Sunday, September 21, 2008

Where was Perry Mason?

The hearing lacked the sharp edge of a Perry Mason trial. The transcript for DOT's Inspector General Calvin Scovel's findings (and presumably the other witnesses as well) was available days in advance of the hearing. This allowed the FAA to be prepared to respond to the charges being leveled at them which in fairness, kept the hearing focused on the issues at hand.

For instance, when Ron Wojnar, the FAA manager who gave the go ahead to grant Eclipse the Production Certificate was asked about the 13 open items at the time of the issuance of the PC, he was able to blunt the inquiry by saying, "well a couple of the items were related to FAA action items, things that the FAA needed to do, like schedule an 18 month quality audit."

But where was Perry Mason to ask, "What about the other 11 items? How many of those were flight safety critical?"

Or John Hickey, Director, FAA Certification, justifying the date set for the Eclipse type certificate on September 30 because an agency goal was to certify a Very Light Jet during that fiscal year.

Where was Perry Mason to ask, "John, at the end of September your agency goal was to have a Very Light Jet certified. Why push the Eclipse program? You already had a Very Light Jet certified, and probably with no IOU's, the Cessna Mustang three weeks earlier."

Both sides made their points largely unchallenged. Nicholas Sabatini, FAA Associate Administrator for Safety under oath could say:

"I believe the Aircraft was properly certified. I believe that the aircraft meets FAA safety standards and I have the results of a Special Certification Review Team to back me up on that."

Of course the Special Review Team did not review the complete certification, they only spot checked certain areas during their 30-day rush to judgment but nobody reminded Sabatini of that fact.

Or when John Hickey testified:

"On the date of September 30, the FAA team made two determinations. They determined the Eclipse 500 had complied to all appropriate regulations and it was in a condition for safe operation."

Nobody asked him about IOU's that even Vern Raburn acknowledged existed at the time of the original TC.

OK, so it wasn't a trial - it was a hearing. Both sides made their case with little or no cross examination and it matters little as to what was said in the hearing. It was only a small window as to the discovery obtained during the months of investigation by Scovel.

Only a few witnesses testified. Scovel talked to many more as did the staff from Oberstar's committee. And what they heard painted a very ugly picture, not only of the FAA's transgressions but of the operation of Eclipse which was not part of the inquiry.

It was little wonder then when the presiding chairman of the subcommittee Congressman Jerry Costello opened the hearing with a serious indictment:

"I am extremely disappointed that the FAA again lacks the ability to oversee its programs, in this case its certification programs. Unfortunately, this hearing will expose an agency that is as interested in promoting aviation and befriending manufacturers as it is in carrying out its number one responsibility of protecting safety and the flying public.

It is inexcusable and unacceptable to ignore rules, regulations and standard practices to accommodate those you have a responsibility to regulate -- when you have people's lives in your hands! This Subcommittee, the Congress and the American people entrust the FAA to uphold the highest level of safety. Unfortunately, the FAA conduct regarding the certification of the EA-500 makes one lose confidence in the agency."

Or Chairman Oberstar's written transcript:

"In the Eclipse case, it appears that when design deficiencies were identified that appeared to be non-compliant with FAA certification requirements, senior FAA management became personally involved, overruled lower-level engineers and inspectors, worked diligently to find "work-arounds," to find "alternative approvals and rationales and techniques." and to accept IOU's for later compliance. In many ways, the certification process in this case was conducted "backwards" from the clear intent and requirements of FAA certification regulations. Instead of certifying on the basis of safety alone, FAA senior management appeared to be highly motivated to find ways to explain why design deficiencies identified by FAA engineers and inspectors as "unsafe" were indeed "flawed" but they were still "acceptable for certification" by simply changing the approval criteria."

Both chairs had heard enough in advance to convince them to hold the hearing and get the evidence into a public forum. The written statements by the Inspector General, DiPaola and the four safety inspectors from Ft Worth contain far more detail and disturbing accusations then what they could state in their brief oral summaries. Fortunately, their written transcripts are on record for everyone to see.

Since there was no trial, there was no verdict. Had there been one, John Hickey would have been terminated on the spot and Nicholas Sabatini certainly sent on to early retirement. But that is not the way Washington works. Congressman Oberstar has been around Washington a few years. He knows where all the levers are, how to pull them and when. As one who controls the FAA's budget his influence is enormous.

