Lately, I've also taken to phone calls, usually at very oddball times (for me) and normally with those of you who have been kind enough to support the blog in so many ways. I also naturally continue to do some research in my own, amateur manner. Must be the nosey Irish bit of me leaking out. Or maybe it's just the smell of the 'dead rat' that I get around EAC.
Anyway, lots of incoming over the past few weeks, which I put to one side as Karen Di Piazza's excellent article was in the works. I wanted that to have it's own space on the blog, which I hope everyone found useful. So herewith the 'voices' which I've heard from (and talked to) over that period.
First, a contribution from our resident satirist, Black Tulip. It's important to note that BT is very careful in his writings to poke fun at the key points. Read it carefully, it is worth it....
ECLIPSE CLARIFIES CERTIFICATION STATUS
Albuquerque, NM - July 3, 2008 - At a press conference today, Eclipse
Aviation provided additional details on the Federal government's approval of
the Eclipse 500 Very Light Jet (VLJ). President Vern Raburn explained,
"When we embarked on this project ten years ago we wanted to ensure the
Eclipse 500 met the highest standards used by the United States government.
Driven by our passion for disruptive technology, we began to think outside
the box - we sought a new paradigm."
"We were immediately concerned as we examined the charter of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) - to promote and regulate aviation. We grew
worried over an inherent conflict of interest in this dual role. The Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), on the other hand, is charged with ensuring
the safety and efficacy of the products it approves and oversees. This
struck us as a much tighter standard and an approval we would be proud to
receive."
Raburn continued, "We interviewed pilots who flew early prototypes of the
aircraft and noted they reported a range of post-flight responses including
enhanced sense of well being, mild euphoria, arousal and a slight
hallucinogenic reaction. We discussed this with high-level FDA officials
and they agreed to undertake the long process of testing and approval."
"As many are aware, most new medical products are initially tested using
laboratory animals. I am pleased to say the FDA allowed us to bypass this
step. This explains the fact that the Eclipse 500 is the only VLJ approved
and recommended by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)."
"Our human clinical trial was extensive. During the early risky phase with
Williams engines, we used only lawyers. Later, general aviation volunteers
were randomly selected to receive conventional treatment (flying a 1975
Cessna Citation 501) or experience the novel therapy of the Eclipse 500.
The FDA allowed us to cut this trial short on compassionate grounds as it
became clear that the Citation pilots were not experiencing positive
outcomes."
"As approval approached we had many discussions with the FDA on the
classification of this product. was it a medical device or a pharmaceutical?
I like to think of the jet as the 'Viagra of the Air' and my plane is
painted blue. The FDA is still mulling this over as medical devices and
drugs are subject to different recall procedures on the infinitesimally
small chance we were to have a problem."
Raburn concluded, "The aviation media and later the main stream press just
assumed the aircraft was approved by the FAA. We should have cleared up
this confusion earlier and hope everyone appreciates a product deemed safe
and effective by the FDA. We think a healthy competition between government
bureaucracies is good."
Albuquerque, NM - July 3, 2008 - At a press conference today, Eclipse
Aviation provided additional details on the Federal government's approval of
the Eclipse 500 Very Light Jet (VLJ). President Vern Raburn explained,
"When we embarked on this project ten years ago we wanted to ensure the
Eclipse 500 met the highest standards used by the United States government.
Driven by our passion for disruptive technology, we began to think outside
the box - we sought a new paradigm."
"We were immediately concerned as we examined the charter of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) - to promote and regulate aviation. We grew
worried over an inherent conflict of interest in this dual role. The Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), on the other hand, is charged with ensuring
the safety and efficacy of the products it approves and oversees. This
struck us as a much tighter standard and an approval we would be proud to
receive."
Raburn continued, "We interviewed pilots who flew early prototypes of the
aircraft and noted they reported a range of post-flight responses including
enhanced sense of well being, mild euphoria, arousal and a slight
hallucinogenic reaction. We discussed this with high-level FDA officials
and they agreed to undertake the long process of testing and approval."
"As many are aware, most new medical products are initially tested using
laboratory animals. I am pleased to say the FDA allowed us to bypass this
step. This explains the fact that the Eclipse 500 is the only VLJ approved
and recommended by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)."
"Our human clinical trial was extensive. During the early risky phase with
Williams engines, we used only lawyers. Later, general aviation volunteers
were randomly selected to receive conventional treatment (flying a 1975
Cessna Citation 501) or experience the novel therapy of the Eclipse 500.
The FDA allowed us to cut this trial short on compassionate grounds as it
became clear that the Citation pilots were not experiencing positive
outcomes."
"As approval approached we had many discussions with the FDA on the
classification of this product. was it a medical device or a pharmaceutical?
I like to think of the jet as the 'Viagra of the Air' and my plane is
painted blue. The FDA is still mulling this over as medical devices and
drugs are subject to different recall procedures on the infinitesimally
small chance we were to have a problem."
Raburn concluded, "The aviation media and later the main stream press just
assumed the aircraft was approved by the FAA. We should have cleared up
this confusion earlier and hope everyone appreciates a product deemed safe
and effective by the FDA. We think a healthy competition between government
bureaucracies is good."
Thanks Black Tulip! I really like the bit about using lawyers for flight testing in "... the early risky phase with Williams engines", but I digress. Our next voice is one of our 'working pilots' who has to use the FPJ to earn a living. The following email reached me late last week. You can feel the frustration, even through the edits I've done to protect his identity. It's headed
"NG Software Gremlins"
Shane,
Yep, the latest and greatest contribution from Vern and his buddies is working out great.
Several of our planes are fitted with NG avionics. They have generated "Ghost Like Gremlins" that are difficult to chase down. The Gremlins live primarily in the software. To my knowledge, these Gremlins don't mean major harm. They are annoying enough however for the planes to file in with the other hangar queens.
A long time ago in my career, I was told that there are, in fact, 'Gremlins', and that one should always try to keep them happy. But beware as behind every Gremlin, is a Fifinella. Fifinella's are the female of the Gremlin species, and are much more deadly.
The above definition comes from Jordanoff's Aviation Dictionary Copyright 1942.
To conclude at Eclipse there are more Gremlin's in the wood pile than there is wood.
'Hanger Queens' is a phrase that's come through to me from more than one owner and/or pilot, but Fifinella is a new one. Sounds to me that Captain Chuck Nealy, who managed to land the FPJ in Midway a few weeks ago, had a personal interview with one of the Gremlins, and very nearly a fight with Fifinella....
Turboprop_Pilot asked a very interesting question a few days ago on the last thread. You will recall that the Inspector General at your Department of Transportation is asking some searching questions about our very own Eclipse Aviation. TP posted the following, very appropriately, on the 'Glorious Fourth' when everyone should at least TRY to remember the founding principles of your great democracy.
My suggestion:
That the blog develop a comprehensive set of shortcomings involved in Eclipse’s development and certification of the E500 and send it to the DOT IG as an “amicus curiae”. That we provide in depth backup of these short comings and eliminate the hyperbole and invective.
That the blog develop a comprehensive set of shortcomings involved in Eclipse’s development and certification of the E500 and send it to the DOT IG as an “amicus curiae”. That we provide in depth backup of these short comings and eliminate the hyperbole and invective.
I strongly agree. Anyone who wishes to do so, email the blog with their 'top five' shortcomings and I will sort out the most popular ones. In about two weeks, I will make a 'headline post' of the top TEN. These will be selected on a properly democratic basis, from the emails. We can kick it around for a few days, and then agree a) who to send it to and b) how to identify ourselves as the source. I will of course be happy to stick my own signature on the letter, in any event. This is something we owe to the GA community, so get cracking at those keyboards.
Next a small, cautionary tale for those of you who are lucky enough to be married, and wish to retain that happy status. This email reached me in the past few days, has a few xxx's to avoid identifying the 'happy couple', and was headed
"Eclipse and marital discord"
Hi Shane,
I've been following the blog since it was in Stan Blankenship's hands and wanted to commend you on your work with it thus far.
NxxxEA just left xxx after more than a week AOG. The owner and his wife were no longer on board. It arrived xx June and needed a tire change, which turned into a nightmare. Aircraft departed for xxx a couple days later and had to return to us after HAL reported what I believe was a stick-pusher failure, which I understand makes autopilot unavailable. The local mechanic's experience with Tech Support at Eclipse was embarrasingly comical. He was given instructions like "try to move the wires around." I'm an AMT and sometimes I do "move the wires around" but that's on a 40 yr old plane with some rather simple systems. The mechanic in xxx is a very experienced IA and pilot. We both fly aircraft for another local company. Eclipse ended up sending a service team to work on the plane and it is finally on its way home (the intended trip had to be cancelled entirely).
