary revisions No. 013 and 014 to AFM P/N 06-100106, as
applicable; and
• Pilot evaluation of the throttles with repair or replacement as necessary.
2
This is considered interim action. The FAA may take future rulemaking action.
Presentation of the Actual AD
This rule is issued under 49 U.S.C. Section 44701 (formerly section 601 of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958), pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, and is effective immediately
upon receipt of this action.
2008-13-51 Eclipse Aviation Corporation: Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-043-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This emergency AD becomes effective upon receipt.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD affects Model EA500 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any
category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD is the result of the throttle position exceeding its maximum range. We are issuing
this AD to reduce the likelihood of the throttle position signal exceeding its maximum range, which
could cause loss of left and right engine control. We are also issuing this AD to provide an airplane
flight manual procedure for responding to dual engine control failures. This condition could result in
the inability to maintain desired airspeed and/or altitude with consequent loss of control.
Compliance
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done:
Actions Compliance Procedures
(1) Insert into the emergency and
normal procedures sections of the
airplane flight manual (AFM)
temporary revisions No. 005 and
006, dated June 12, 2008, to AFM
part number (P/N) 06-122204;
temporary revisions No. 007 and
008, dated June 12, 2008, to AFM
P/N 06-121654; and temporary
revisions No. 013 and 014, dated
June 12, 2008, to AFM P/N
06-100106; as applicable.
Before further
flight. A person holding at least a private pilot
certificate as authorized by section 43.7
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 43.7) may insert the AFM
temporary revisions. Make an entry into
the aircraft logbook showing compliance
with this portion of the AD in accordance
with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
3
(2) Do a one-time pilot evaluation
of the throttles. Before further
flight. Follow the procedures in the Appendix to
this AD. A person holding at least a
private pilot certificate as authorized by
section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do the
pilot evaluation. Make an entry into the
aircraft logbook showing compliance
with this portion of the AD in accordance
with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(3) If any throttle anomalies or
Engine Control crew alerting
system messages occur during the
evaluation required in paragraph
(e)(2) of this AD, do the
following actions:
(i) replace the throttle quadrant
assembly and repeat the
evaluation in paragraph (e)(2) of
this AD. If any anomalies or
Engine Control crew alerting
system messages occur during the
evaluation, contact the FAA; or
(ii) contact the FAA for an
approved procedure and follow
that procedure.
Before further
flight after the
evaluation where
the throttle
anomalies or
Engine Control
messages
occurred.
If applicable, contact the FAA using the
information found in paragraph (f) of this
AD.
(4) Report the evaluation results
to the FAA. For the reporting
requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
has approved the information
collection requirements and has
assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0056.
Within the next
10 days after
completing the
evaluation
required in
paragraph (e)(2)
of this AD.
Send your report to Mitchell Soth, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, Texas
76137; telephone: (817) 222-5104; fax:
(817) 222-5960. Include in your report
the following information:
(i) aircraft model and serial number;
(ii) aircraft hours time-in-service; and
(iii) condition found.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(f) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Mitchell Soth,
FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone: (817) 222-5104; fax: (817) 222-
5960, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or
lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
4
Related Information
(g) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact:
(1) Eclipse Aviation Corporation, 2503 Clark Carr Loop, SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico
87106.
(2) Mitchell Soth, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone: (817)
222-5104; fax: (817) 222-5960.
APPENDIX TO AD 2008-13-51
Pilot Evaluation Instructions—Eclipse Aviation Corporation EA500 Throttles
1. Turn on aircraft electrical power in the following configuration.
a. Ground Power Unit Connected (if available)
b. BUS TIE Switch – AUTO
c. SYSTEM BATT Switch – ON
d. START BATT switch – ON
2. Wait for two minutes to ensure complete system power-up and data storage unit recording.
3. Move both throttle levers slowly from idle to maximum position.
4. Look for the following throttle anomalies:
a. Restricted, erratic or binding movement.
b. Unusual noises, such as grinding or scraping.
5. Return the throttles to idle.
6. Note if any of the following crew alerting system messages are displayed at any time during this
evaluation:
a. L or R ENG CONTROL (white)
b. L or R ENG CONTROL FAIL (amber)
7. Turn off aircraft electrical power.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 12, 2008.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
Post a Comment