Sabatini too, has been around long enough to read the tea leaves and will probably depart on his own. When? Soon, but not too soon to look guilty. Shortly thereafter, Hickey might feel that fatherly arm of Congressman Oberstar around his shoulder and hear Oberstar's soothing words, all while being escorted to the door. "Goodbye John, you did a heck of a job."

A good friend put this together for me, this past week. Clearly, DayJet's effective closure is another matter which merits a full headline, but this is the Eclipse Aviation Critic blog, so I thought the DOT IG hearing merited more focus.

I was otherwise engaged. I have been in very brief contact with some of you, who know why. My father, Brian Price, died suddenly while on holiday in France last Monday morning, the 15th of September. To quote the final paragraph of what I said at his funeral yesterday:-

"Let us all remember Brian in our hearts and our prayers. He was a rare individual, a loving husband, a kind and caring father, an intelligent and skilful lawyer and a great friend to us all.

May he rest in peace."

Shane

622 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 622   Newer›   Newest»
airtaximan said...

folks:

I don't care what anyone says, this is a big deal for EAC, and congratulations ARE in order.

Imagine accomplishing this? Global financial crisis, major investigations into the cert of the plane, a mountain of finacnial problems and lawsuits at EAC, a failed product, no possible prospect of sales at anywhere near per unit break even or profitability, new CEO, former CEO ousted, half the staff laid off, half their orderbook evaporated last week, major market (air taxi) in serious doubt if not proven failure, no EASA...

-AND-

Someone decides to invest $200M...

I personally don't even care if its just a PR stunt - to get anyone to even "Say" they are "Willing" at some point to put up $200M for this...

THIS IS IMPRESSIVE.
(Roel may have just eclipsed Vern on money rasing ability... pretty cool)

CONGRATULATIONS!

metal guy said...

Are the tea leaves pointing more and more to just shutting ABQ down and moving everything to Russia?

“Really sorry guys, the U.S. financial market simply won’t support another financing round. But the market is simply MASSIVE, BIGGO, HUGE over here in Russia, so please be diligent about including ALL technical and design specifications in the red card-board boxes located in the front lobby. Oh, and will anyone who can translate from English to Russian please report to HR immediately? Again, really sorry about all this. Really we are.”

(There is another rumor of another round of lay-offs, but it is just rumor at this point)

fred said...

yes , at ...

disruptive , isn't it ?

but you don't know the binding of the contract ...

that's going to be a money-drain more than anything else ...

as for the russians , i'm not sure what is the aim :

spare-parts (think jet-engines)
or
plain embarrassment for "Free enterprise " ??

fred said...

metalguy

repeat after me :

big is BOLCHOƏ ... ;-))

Dave said...

Are the tea leaves pointing more and more to just shutting ABQ down and moving everything to Russia?

That's what I think the plan is. I'm expecting that ETIRC will end up owning everything and taking it out of the country with all the taxpayers who funded Eclipse left high and dry. Eclipse owes the city of ABQ tens of millions and the Albany and Gainesville aiports look to be damaged for years to come since they went in debt for about $7 million each to build Eclipse facilities. Seeing DayJet's actions, DayJet doesn't care one bit about making the credit crunch worse just so they can spend money that doesn't belong to them and I would expect Eclipse to act the same way...particularly since Roel isn't even from the US, so he has even less interest if he damages our economy by spending money that doesn't belong to him while refusing to pay people/companies what they are owed.

julius said...

Fred,


99 Luftballons...

thanks for the joke!!!

Reading FM/FM and then EAC...
aren't we talking about falling air ballons with tags looking like cheap houses...

And then we see Santa Klass pimping old air ballons - tags like FPJs below- with small bears.
They don't fly with H or He. They need lots of $, €,....

Yes, Santa Klass is hoping... and nervous as the sacks full of $, € belong to a bear...


Julius

fred said...

metalguy

but your pay at EAC/ETIRC is going to be "MALINKI" (small ...)

metal guy said...

If there is a new chunk of money, with such a massive market abroad, they should immediately start to ramp back up here in ABQ to start filling that demand.