I spoke with the owner and his wife and there was very clearly some marital discord as a direct result of the FPJ's unreliable nature. The woman asked if I knew of anyone in the market for an E500. Another disatisfied customer. I hadn't formerly thought that relational fallout was part of the Eclipse ownership experience. It was truly sad to see. The financial loss from the trips disruption and ultimate cancellation was substantial (Operating costs from the xxx US to the xxx US, crew cost, lodging, meals, etc. Plus the cost of lodging in xxx which I don't think could have been refunded at such a late date. Plus the cost of tickets for Airline travel back to xxx. Plus the cost of flying the plane back to xxx with no one on board, but the relational cost is something that might be harder to pay.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Another tyre, another marriage, and both busted. Seems Vern is 'disruptive' in more ways that we thought.
Folks, I think we have enough for three or four 'headline' posts, but it gets that way around here. The 'Office of the Custodian, Eclipse Aviation Critic NG' needs to get back to some real work. Remember to email your 'Top Five Shortcomings', with that as the subject line, as soon as you can, be kind to your families (they will pay for the retirement home...) and keep those posts coming.
Shane
288 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 288 of 288Baron, your point is well taken, BUT, I think he way saying he was afraid to fly in an e500... I do not think he said its "worthless".
Knowing Gadfly a bit, I am sure he will say something like "I'd feel safer in a submarine beneath the ocean with unfriendly torpedo fire coming straight at me..."
Seriously, the can of beans aspect to the e500 has been exhausted here.... it is worth something.
I wonder, though... how many buyers there would be at the $2.X million price, if there were no "position-holders" already hooked?
What do you suspect the market is for the e500 at $2.15M, if they were all sold at $2.15M?
Do you believe the air taxi for mini-hops exists for the e500? Do you think its a sizeable market?
To me, its really DOA, becasue the circular reasoning has been basically proven wrong. The low cost jet required a large market... in order to have a large market, they needed to price the plane very low.
I do not see anything in this design that makes it inherently lower cost to manufacture.. nothing. In fact, it looks like a pretty complex little plane to build. A lot of little pieces. Tolerance issues, thinness, processing (chem milling), etc...
So, the rate is key, and the rate is not there, and never will be, not by a long shot, especially at the new price. IMO.
PS. anyone know how many orders they lost with the "option" to switch to the 400 or take the e500 for $2.15? Anyone know how many folks switched to the 400?
OK, I stand corrected!
gadfly ...
you wouldn't be the one crying out his eyes because the opportunity of a quick profit would be fading away (as the ones with houses , stocks and the like ...)
the real value for ea500 is 0 as they DON'T sell !!
any other point of view is tinted in blue ...
Fred
If I were prone to “cry” over the scenario of the little jet, it would not be for some financial loss, but my eyes might be “red”, for anyone who innocently flies in this thing . . . and for their families . . . should the “emotional high” turn into “emotional grief”.
Airtaximan
You have a good handle on the situation . . . and “know” me . . . sleeping like a baby next to a couple “Fairbanks-Morse” 1,650 hp diesels running at 720 rpm . . . yet easily “terrorized” by a contraption, that no knowledgeable “aeronaut” would consider as a safe method of transportation.
A flight in a “J-3 Cub” is as pleasant as a “Sunday afternoon nap”, with a “Wagner Opera” playing in the background . . . total security! I'd even settle for a seat in the sun on a Lear Jet . . . that's a great way to fly . . . coasting into ABQ between thunderheads in August. Yet I’ll not go up in a “hot air balloon, nor the “Tram” to Sandia Crest (the longest such tram in the world) . . . it hangs on a cable, and doesn’t have wings. And from what I read about the little bird, I wonder how much anyone can trust its “feathers” . . . they all seem to have a tendency to get “sticky”, and have a “bird brain” for a computer . . . not to be confused with a genuine “brain of a bird”, designed by "Another".
For me, “profit and loss” is not equated to “$”, but to other values . . . and therefore, I count the little jet as having a “bottom line” equal to “zero” . . . actually, the bottom line is somewhere in the “red”.
Logical business plans would consider the little “E”. . . a joke . . . written in “red ink” at best. I’d sooner take a Checker “Marathon” between airports . . . remember them? . . . Ugly as sin, yet they’d get you there every time . . . and cheap as a tip to the waitress, by some of my “friends” (another challenge to my patience).
gadfly
(‘Last time I checked with a friend, who manages a local funeral home, they have not yet installed “trailer hitches” on their “hearses”.)
Here's something that I ran across today that was put out by DayJet a couple weeks ago regarding their plans for NextGen:
http://www.cgar.org/downloads/DayJet-NextGen%20Project%20Overview%2007-02-2008.ppt#15
This was also put out recently too:
http://www.cgar.org/downloads/NextGenNow_Final_06022008.pdf
In this “intermission” between “acts” . . . some of you out there in “blogsite-land” have thoughts that may contribute to the discussion. Go through the process . . . sign in . . . share your thoughts! This is not an “exclusive” group. We’re all ‘just a bunch of people that either have some firm opinions, about the direction of aircraft design, and “General Aviation”, or simply have “questions” or “doubts” . . . whether in the “middle of the fray”, or on the “fringes”. Take a risk . . . speak your mind. Every “thought” and “comment” is read by many . . . they hit “refresh” over and over, waiting, hoping, for someone to make a comment. In other words, they are waiting for YOU to make a comment . . . and stimulate further thought, and discussion.
Here is your opportunity, to “prove” to your highschool English teacher (Bless her shriveled little soul, where-ever she may be), that you can express yourself . . . and didn’t deserve that “D” grade, in your senior year . . . “Yep, that’s me!" . . . I was called one of “her” “Black Beggars” (the time frame was 1954-55 . . . a different time, for sure . . . but it hasn’t stopped me, once I got over the “shock”. In fact, I went into the Submarine Service, because my high-school grades were below “C” level . . . you’ll get it . . . ‘just let your brain relax, and it will all come together.
gadfly
(Come on, you people that keep reading our comments . . . take a risk, and speak up. We really enjoy your comments, and would count it a privilege to read your thoughts.)
Here's some more detail on Western Sky Industries v Eclipse. Presumably this is from an attorney who worked for Eclipse:
Western Sky Industries, LLC v. Eclipse Aviation Corp., AAA Arbitration and District of Arizona. Representation of aircraft manufacturer in multi-million dollar dispute arising out of exclusive purchase agreement. Successfully defeated claims alleging improper termination of agreement, misrepresentation, promissory fraud, and theft of intellectual property.
http://www.irell.com/professionals-95.html
This morning, as we pulled into our parking lot, on the east side of our shop, a “twin engine business jet” was climbing to altitude . . . turning left into the northwest sky over Albuquerque . . . swept wings . . . if aircraft were described in human terms, “she was fantastic, designed for everything her fuselage was meant to be in life . . .” . . . need I continue?
And I thought, what a tragedy that a “local” thing, should occasionally fly through these same skies . . . silent, for sure . . . and a good thing . . . “she” need not advertise her presence.
Sometimes, a thing of beauty should express her presence . . . “sound” may be a most important asset. We feel sorry for the “unmarried” member . . . she remains the quiet one . . . spoken of in delicate terms. Of course, in this blogsite, no-one speaks in “delicate terms” . . . we are just about as “rude” as we can be . . . and if we can think of how to be “more rude”, we will not hesitate to move to that “higher plane”. The “unmarried sister” is the “E500" . . . we were told of her many “suitors” . . . and there remain “few” in line, for her “hand”. And no wonder, her feet are a size 13, for glass slippers of size 5. ‘Sorry, but “Prince Charming” has found other interests.
gadfly
. . . and the clock has long passed “Midnight”.
Let’s talk about modern technology:
How does one make a “compressor blade” for a jet engine, in the twenty-first century? Is it some fancy technique . . . designed with the help of a “3D” CAD system? Well, it may surprise most, that the “technique” had been refined long before Abraham . . . pardon me, “Abram”, was making his way through what we call “grammar school”. The method of making a “wax pattern”, encapsulating it in a “plaster cast”, removing the “wax” in an oven, and filling the cavity with . . . silver, or gold (in Abram’s time) or “Rene” metal (in the case of GE Jet Engine technology) . . . little has changed. How do we know? . . . the “metal oxide” records remain permanent, on the walls of the “classrooms”, where young “Abram”, later to be re-named “Abraham” . . . learned his “ABC’s”.
gadfly
(“Lost wax” . . . “investment casting” . . . “die casting” . . . today, we think we just invented the wheel . . . it pays to read the record, to study things that pre-date the “Dead Sea Scrolls” . . . things that are as close as maybe your own book shelves . . . those books with the “most dust” on their tops.)
"Predate the "Dead Sea Scrolls" . . . " . . . now, that's an understatement, by about 1,400 years.
Sometimes it's easy to think that we are "smart" and "clever". The "technology" of investment casting, critical to modern jet engine technology, was "old hat" long before Abram was a kid . . . 'even "Job" mentioned the problems of mining various alloys before then . . . back in Job 28, 4,000 years ago.
So, what's the point? Each generation builds on the knowledge of the previous generation. Unfortuately, the "little jet" seems to think that all wisdom began with the "computer", and all problems can be solved with "software". What preposterous arrogance, what pride, what simple stupidity!
gadfly
(Yep! . . . the "gadfly" is getting meaner . . . and meaner every day.)
gadfly has asked others of us that have idly sat back and watched the saga unfold to participate.
I guess it it is time that I do so. I hope that I can add some valuable information as we go.
chickn asked:
I'd just like to know what 'Citation' Dexter is buying that they can get 20 of for a mere $60 million.
Dexter ordered 20 Citation Mustangs for their air taxi fleet.
So while some air taxi companies are scaling back, others are able to progress forward with aircraft more likely to succeed.
While we wait for some new topics to arise, I thought we could revisit some old ones.
Eclipse has obtained permission to export aircraft, parts, and engines to Russia. That is great, except that the engine still is covered by export controls through the Missile Technology Control Regime(MTCR). A large number of countries have agreed to and participated in the creation of these guidelines. Most countries export regulations are based on it.
It states that a gas turbine engine with less than 2000 pounds of thrust uninstalled is controlled. If you are somewhere outside the U.S. or Canada and you want support from Eclipse or Pratt on your engine, they cannot provide some of the basic help you need without a license.
I doubt very seriously that any of the investors- oops, I mean position holders...I mean customers know about the little details such as these when they eagerly sent thir deposit in.
AT said ... What do you suspect the market is for the e500 at $2.15M, if they were all sold at $2.15M?
With a G-1000/SVS or like-functionality Avio 300 or so per year. Without it, 50-100 per year.
It is a good airframe, 10% faster, 10% lower fuel burn, 10% smaller, 25% cheaper than Mustang - so value is good.
There are two things that will hold E500 @ $2.15M sales back: avionics madness and company stability.
Unfortunatelly, I don't see how Eclise can fix the avionics mess to be competitive with a Cirrus SR22 w Garmin, let alone the Mustang. They will have to scrap it sooner or later.
Until they do, Avio will be a boat anchor around Eclipse's neck.
AT said ... So, the rate is key, and the rate is not there,
I'm sorry, but the rate IS there. The E500 has the highest single model production rate of ANY civil fan-jet in the world today. Period. The Airbus 320 and B737NG line have similar rate, but these are producing 4 basic models plus variants.
As to being designed for low cost, besides the rate, I believe Eclipse has a bunch of aggressive subcontractor bids on hand [e.g. empenage builder]. AKA subcontractor rape
real flight said... That is great, except that the engine still is covered by export controls through the Missile Technology Control Regime(MTCR).
Hi real flight. I have posted about this in detail in the past. Eclipse and PWC have [as reported] abtained permission for export to Russia.
I, apparently, am the only one on this blog that is on record being against that grant without some verification of use guarantees.
now watch out for Fred saying that the Russians have the best technology in the world and don't need anything from the west. Then get ready to laugh or cry. ;)
Real Flight said..
Dexter ordered 20 Citation Mustangs for their air taxi fleet.
Yes, I remembered them after I posted the comment. I had a 'Doh' moment.
And since Gadfly asked, I'll toss in my one cent's worth
I've been reading this blog for a very long time and through it all I was hoping (note the past tense. I've lost all hope) that Eclipse would succeed. Why? Because I'm in the industry. And having more companies compete over a limited pool of engineers has been very good for my paycheck. It's seen some very healthy increases over the last couple of years. And I always liked having the option of moving to ABQ if I wanted.
Secretly, I've also been hoping someone would sneak into Gadfly's office and steal the quote keys from his keyboard.
I'm sorry, but the rate IS there. The E500 has the highest single model production rate of ANY civil fan-jet in the world today. Period.
Baron, I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it. I do not believe the Eclipse is priced to at least breakeven at the current $2.15M price based on 50-100 per year sustainable market (that rate is your projection from a previous post on this thread). If Eclipse does turn out more units per anyone else, it still doesn't mean that they'll even breakeven.
I think Eclipse has to turn out more than 100+ per year to breakeven at the new price, though Eclipse isn't bleeding as much as they used to per sale. This is pure speculation, just I base it on the historical reliability of Vern's statements...which they've been shown to be very unrealiable. With Vern saying that $2.15M is the breakeven based on revised projections, I still believe that was based on over optimistic production rates. I still think something has gotta give with the pricing/projections...I think Eclipses cost way too much to manufacturer (at least with Vern in charge) and the price would have to go up even further. Eclipse might simply be making a product that is too expensive unless it is supported by a ponzi scheme because Eclipse will never get the extremely high production and sales volumes that are needed to lower the pricing. This isn't even factoring in Eclipse Russia where if that factory goes online, that will only make matters worse because Eclipse ABQ will no longer be manufacturing to fill the entire worldwide demand.
"ChickN"
In your "dreams"!
gadfly
ChickN
Here's the deal: Put in some engineering type comments from time to time, and I'll put away the extra seventeen sets of high-speed gold plated Hall effect quote keys . . . both right and left. We need more serious thought on the engineering side. The financial side seems to have a plethora of opinions.
gadfly
(That's a deal you can't refuse.)
We need more serious thought on the engineering side
I'd like to hear the technical chances of the Frankenjet being certified to 41,000.
gadfly ...
i understood well that you are a sensible person ...
my remark was not aimed at you !
i understand and share your concerns about the innocents (hopefully some get informed reading the blog ) that will take place in the Fpj ...
if it is with FULL knowledge of all shortcomings :
FINE , as it is almost impossible to protect peoples against themselves ...
but at the same time , you can agree about all the crap spread about this UNSAFE piece of hardware !!!
so when i read a post with some officials names but completely wrong positions , underlining that they MAY have said something of interest for "the church of the believers"
my blood starts to boil ...
as much as when i see someone suggesting it could be a good thing to make a fast profit on buying and re-selling ...
it could be good , but there is only ONE MAJOR FLAKE : the thing DOESN'T SELL !!!
how many on controller.com = 75 units , for how long ?
and worst : three are sold DIRECTLY by Eclipse Aviation ...
with the same result : it's a NO SALE !
which implicate the product has NO COMMERCIAL VALUE
not even talking about the ethics of the firm producing it ...
if they cannot sell while claiming so many are waiting in lines to get it , the natural question is : WHY to make it in the first place ? (i know it has some relation with the unfinished state of Fpj , but the question remain : why did they do it this way ?)
( in a free market economy , value of thing is represented by what eventual BUYERS are WILLING and ABLE to pay for a thing !any other consideration has nothing to do with economics , call it BS ,marketing , dreams , mental masturbation , political scam , whatever you want ... still it is of NO VALUE OF INTEREST FOR BUYERS ! )
so what is left for the Fpj :
just about nothing ...
if you wouldn't fly it with peace of mind ...
if you cannot re-sale it , whatever your reason ...
if there is concerns about the survival of its manufacturer ...
if you cannot be sure you get the real thing as promised , not something half finished and come back next month/year , we'll fit it in (if we are still around ...)
if you cannot use the thing as freely as i would ( remember it is ONLY tolerate in E.U. , whatever V is trying to spread as a blatant lie [i would like to write what qualitative term come to my mind , but even shane would blush by reading it ! ;-) ] ! tolerate mean = as soon as they want , it's finished !and NO Easa don't give a damn about keeping a US firm afloat !!! they don't have to PLEASE anyone ! )
if you are not even sure to get it , as what the producer claim "first paid = first served "
if you are not even sure to be able to maintain it ...
then what is left ?
about nothing :
it is either speculation on value the thing MAY have in future
( as much as buying real-estate firm stocks , it can be good ... but i suggest you consider the invested money as already lost ! if things turn out well , you'll be surprised = better than become bitter !)
or
affective value , for any reason , you like the Fpj , you think it good to sustain bad ethics firms if they are in homeland , you asked your wife to marry you in it ... whatever ...!!
but REAL COMMERCIAL VALUE is NON EXISTENT !
otherwise they would sell , look at competitors , they don't need to make that much fuss about ...
so , when i see insidious lies spread around ( as "yes , you can operate in E.U. with FAA cert." ,"yes , you can make fast bucks with it !" "yes , bla bla bla !" ) my blood starts to spin ...
chickn :
#And having more companies compete over a limited pool of engineers has been very good for my paycheck #
fine , it is up to you ...
when lawn-darts will starts , what are you going to do ?
i have been personally working in Wall-street ... i was making a lot of money ...
until one day i quited ...
why ? because when i am shaving the guy i see in mirror doesn't make me puke !!
baron ...