However, if there is another down-sizing of the U.S. plant, I think that will pretty much answer the question once and for all.

fred said...

dave

#if he damages our economy by spending money that doesn't belong to him while refusing to pay people/companies what they are owed. #

this is what i was meaning in the "Strawman" thing ...

he is dutch , Etirc from Lux. ...

Vern is out of troubles , can safely stay in the USA , while roel just have to drive to Canada , fly to NL , then i do not think anything is possible anymore as for bills ...
(russia may have to play a bit into this ...!and Vern is enjoying all his cash ...)

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Guys, T&B is clearly another of our South AfriKen dentist friend's multiple personalities and should be taken as such.

Of course, he maintains his cognitive dissonance and ignores all posts here that do not fit his persecution complex - after all, he is still trying to sell his second position.

As to Ron's question about why the focus on Eclipse - I think the recent House testimony should address that - we have been making the same essential complaints all along - that the Eclipse design remains incomplete, the production quality system is not ready for prime time, the planes are being delivered with an unprecedented number of IOU's, which the company has now said will just not be dealt with unless/until they receive more money.

The problem is that after more than a decade and now close to $2B they are unable to deliver a complete and fully functional aircraft.

That you chose to accept an incomplete partially functional aircraft and choose to fly in it is your business - unless you disrupt the system or injure someone on the ground.

And yes, you are taking your life and that of your loved ones into your own hands anytime you fly the Eclipse - that is just like any other airplane.

The difference is the other planes will be complete and fully functional and not have lingering questions about their basic design or quality of construction.

That said Ron, we are happy you are enjoying your purchase and as Baron says, assuming you are able to eventually get it completed, you will be in good shape having gotten a $2.5M plane for far less.

Don't take the questions here for more than they are. There are significant issues and challenges for the company to survive, including their ability to meet their IOU obligations to you and HUNDREDS of other customers.

There is a run on the bank so to speak in terms of refund demands.

There is the possibility of the PC being surrendered.

There is the continuing insanity of the faux order book that includes 'floptions' and the mirage of two factories producing over a thousand a year.

There is still EASA certification.

There are still systems and components that are failing at rather high rates according to the SDR record and complaints on the Eclipse Owner's Forum.

fred said...

coldwet

are you suggesting T&B is having what is called in french T.O.C. ?
(trouble obsessionnel compulsif)

it sounds so much nicer than schizophrenia ...

Niner Zulu said...

Ron, aren't you a senior member in the E500 blog?

That's what I thought.

Isn't it true you are one of the most outspoken critics of the Eclipse in the club? You're not any happier about their behavior than we are. You recognize that they may not be around in a few years, if not a few months. This is not because of anything said on this blog - Eclipse has to place the blame for it's failure squarely on itself.

As for fixing the plane on your nickel - that is probably not possible. In order to keep your plane running, you'll need parts that are ONLY available from Eclipse. No one but Eclipse can work on the Avio system, and if it fails and Eclipse is not around you may wait years for another company to offer a solution.

If Eclipse goes T.U., you own a boat anchor, albeit a cheaper one than your other club members.

FYI, I once had a plane that was the best plane I had ever owned. Brand new, made me feel safer than any plane I'd ever flown, right up to the moment the engine failed in night IFR.

fred said...

coldwet :

#There is still EASA certification.#

i have heard "rumors" that the European Commissary of Transport is ready to veto the Easa agreement for EA500 after having received a translation of the syllabus of Congressional Hearing ...

if he is backed by European Parliament (which oversee ALL decisions )

it is going to "thanks , but NO thanks !"

Shane Price said...

9Z,

Brand new, made me feel safer than any plane I'd ever flown, right up to the moment the engine failed in night IFR.

Reality sucks...

And the reality behind the PR, as I tried to forewarn everyone, is that the loan is NOT to ETRIC, but to BUILD THE PLANT in Russia.

1. This is not the 'silver bullet' to keep EAC afloat.

2. The loan for the plant is subject to EAC proving they have the funds to produce aircraft in the plant.

3. To get to that point, EAC have current liabilities (according to proof I have to hand) in excess of $600 MILLION which will have to be provided for.

4. Even if they can make the $600 million 'vanish' they have admitted that losses in FY 2008 and 9 will exceed a further $500 Million.