#now watch out for Fred saying that the Russians have the best technology in the world and don't need anything from the west. Then get ready to laugh or cry. ;)#
aren't you tired of thinking you're the only ones ?
thanks god (i don't believe anyway!) your kind exists ...
the world wouldn't go round without your kind ...!!! ;-)))
where did you read me in saying what you stated ?
probably in the same place , you had so many enlightened knowledge about things ...
(hint : don't try to learn while being in the toilets , if your brain is not multi-tasks !)
Russians don't have the best techs , NO ONE has ! the definitive best techs remain to be invented and will remain that way for almost ever , it is called "Progress" ...
you probably spent too much times reading fukuyama and his "end of history" bullshit theory ...
I wrote before :
What ever they need (Russians) NOW they can BUY IT !
why should they get into such a F***G scam shamble as EAC to put theirs hands on such items as jet engines , radar , and the like ?
they buy a REAL plane fitted with it , then they copy it , Chinese did it why not Russians...
did Chinese get involved with something to remain as one of the saddest joke in aviation history ?
It would appear that Vernicus the First is trying to make nice with EASA.
"Several hundred European customers have placed orders for the 500 and others have orders that depend on that certification. A second configuration for Europe absolutely will not happen, says president and CEO Vern Raburn. “There’s been a lot of blabbing out of EASA,” Raburn says."
Eclipse boss confident of EASA go-ahead for VLJ
Charter X has a new article about the Eclipse 500.
Eclipse 500 Jet Safety Issues Investigated Exposed
#A second configuration for Europe absolutely will not happen, says president and CEO Vern Raburn#
fine ...
but someone should suggest this to his HighHigherHighness Vernperator :
Easa is NOT FAA ! if EAC has the same kind of political influence in E.U. as it has in Russia , i would kindly suggest to change the tone of speech !!!
even if some here can venture into the dream that officials from somewhere else have to bow in respect ...
i can assure you of this :
EAC making any kind of re-work or transformations to please EASA
or
EASA swallowing theirs pride , authority and utility in the service ,they have ...
i would point out this , Vern wake up BEFORE you will be rebuked in such a shameful way (if you remember what is shame!) even you won't stand anymore your own sight ...!!!
as for the "HUNDREDS" of European clients anxiously waiting to be ripped-off , you got it wrong !!!
it is THOUSANDS , even TENS of THOUSANDS ... and the sky will be darkened with fpj etc...etc...etc...
does it remind you of something ?
as for the comment on E.U. cert.at the end of year , it is NOT EASA statement , only VERN's wishfull dream ... which makes all the difference !!!
From the CharterX article...
Although the flight-testing on the aircraft was ongoing and hadn't been completed, the FAA held a meeting on Friday, Sept. 29, 2006, and decided that the Eclipse was ready for its TC. The next day, a Saturday, which is unusual, a formal TC was issued to Eclipse for its jet.
Was there some specific deadline - end of September - end of 3rd quarter - in play here?
Was there some specific deadline - end of September - end of 3rd quarter - in play here?
September 30th is the end of the FAA's fiscal year. The allegation has been that the the TC was somehow tied to pay-for-performance:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Foul_Play_At_FAA_Over_Eclipse_500_TC_195082-1.html
What the latest article adds was that there was pressure from Eclipse. It wouldn't surprise me if there was communications between Marion Blakely and Eclipse regarding certification.
Here's the latest press release from ASAT:
http://www.pr-inside.com/new-public-private-partnership-aims-to-r705241.htm
I agree with this group when it talks about making regular commercial flights more environmentally friendly, however, whenever these guys go into DayJet or Eclipse as being environmentally friendly, I think it is grossly wrong (there was no particular mention of DayJet or Eclipse as being environmentally friendly this time, but they both do tout being green).
Saw this from 2006:
State GOP Sen. Kent Cravens of Preserving Albuquerque's Vibrant Economy (PAVE), a coalition of business alliances, said if the higher minimum wage had been in place, "Eclipse [Aviation] would have scratched Albuquerque off its list" as being unfriendly to business. Councilor Debbie O'Malley slammed back, "We have subsidized Eclipse for millions and millions of dollars. They're here because they got a good deal." Heinrich piled on, telling Cravens that Eclipse said they opposed the previous bill only because of an access clause.
http://www.alibi.com/index.php?scn=news&story=14911&fullstory=y
And this from 2005:
Councilor Michael Cadigan's bill waiving impact fees for technological development near Double Eagle II airport passed 8-1, Councilor Debbie O'Malley opposed. Questioning the city's millions in subsidies to Eclipse Aviation and related businesses, O'Malley said, "I hope it doesn't become the biggest boondoggle ever."
http://www.alibi.com/index.php?scn=news&story=11931&fullstory=y
Dave said ... Baron, I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it. I do not believe the Eclipse is priced to at least breakeven at the current $2.15M price based on 50-100 per year sustainable market (that rate is your projection from a previous post on this thread).
Yep. I am in total agreement. My comment was that the rate IS there. As in the present tense.
I believe that unless Eclipse fixes the Avionics mess, they will exhaust their back log around mid-2009 if they maintain the present rate of 200-300/year.
Still, you can't deny that Vern/Eclipse managed to achieve the highest single-nodel civil fan-jet production rate in the world today.
You can say it is not sustainable unless they fix the avionics. You can say there are too many IOUs on the jets being delivered.etc. All those are true. But so is the fact they have the highest single-model fan-jet production rate in the world presently.
Yep. I am in total agreement. My comment was that the rate IS there. As in the present tense.
I gotcha now. I thought you were talking both present and future tense.
You can say it is not sustainable unless they fix the avionics. You can say there are too many IOUs on the jets being delivered.etc. All those are true. But so is the fact they have the highest single-model fan-jet production rate in the world presently.
I agree, just I don't see how making the most units per year is relevant. I could see it as relevant if those were desperately needed for war a la WWII, but otherwise, I don't see how making more units matters in and of itself. Its a race that Eclipse alone entered into as part of their path to profitability and unless there's profitability too, they've won the race as the lone contestant but lost the bigger picture (red ink) in the process. When and if Eclipse starts using black ink or we have WWIII with Eclipse supplying desperately needed military aircraft, I will then consider their production rate.
Dave said... whenever these guys go into DayJet or Eclipse as being environmentally friendly, I think it is grossly wrong
If you accept the premise that most charter/biz aviation trips are 1-2 passengers AND that most biz aviation customers demand twin-turbines [both of which I believe to be true], then the E500 is THE MOST ENVIROMENTALLY FRIENDLY PLANE you can use for that role.
P.S. Baron95 thinks all talk of enviromental friendliness in aviation is hogwash, just as all the talks about global warming.
The Baron is watching as EU puts all these carbon taxes and other environazi fees on aviation and watch their hubs switch from LHR, CDG and FRA to Dubai and the like. EK's order for 58 A380s is starting to look like the right move. Will LH, AF, BA go the way of Alitalia in 10 years or so?
Now lets watch Fred tell us why carbon taxes are the "enlighted" move for the EU ;)
BAron,
you forgot one important thing... the e500 is slated as an air taxi, and most of them will be used for this.. ;)
So, replacing car trips with this mode of transport, is extremely unfriendly to the environment...
As for the other modes designed for this trip (200-500mi), the single prop might be less harmful.
As for your comparisons, the e500 is not really useful for most jet trips...and perhaps, compare it with the fuel/carbon per seat of the airlines..
I think it loses here, as well.
airtaximan said...
BAron,
you forgot one important thing... the e500 is slated as an air taxi, and most of them will be used for this.. ;)
So, replacing car trips with this mode of transport, is extremely unfriendly to the environment...
So now air-taxi means replacing car trips? Where I live, people take air taxi to Block Island, MVY, Nantucket, and many business destinations E.g. Rochester, etc. None of which are practicle by car.
AT said ... As for the other modes designed for this trip (200-500mi), the single prop might be less harmful.
AT, you must be aware that most companies have policies agains employees traveling on ANYTHING other than at least twin-turbine.
I'd love for you to try to convince ANY of my neighbors to fly to MVY in a single engine prop. And I do mean ANY.
the rate issue:
price.......rate
$1.2M.......1200/yr(for 10-15 yrs)
$1.5M.......700/yr(for 10-15 yrs)
$2.15M......400/yr (for 10-15 yrs)
$2.95M......200/yr (for 10-15 yrs)
Last one is a sanity check using the Mustang numbers...
Someone can offer better numbers, I'm just taking a stab here.
- so, do we believe the price at 400/year is profitable? I don't, but that's me.
$250k - avionics
$500k - engines
$500k - structure
$250k - systems
$260k - non-manufacturing (1500 employees @70k av /400 planes)
rent, debt service, etc... and my numbers above are low.
Someone smarter than me, correct the numbers, but again, we're measuring with a micrometer and cutting with a $1.xB chain saw...
Still not sustainable... and based on the mustang numbers, nothing new either...eclipse is just under pricing to have any customers.
So baron, I agree they have 150-200 customers per year... what's the realistic price at that rate?
Ballgame over.
baron,
don't shoot the messenger, the air taxi companies all state they are primarily replacing car trips.. that is what they say.
The effective range with passengers is a few hundred miles, so it does not compete with jets, practically speaking...I mean, real jets.
Finally, there are many more prop planes than jets in GA...many more used under part 135, all day, BUT, I can see your neighbors aprehension for that trip! A twin prop is just fine... BTW, any of them flying e500's on that trip?
Do they know the circumstances underwhich the plane was certified? Are they afraid?
They probably should be.
So now air-taxi means replacing car trips?
Both DayJet and Eclipse (talking about air taxis) have said their biggest competitor is the car. Given this, its a real non-starter touting themselves up as somehow environmentally friendly.
The effective range with passengers is a few hundred miles, so it does not compete with jets, practically speaking...I mean, real jets.
LOL - tell that to Southwest Airlines. The average stage lenght for Southwest was 594 miles in 2004, 605 miles in 2005 [latest figures I have handy]. The median stage lenght is around 500 miles.
That means that 50% of Southwest airline's trip is under 500 miles. And in case you claim that Southwest is a niche player, let me point out that Southwest is now the LARGEST AIRLINE IN THE WORLD in numbers of passengers carried/day/month/year.
Now if you think that Southwest's fleet of 73Gs/735s are not real jets, I don't know what else to tell you.
Fact is, it is impossible to travel between secondary airports in the US via airline. It is impossible to travel between many major city pairs without connections. People that value their time and/or privacy will travel via biz aviation (Charter, fractional, owned).
Charter companies say that they displace the automobile just as much as Southwest does. Nothing wrong with it, and it does not mean that all their passengers could have reasonably driven the trip.
People that value their time and/or privacy will travel via biz aviation (Charter, fractional, owned).
...And who can afford it.
Charter companies say that they displace the automobile just as much as Southwest does. Nothing wrong with it, and it does not mean that all their passengers could have reasonably driven the trip.
There's nothing wrong with it so long as they don't wrap themselves in the flag of being environmentalists for doing so.
Dave said... I don't see how making more units matters in and of itself.
It only matters as far keeping costs down. It is a virtuous cycle. The higher your production rate of a gadget, the lower the unit costs. The lower the unit costs/price, he higher the demand is therefore the higher the production rate and so on.
However, as you correctly pointed out, the demand MUST be there for the virtuous cycle to be relevant.
E.g. Boeing is now producing only 1 767/month on the 767 final assembly line that once produced 5/month. That is because demand/backlog are so low, that Boeing is stretching things as much as they can to avoid having to shut down the line [in hopes of getting the tanker contract, etc].
In the case of the 757 (an airliner that is in great demand today for transatlantic/international flight), Boeing miscalculated it, run out of backlog during the airline downturn, could not get any more orders and had to shut down the line prematurelly, even though there is now demand for that plane.
Dave said ... There's nothing wrong with it so long as they don't wrap themselves in the flag of being environmentalists for doing so.
I disagree. Once I (as a consumer) have made the decision to fly a 400 nm trip by twin-turbine charter plane, ALL the previous options available in the market prior to Eclispe E500 use more fuel. Therefore, Eclipse can rightfully claim that for THAT MISSION they are the most enviromentally friendly choice and be 100% accurate.
Dave said ... ...And who can afford it.
Touché! It will always be a small market.
It is all about the mission.
Do you think a Toyota Prius has better fuel economy than a BMW M3 V8? Than watch this...
Toyata Prius vs BMW M3 Fuel Economy Test
I disagree. Once I (as a consumer) have made the decision to fly a 400 nm trip by twin-turbine charter plane, ALL the previous options available in the market prior to Eclispe E500 use more fuel. Therefore, Eclipse can rightfully claim that for THAT MISSION they are the most enviromentally friendly choice and be 100% accurate.
My comment was non-specific to Eclipse/DayJet or even to twin turbines...just to "charter companies" (that was the term you used in the paragraph that I was replying to) who acts as if they are improving the environment for getting people out of cars and into air taxis/charter/etc.
It is all about the mission.
Do you think a Toyota Prius has better fuel economy than a BMW M3 V8? Than watch this...
I'd say part of it is hype too. Mercedes and others have made really fuel efficient cars. I can't think of the make/model, but I believe Mercedes has a regular non-hybrid that gets MPGs competitive with the Prius. I drive a 10 year old Ford Escort and I get 30 MPGs even though I'm usually driving 70+
"AT, you must be aware that most companies have policies agains employees traveling on ANYTHING other than at least twin-turbine."
If the company has its own flight department, the odds of the Chief Pilot greenlighting an Eclipse charter when the company planes are not available is absolutely nill. These people are paid to look after their company employees, not hazard their lives.
baron,
I suggested you also look at airlines for competition... and you did.
Know how the e500 comparesw ith the SOuthwest Airlines of the world on green?
Really poorly
Southwest has always said they compete with cars... always.
Face it, e500 is in a poor spot regarding green and affordability due to the available options.
And on convenience and speed, its equally poor - biz jets are faster by a wide margin, and props are affordable by a wide margin but not much slower, for the mission.
PS. Dayjets AVERAGE mission is closer to 250 miles. Averages are fun, BUT averages are sometimes flawed. Cars replaced by the e500...
That's the dream... add a few professional pilot chauffeurs and you have realiy.
"Once I (as a consumer) have made the decision to fly a 400 nm trip by twin-turbine charter plane, ALL the previous options available in the market prior to Eclispe E500 use more fuel."
Wrong... do the math and you probably come up with a different answer regarding the largest kingairs fully loaded on a per passenger basis, which is all that really matters.
baron,
no on the rate issue related to e500 as well...
I think they screwed the pooch on the whole market size and potential for the plane. Sme suppliers did not buy in, and are OK, others are in law suits. In any case, the days of the cheap jet are long gone for the e500... see the post related to price and volume estimates... I think they have realized there is no way to get to anywhere near 1,000 units per year, and no way to be close to $1M... I just think they are still wrong on the vounme and price at $2.15M.
I think they still lose $300-$400k per unti, no mater what, AND they will never gain sustainable demand for 400 plus unts per year for any period of time. No way.
Know how the e500 comparesw ith the SOuthwest Airlines of the world on green?
Really poorly
Really? Are you sure? Just as everyone is sure a Prius is more fuel efficient than a BMW M3?
Lets say my mission is to fly say Northern NJ suburbs to Marth's Vineyard for the weekend or for a business conference (they have those there, you know).
Option 1 - Via Southwest [note I didn't check the accuracy of this]: Drive 100-150 miles to ISP or BWI, take Southwest to PVD [I'm being nice and leting you pretend there are direct flight frequencies between this city pair that suit you]. Rent a car drive another 120 miles to Hyanis port. Put the car on the ferry arrive at MVY. Total elapsed time one-way around 10-12 hours.
Option 2 - Via Eclipse Charter. Drive to TEB (lets say 10 miles) - jump on the E500 that is waiting for you at the ramp, land at MVY 30 min later flying VFR. Total elapsed time - 1 hr.
Carbon footprint - I'd say about even or slight advantage to option 1.