Think about it. Before they can show the Russians they are ready to INVEST in the new plant, they have to find a combined $1.1 BILLION.

This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. How can anyone take Roel seriously?

Sources for these figures are EAC document provided to staff considering taking up their share options, as well as recent public statements of EAC CEO, Mr. Roel Pieper.

Shane

Dave said...

Isn't it true you are one of the most outspoken critics of the Eclipse in the club?

The Faithful complain about what is said on this blog, yet they are too afraid to publicly show the comments in the Faithful's blog. However, Eclipse's 9/11 event shows that even at an Eclipse event Eclipses aren't popular:
Our Sunriver Event started September 11, 2008. With over 90 registered and 30+ aircraft including 19 Eclipses, the event got off to a great start.
So at the 9/11 Eclipse event only 2/3rds (at best) of the aircraft that went there were FPJs. And to be a fly on the wall for this:
Day two started with in depth discussions on buying and selling an Eclipse, the state of the market, leasing your Eclipse, plus over an hour of great insights for flying, outfitting, hangering, and maintaining your Eclipse 500. Then we had a very candid and comprehensive report from Mike McConnell on the "state of Eclipse", followed by an afternoon at the Sunriver airport for demonstration rides and looking at all the ways owner/pilots have organized their Eclipse cockpits.
I wonder if Mike McConnell was comprehensive enough to explain ways that he'd work not to pay depositors like IBAL, Geiger, etc.

julius said...

airtaximan,

"Production in the factory located at the Ulyanovsk-Vostochny International Airport is expected to begin in 2010. The factory’s ultimate capacity is projected to be 800 jets a year. Production at Eclipse’s headquarters in Albuquerque will continue in full prior to and following the start of the Russian facility’s operations."


SAD! The housewarming party is postponed to 2010!

Julius

Dave said...

This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. How can anyone take Roel seriously?

Roel - the one-pill-makes-you-larger-hookah-smooking-mad hatter!

airtaximan said...

Shane,

I am a weird bird... I like to think the best.. so Pop a cork for Roel and EAC... this is GREAT NEWS.

They point to it as such, exaggerate it as such, so I am all for it.

I think EVERYONE should assume that this financing is exactly what ws needed, and that EAC is moving full steam ahead - they will be solvent, and be able to refund money, and continue in ABQ...

If its not true, and they misstate this, then I think they have exacerbated their problems.

So, CONGRATULATIONS!!! Finding this cash is just what the Dr. ordered, right?

Let's celebrate - all the depositors are getting their money back, suppliers will be paid... life is good!!

fred said...

Monsieur Shane :

i am to back you up on details concerning the Russian Plant ...

the story is far more "funny" that it seems ...

the Bank Board (VEB) where Mr Putin took position as Head of Meeting was in fact ... a lecture of a written statement by Mr Putin on necessity of diversification of Russian Economy ...

the Said Prime Minister was at the time in Sochi , overlooking the arrival of important guest to Sochi Forum ...

the Loan is EXCLUSIVELY for building the plant , ETIRC nor any of its employees are to be in control of the funds at any time ,the remaining duty of ETIRC is to show ability to run the plant without additional funds up to POSITIVE cash flow ...

it has , as well , a needed demonstration of being able to provide for tuition and training of staff at the expenses of ETIRC ...

i don't know about you ...
but to me it sound "nearly" impossible for Cash-flow positive , and VERY far from what Roel touted ...!!!

well done , Monsieur Shane !

Dave said...

the Loan is EXCLUSIVELY for building the plant , ETIRC nor any of its employees are to be in control of the funds at any time ,the remaining duty of ETIRC is to show ability to run the plant without additional funds up to POSITIVE cash flow...

Roel would be a billionaire if comedy rhodium was a commodity. Roel said he needed $200 million and now he's got it, so lets see him give the refunds he promised as well as that he pays his suppliers.

gadfly said...

Deep Blue (from previous page)

FSW may be proven to be stable in time, especially with “weldable” alloys. But with a 70XX series alloy, questions of control of the process and complete sealing of the weld from intrusion of moisture, etc., it seems to me to be most unwise to use it in a highly stressed airframe. ‘How ‘bout using it for “one way missiles” for a few years, where long life is not a requirement?!