But in the real world, Southwest could NEVER be the most enviro friendly option for this mission because it is NOT CAPABLE of acceptably flying it. If I define the mission as going from northern NJ to MVY in under two hours ONLY charter or private plane can do it. Airlines are NOT an option.
In addition, be careful about comparing airliner fuel efficiency assuming all seats are full like the environazis do. Even at WN, load factors average 80% and are around 50% for some flights.
AT Said... Wrong... do the math and you probably come up with a different answer regarding the largest kingairs fully loaded on a per passenger basis, which is all that really matters.
LOL - I just finished explaining the falacy of making efficiency calculations assuming that all seats of an airliner or charter plane are full.
I just defined the mission. I (as in only me) deciding to take a 400 nm charter flight. As your nickname implies, you must known the on-demand charter business. therefore you should know that most on-demand charter flights have 2 passengers or less. [just in case you come up with wierd examples, on-demand charter excludes under contract charter for sports franchises, politicians and the like]
There is NO CURRENT PRODUCTION TWIN TURBINE PLANE that can take 1 or 2 passengers on a 400 nm trip using less fuel than the E500. When the D-Jet or Cirrus Jet get into production, they will be the new Fan Jet (not twin fan jet) enviromental kings for the 1-2 passenger 400 nm typical on-demand charter mission.
Super King Airs are SO, SO, SO inneficient for that typical mission - it is not even funny. The ONLY reason they are used is because they are available in the secondary market for a song.
Option 2 - Via Eclipse Charter. Drive to TEB (lets say 10 miles) - jump on the E500 that is waiting for you at the ramp, land at MVY 30 min later flying VFR. Total elapsed time - 1 hr.
Who is Eclipse Charter?
In addition, be careful about comparing airliner fuel efficiency assuming all seats are full like the environazis do. Even at WN, load factors average 80% and are around 50% for some flights.
Based on what we know about DayJet their average is about 50% (around 1.4):
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/dayjet-widens-network/
"LOL - I just finished explaining the falacy of making efficiency calculations assuming that all seats of an airliner or charter plane are full."
The volume argument for the e500 is based entirely on a per seat model... and so are the airlines.
You can define the market fo the e500 as "your mission" or the private owners mission... but just becasue the plane can only take a few passengers on this mission, does not mean there isn't a more fuel efficient and greener way to go, even via jet(prop).
Imagine the fuel burn/econ impact per passenger on the ferry, if you could only accomodate 2 passenges?
You can defne the market any way you wish, but that's just a self-serving definition...to make a point that is really not there.
"most on-demand charter flights have 2 passengers or less"
not true... an average... some have 4 or 5 for sure... some have one... .that does not mean the plane is fuel efficient or environmentally friendly.
Also, this is a new market, where supposedly seats can be sold on part 135 planes...so? Why not look at the new revolutionary business model, Eclipse and Dayjket refer to?
I say we should... and if they can place a few passengers on another type of plane, that plane will be better - that's all.
Baron,
I do not think a worse mode of transport is Better for the environment, just becasue its range and capacity limtes. I just don't think it reasonable.
If I offered my bicycle as an altrnative for a 100 mile car trip, you would laugh...
so I find yur examples/justification for the e500 air taxi, laughable.
Dave said:
“ . . . even though I’m usually driving 70+”
Hey, I thought, that’s how I drive . . . both my age, and my speed. ‘Having grown up on the Southern California Freeway system, even the CHP looks with suspicion on anyone driving slower than seventy . . . blocking the flow. (Sometime, go through Pasadena at rush hour . . . between midnight and . . . midnight . . . less than 75 to 85 mph . . . you’ll get pulled over for parking on the freeway.) People have been known to change a flat at lower speeds . . . (Hey, son, that’s a joke!)
And then, the reality of flying on business over the years . . . the difference between flying piston, . . . and then, jet . . . there is almost no difference. Sometimes, flying in a Cessna 150, or a Piper J3 Cub would have been a better use of my time and money.
There were a few times back in my submarine days, flying across the Pacific to catch up with the boat . . . a jet would have been nice . . . reducing the 27 hours to whatever a jet is able to accomplish . . . but then, I caught up on some sleep . . . flying backwards on MATS.
These discussions get bogged down in the speed to altitude, etc., without much connection with reality. The bottom line, it would seem, is the bottom line. When you get there, are you ready to do business? Are you at your best? When you get home . . . are you ready to be a husband? . . . a father?
‘Taking a few extra minutes at each end, and in between, isn’t all that bad. It allows a time to indulge in a rare activity these days . . . time to think!
As said before, I would always schedule a flight the day before a meeting . . . spend the day with my customer . . . get a good night’s sleep (usually at the local Marriott, in the concierge level), and return the next day to give it my best . . . to business and family.
‘Most professionals are in a panic for speed, for speed’s sake . . . and the business is going to China. (‘Wonder why? . . . ‘Maybe for lack of quality, efficiency, . . . or maybe always working in Panic Mode?)
But for whatever reason (and don’t give me fairy tales about Global Warming . . . I happen to be a non-believer . . . Al Gore and the Sierra Club do not exist . . . give me space, I’m working on a term) . . . you may wish to get there before you left. Someday, you may achieve your dream. But, for the moment, guaranteed, the little bird from Albuquerque ain’t it.
In the mean time, the menu has a wide selection of options. And if you believe that global warming nonsense, and you are a true believer . . . then Walk! And don’t get on this stupid kick about how you’re interested in a carbon foot-print. ‘Maybe we should start checking shoe sizes. Barf!
Flying creates carbon . . . carbon feeds trees . . . and corn . . . and corn feeds the next generation of jets (or so we’re told . . . bio fuels . . . as if petroleum is not a bio fuel . . . organic chemistry, as I remember, includes petroleum . . . or did I miss something? . . . carbon seemed to be the important ingredient). But in the scheme of things, we need to include the production of aluminum, paint, . . . and all the things that make the little bird possible. Oh, did I mention the huge crew of twelve-week wonders? . . . driving to work and back every day, attempting to assemble an incomplete flying machine . . . at wages that should be an embarrassment to the rest of the industry. Efficient? . . . Please!
Another time, we’ll discuss the real carbon footprint of the little bird from Albuquerque . . . the amount of energy it takes to produce a jet that takes a crew of two, to transport a payload of . . . two (max . . . and without real baggage . . . evidently a total of six was a myth), less than four hundred miles . . . saving maybe an hour or two over other forms of transportation. Me thinks the accurate final totals will be off the scale . . . so let’s stop calling this thing efficient. When it comes to nasty, we can get very nasty . . . facts have a way of getting nasty, when push comes to shove.
Well, there it is for the moment.
gadfly
(ChickN . . . notice, I only used the quotes in an actual quote. Now it’s time for you to ask or answer some engineering type questions. Hey, fair is fair!)
This efficiency thing got me thinking . . . a rule of thumb about TWENTY years ago was that in high-tech industries, you could almost always determine the gross output of high tech companies by multiplying the total workforce by $100,000. A crew of ten, should produce a million dollars in gross sales. A crew of one hundred should produce ten million . . . and so on. ‘Twenty years ago! The formula included everyone . . . from president to custodian. It was a crude measure, but worked more often than not . . . rarely off by more than twenty percent.
Eclipse claims about sixteen hundred people. That equates to about $160 million . . . in 1988 dollars . . . per year. ‘How we doin’? ‘Seems the price of the bird has doubled . . . and then some . . . ‘maybe, what?, . . . three-four times 1988 dollars?
Our little two man operation requires about $300 K per person, ‘just to keep the lights burning . . . with machines that, for the most part, operate in a “dark shop”, 24/7 . . . with all machines completely debt free.
Whatever numbers you use, Eclipse is a long way from showing a profit . . . even if they had a finished product. And that brings us full circle: When are they going to produce a single SIX place jet, without INOP stickers? And then, and only then, should the discussion go on to mundane subjects like Profit & Loss . . . unless you believe that a P&L statement somehow works like a parachute.
gadfly
(Meaner and meaner!)
AT said ... I do not think a worse mode of transport is Better for the environment, just becasue its range and capacity limtes.... if they can place a few passengers on another type of plane, that plane will be better...
AT, would you say that an 8-passenger SUV is more enviro friendly than an 4/5-passenger same technology SUV? After all, if I am transporting 8 passengers the larger SUV should burn more fuel than driving two smaller ones. Of course not, right? Why? Because you know that, on average, vehicles on the roads have just 1.5 passengers. So the larger SUV's potential advantage can't be realized.
Same thing for private planes, on-demand charter and even mixed mode charter like Day Jet (stated load factor 1.4). If they were flying a BE200 with a 12,500 lbs MTOW, they'd be flying all that structure around with 8 seats empty. That is the definition of waste.
As I said before, it is all about the mission. For the typical 400 nm Charter/Private 400 nm flight, there is no current production plane more efficient from a fuel or capital-costs point of view than the E500.
If Vern didn't screw up the avionics and Ed didn't piss away money on ant-farmers and computer models, we had ashot at real innovation in the industry. Instead, they both thought that plane mannufacturing and charter businesses were SW development projects and F$@# it all up.
Gad,
You SURE have been on a roll lately..(a good one)..seems the medication is helping ...LMAO
eclipso
A fifty-fifty mix of green chilis and prune juice . . . you have no idea!
gadfly
(It doesn't leave a carbon footprint.)
I do so miss the green chili double cheeseburgers. Only thing I liked about McDonald's there. Can't eat them anyplace else.
eclipso
Two green chili burgers, large fries, . . . and coffee at McDonald's. 'Not exactly In-N-Out Animal Style on Campus Drive at Irvine, but a great supper, once a week with the "wife" . . . watching the sunset . . . one of ABQ's simple pleasures . . . $5 for two.
'Maybe that's the reason for Eclipse locating in the Land of Enchantment. Where else could the employees afford to live?
gadfly
(And a bunch of politicians willing to give away the farm . . . er, ranch in subsidies.)
"As I said before, it is all about the mission. For the typical 400 nm Charter/Private 400 nm flight, there is no current production plane more efficient from a fuel or capital-costs point of view than the E500."
this is a prop mission, buddy... that's why there are 10,000 of them flying all day every day.
The SUV example is bogus - I have one, because I have 5 kids, so I need an SUV.
Some people LIKE large cars - That does not make them greener or more fuel efficient. Same with mini-jets, I guess.
"If Vern didn't screw up the avionics and Ed didn't piss away money on ant-farmers and computer models, we had ashot at real innovation in the industry. Instead, they both thought that plane mannufacturing and charter businesses were SW development projects and F$@# it all up."
in the case of Ed, I think he would have chosen another plane...but he's not smart enough to have done this, so I question his entire plan.
In the case of Vern, his entire plan is screwed up - the plane is nothing special, and its just a small jet, designed to compete with cars and pros - and it completes poorly, except for someone who wants to see jets on the outside of theor planes.
Economically and environmentally - its a loser.
And, the low price is BS... as well... its a $3M piece of crap plane, with limited utility... at the price/volume ratio that can be rationalized.
DOA
BAron,
one more thing, regarding averages.
How many trips in GA are done with 5 passengers to get to the average of 2?
A lot.
Does that mean there's a complete waste of seats? Nope, just a lot of folks flying alone.
If the FAA changed the rules regarding how part 135 operates, perhaps the load would be higher, and for this, the right plane would be bigger all the time, not just the times when 5 passengers are flying to bring the average up to 2..
;)
Keep thinking
I think we beat that horse to death. AT, I hear what you are saying, and I think we are in general agreement.
The twin fan jet missions for charter are indeed a small niche. I was just pointing out that it does exist.
Just like there is a small niche where only a Twin Otter will do.
I think Shane needs to start a new post. This one is way too long.
Fred, you misunderstood what I meant. I said I hoped Eclipse would be successful. I guess I should have defined what I meant by success. I meant a profitable company (love that capitalism) with a good, reliable product. (Note I did say I've lost hope in that success.) I guess I forgot the software companies lowered the bar when it comes to the definition of 'good and reliable'.
Gad, I'm not a certification or safety engineer so of the only question I recall being asked of me is can Eclipse certify the ConJet to 41,000 feet I can only give my humble opinion, based on having worked 3 major development programs. Without a backup pressurization system there's no way. It really is impossible to seal up the pressure vessel enough to keep cabin altitude from rising too fast to keep the occupants safe before getting down to a safe altitude.
Oh, and I haven't been ignoring the question. It's just I don't dare answer when I'm at work. The Verninator might find out who I am and then who I work for and sue them for allowing me to use company time equipment to slander/liable/whatever else he can make up as grounds for a suit. After all, the company I work for does post a profit. It may not have very deep pockets but any profit at all means their pockets are deeper than Eclipse's. (And I suspect that might be his ulterior motive behind his bloggers' lawsuit. Remember The Real Frank Castle? Didn't he admit to working at Cessna? Now there are some deep pockets.)
Oh, and I haven't been ignoring the question. It's just I don't dare answer when I'm at work. The Verninator might find out who I am and then who I work for and sue them for allowing me to use company time equipment to slander/liable/whatever else he can make up as grounds for a suit.
Vern loves to sue. Its his substitute for achievement.
Just as everyone is sure a Prius is more fuel efficient than a BMW M3?
Lets say my mission is to fly say Northern NJ suburbs to Marth's Vineyard for the weekend or for a business conference (they have those there, you know).
Baron,
You must have read "How to Lie with Statistics".
Yes, one can invent a scenario in which a Prius gets bad mileage, just as flying to MVY is a representative airtaxi trip.
Come on!
ChickN
Here’s something I’ll put right out for you and others to consider . . . because I once sewed up some seals and curtains, to connect an optical clean room (which we built at our little shop, based on a hydraulic lift food service truck), to the side cargo door on the Airborne Laser Lab (C135). We maintained a positive internal pressure at all times, to preserve the clean-room atmosphere, between plane and truck . . . ‘worked great.
Here’s the clues:
Dupont Nomex cloth (aluminized). Cover the inside with an airtight bladder (of Nomex), rather than the outside . . . use the fuselage like hoops on a barrel, to maintain the shape and strength . . . extremely light-weight . . . throughout the delta T ranges and pressure cycles . . . you’re 90% there, and aren’t relying on the aluminum skin for the seal, nor hoop strength. And you gain a second benefit with its fire resistance, and cooling principle in emergency, with almost no weight increase.
Toss around the idea . . . and think inside the box, as it were. It’s like a submarine or Dirigible turned inside out. And from personal experience, I know it works.
gadfly
(We still have the Adler industrial sewing machine, which we purchased for that job . . . and I learned how to put in eight-foot heavy duty brass zippers . . . not the normal machinist type skill. The joke back then was: How do you make an elephant fly? . . . Start with an eight-foot zipper.)
baron ...
on your comment toward E.U. "environazi" carbon-tax :
please tell me , how can i have you to understand this :
you are a US citizen (i presume !) , so for the sake of your democracy to gather a majority of peoples in your OWN country make them vote the way you want ...
then you can have all the policies (even the most absurd !) you want ...
as for the European Union , since you are not from a state member , it is very simple :
either you come to live for a while in E.U. , spend your stamina to convince E.U. citizens of your point of view ...
either , you just shut it up!
but you CANNOT say what you said and at the same time have hopes that it is European customers who are going to save the EA500 ...
especially NOT by E.U. making policies which would be good to ANYONE out of E.U. , and only to them ! (sorry we are first in line ...)
take it or leave it , but we have NO INTENTION to please you ...!
so if Easa say EA500 is dangerous or unsafe or whatever :
even in your wildest dreams , we WILL NEVER do anything , we consider against our interests (OUR DECISION , not What some smartass from the other side think it would be our interests), to please ANYONE ...
it starts by your president ...(this one or next one )
followed by any corporation or individuals ...
to latest bum sleeping under a bridge !
so when i read you and in the same day that f**##{~[|`\^@]* stup***d pie*** of sh*t responding to the nickname of vernperator stating that EAC won't change a iota to be in accordance with Easa rules ...
to him or to you , i would answer this : you don't like this way ? = STAY HOME ! keep your toy and get lost !
atm ...
YES , i agree totally with you :
what is EA500 ?
a big toy
with a very limited capacity
a cost of use which is far too much for what you CAN use it for
only slightly faster than a prop
far more expensive than a prop
(hint for B95 :something useless , even at 1 $ , is still too expensive if it useless ! )
with a range far too short to make a difference
at a buying price which is a joke
with a quality of product which is laughable ...
a service which laughable ...
from a firm which is laughable ...
Governed by a guy which is laughable ...
and perspectives which are laughable ...
one can have all the fallacious arguments of the world to try to justify liking the Fpj ...
( green , efficiency , whatever)
but at the end it is ONLY THAT , you like it or you don't like it ...
but on rational basis , it is just a NO-GO , a joke , just hopes no one will get hurt in process ...
The VLPJs are coming now:
http://jets.ru/news/2008/07/17/stratos
I'm skeptical of the company's claims.
Europe forecasts 100 VLJs per year:
http://www.filas.it/downloads/documentazione/B111%20Future%20VLJs%20in%20EUrope%20Draft%20Mar08%20Update%20v0.2.pdf
Much of this is based on Eclipse's orderbook. Eclipse is really going to have to show how that there's enough of a market for two high production factories or explain if they're planning on dumping ABQ.
dave ...
have you read the Etirc thing on Jet.ru ...?
it is hilarious ...
the plant in Ulyanovsk is supposed to make 800 EA500 per year ...
(i am sure that with the actual backlog it is just a very few weeks of production , then what ?)
if you link it with the read of italian link about the size of europe's vlj ...
it simply means the factory is going to work 3 months in a year !!
(800/year = 50% for europe , 50% for Russia)
with 1.500 staff ...??
what are they going to do ?
as well as 400 EA500 per year for Russia alone (with ukraine [where infrastructures are even more neglected than in Russia ???] and Kazakhstan [where infrastructure just DOES NOT exist ! Fpj able to land on potatoes fields ??] )
once again : wishful dreams !!!
European Union = 400/year ? i would be surprised if they reach a 1/200th of what they claim !!!
TBM-R_US said... Baron,
You must have read "How to Lie with Statistics".
Yes, one can invent a scenario in which a Prius gets bad mileage, just as flying to MVY is a representative airtaxi trip.
Come on!
Hey TBM. You can knock down the trips to MVY, but, I must tell you it is THE mission I fly most often, and curently it is THE reason I fly the Baron. It is also a very popular charter trip here in the Northeast. Just like the charters to Aspen are popular in the West, and the hops to key west and Bahamas are in the south.
These trips are perfectly suitable for light GA planes and charter. They are short, but can't reasonably be driven.
As for the Prius. Again it is all about the mission. My personal car mission REQUIRES that, for personal satisfaction, I be able to go from a highway entrance ramp to 60 MPH in less than 5 seconds and feel a strong push on my back every time I accelerate from a stop light, and a very strong decelaration every time I approach one. You may not agree with the mission definition, but it IS MY mission.
For that mission, a PRIUS scores so low as to be laughable. The M3 scores very high. My current ride an S63AMG socres just as high with more room to take friends along ;)
You can't say that the PRIUS is more efficinet than the S63AMG because it is not capable of performing the mission. And if driven like I'd drive it (max accel, max break, etc) the PRIUS would be tremendously inneficient. Likely to get worse gas mileage and would need new breaks every other week.
So again it is all about the mission. Eclipse blows away the economics of any other twin turbine for the 1-2 passenger 100-600 nm trip. Nothing in current production can touch it.
Now, if you care to demonstrate a 1-2 passenger twin turbne trip flown by a current production twin turbine plane where there is a plane that is more economical (fuel flow, capital costs) than the Eclipse, I'd love to see it.
See, no statistics tricks. YOU pick the mission and the plane that would compete with the Eclipse in that broad range - 1-4 total accupants, 100-600 nm, current production twin turbine plane, assume plane was leased or financed over 5 years, and flown whatever number of hours per year you choose. Since you have the manual, I'll even let you throw in a single engine turbine (your TBM) into the mix. My guess is that the Eclipse would even beat the TBM.
Now I'll be fair and point out that we don't know the residual/resale value of the E500 track record. So that is the toss up variable.
Still, do the math. You'll be shocked by how much cheaper flying an Eclipse is compared to any other twin turbine in the market. It is shocking.
Fred said ... take it or leave it , but we have NO INTENTION to please you ...!
Fred, I'll break my rule of not responding to anything you post just this one time... to help you understand one simple point.
The EU policies are pleasing me immensely!!! I don't want them to change. I am loving it. Just yesterday, another European company, VW announced that they'll build a huge car assembly plant in the US.
Go ahead. Vote (though you don't vote for it, the EU bureacrats decide it for you) on all carbon taxes you want. Pass all the restrictive labor laws you like. I love it. The more BMWs, Mercedes, VW, Airbus, TBMs assembled in the US, the happier I'll be.
I do have a favor to ask. Could you please tax gasoline a bit higher in the EU. I'd like it to be even more excess refined gasoline in the EU to be exported more cheaply to the US. After all, I only get 10-11 MPG on the AMG. I could use some help there.
On a more serious note, I am worried about what would happen to the EXTRAORDINARY engineering tallent at Mercedes, Airbus, EADS, etc if these policies make those companies less globally competitive.
The US stupid turn to a restrictive immigration policy has made it very hard for those folks to flee to our shores like they did after the war.
So Fred, I have no desire to meddle with the EU politics other than that little help with increasing the gasoline taxes and watching the hottest first lady in the world from France.
You guys are doing a great job there at the EU - oh, maybe one more thing, could you increase interest rate a bit? We need the Euro to go a bit higher, would really help sell E500s and Barons and Gulfstreams in the EU. After all, aviation contracts are all in US$. Bump the Euro up by 10% and that G650 will get that much cheaper.
Have fun Fred - and thanks for bringing the EU perspective so vividly to the Blog.
Cheers.
the plant in Ulyanovsk is supposed to make 800 EA500 per year ...
(i am sure that with the actual backlog it is just a very few weeks of production , then what ?)
Eclipse is a house of cards that is waiting to collapse. There's no way Eclipse can function as stated. If Eclipse gets the volume production up, they'll have nobody to sell the planes to; If Eclipse continues at its current production volume, it will have to raise prices again; If Eclipse opens up a factory in Russia, all its problems with finding a market and needing sales double; Eclipse's problems also multiply with the 400. Something has got to give.
I think Vern showed how screwed up Eclipse is with him in charge when he said this:
He hopes to organise an IPO in the next few years to pay back his equity investors. “I need to be the guy who takes Eclipse public,” he says. “But whether I continue to be the chief executive of a company employing three, four, five thousand people...probably not. It’s not my skillset.”
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewarticle&id=1010&Itemid=347
Because Eclipse has too many problems (many - if not all - due to Vern himself) that itself has delayed any IPO...actually his lack of a skillset in being a manufacturing administrator are what has prevented Eclipse from having an IPO. Eclipse might now never have an IPO because Eclipse is so far gone.
Dave said ... Eclipse is really going to have to show how that there's enough of a market for two high production factories or explain if they're planning on dumping ABQ.
Looks crazy to me, but then again I don't have access to their plans.
But it is clear that the Russian plant will only reach full production around 2011. Maybe by then Eclipse would have decent avionics and a second plane E400.
Shutting down ABQ (if it turns out that Russian plant is more productinve) may not be a bad thing. Either way, it seems like it is ETIRC and other investors taking the risk, so it can only be good news for the current Eclipse owners.
I'm sure Ken is sleeping much better now with all these plans and money being spent on building new Eclipse plants, rather than not having then.
We shall see. The number planned do look crazy to me though.
But it is clear that the Russian plant will only reach full production around 2011. Maybe by then Eclipse would have decent avionics and a second plane E400.
I don't see it and I'll tell you why. Eclipse's orderbook size has been stagnant for ages...the quality of the orders is questionable (namely DayJet, who has about 50% of the orders). The size of the orderbook goes back to when the FPJ cost about as much as the Frankenjet if not less. Based on the reported size of the orderbook then, I don't see who Eclipse could sell all the aircraft to...and alternatively, they continually to run red ink at the current volumes. If Eclipse did reach 1400+ units per year between both factories, they'd have nobody to sell them to even if Eclipse did a dramatic price reduction and if Eclipse didn't reach those volumes, it would mean even more red ink then with two factories than now with one factory. I think Eclipse has a hard enough time making one aircraft type and if they actually went through with the Frankenjet, it would slow their production due to switching between different aircraft being manufactured.
Shutting down ABQ (if it turns out that Russian plant is more productinve) may not be a bad thing. Either way, it seems like it is ETIRC and other investors taking the risk, so it can only be good news for the current Eclipse owners.
All it does is make is things more hookey. Russia would have to do waaaaaay better (and have better sales too) than ABQ or else it is the same problems all over again...production costs too high and no market even if the production rate is reached. If ABQ was closed and Russia became the sole factory, I don't see a market of 800 units per year for any permutation of Eclipse product(s) even with reduced prices.
baron 94.5
i accept your liking ...
could you please just tell us :
are you trying to convince us or YOURSELF ?
New post up. Was a little slow posting this, so I now have to update my numbers on the new headline....
Shane
Post a Comment