Concerning the load testing of the wing(s): If the engineer(s) who designed the wings also designed the test fixture, a whole series of questions should be asked. Since the fixture failed before the wings, they still do not know where the wings will fail, when (not “if”) they do. That’s the sort of information most needed . . . especially for on-going inspections during the life of the plane, and for future modifications.

Concerning fastening issues in composite airframes: Each material has its unique attributes and problems. Composite structures, using brittle fibers (carbon, glass, etc.), have great strength in line with the fibers. But a concentrated load “normal” (cross) the fiber may cause the fibers to break. Also, cross linking the fibers is critical to strength.

Bottom line is the loads should almost always be distributed. Drilling a hole for a rivet or bolt is a “no-no” . . . cutting through fibers, and offering a perfect place for failure. So, fastener holes should be “pre-planned”, with the fibers following a line just outside the hole. Look at a “knot hole” in a piece of wood and see how God did it. Also, while looking at that piece of wood, see the layers of summer and winter growth . . . with a “soft” summer layer between the winter layers . . . allowing a slight movement when put under bending loads, allowing “shear” without failure. The same is true with composites . . . joints work best with a layer of a softer bond (adhesive), allowing a slight shear movement, without failure. And note that wood may be “peeled” apart, to use for baskets, etc. Likewise, a composite airframe must have something to keep the layers from “peeling apart” at the edges. Play with some Scotch tape, and notice the great strength in “shear”, and the weakness in “peel”.

When the tail came off that Airbus, I noticed a brief picture of the attach point at the base of the spars . . . the picture was brief, and on TV, but I noticed eight bolt holes . . . two rows of four, in perfect line, on each side. And the way the light reflected off the surface, it appeared that the “holes” had been drilled (bored). Now if what I thought I saw is true, then there would have been “cut” fibers in the carbon filament composite (the “look” was so brief, I could have easily been wrong . . . it was just a passing impression). But the two rows of holes, directly in line, was a perfect setup for sudden failure, when the vertical stabilizer was subjected to heavy side loads. To blame the dead pilots for too much rudder action, was, in my opinion, a cover up for a bad design . . . who knows when that failure began . . . maybe months or years before. But this is just my own personal opinion . . . and that’s all it’s worth.

gadfly

(Evaluating the Titanic disaster is most difficult. But in WW2, the “Liberty” ships suffered weld separation mid-ship in moderate seas, like cracking an egg on the edge of a skillet. The “fix” was a long plate welded to each side, much like a big piece of tape, assuring that the bow (front end) and stern (back end) arrived in England on approximately the same day.)

Productionman said...

Corporate India is in shock after a mob of sacked workers bludgeoned to death the chief executive who had dismissed them from a factory in a suburb of Delhi.

Lalit Kishore Choudhary, 47, the head of the Indian operations of Graziano Transmissioni, an Italian-headquartered manufacturer of car parts, died of severe head wounds on Monday afternoon after being attacked by scores of laid-off employees, police said.

Hmmmmm....... Any ideas.....

airtaximan said...

GAd,

visit the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia and you'll learn (YOU know this)

What you see is the "repair"... not the crack!

There's a lot that is not obvious about this stuff... it has to be learned.

Come to think of it, regarding the current EAC $200M financing... I think what you see is the crack, not the repair....

airtaximan said...

I am pretty upset that you all clarified the "EAC $200M financing"

- I was hoping for a flood of calls to ABQ... to get refunds and suppliers paid...

"OH, I'm sorry, there is still NO MONEY"

Dave said...

Eclipse talks to the ABQ Journal. Here are some highlights:
"We're in a very strong position to move forward," said Eclipse CEO Roel Pieper. "It's clear the bank has endorsed it. We're in a 'go mode' with that whole project."

"We have 300 orders sitting and waiting for EASA approval," Pieper said, adding that another 2,000 orders can be expected in Europe and Russia once the approval becomes official.

"DayJet was removed from our order book months ago," he said. "That's why we can safely say, although we don't like it, all of our plans have been adjusted."
On the optimistic side, Pieper said DayJet could get sold or restarted, thus activating the orders once again. But the loss of the orders means less of a wait for the buyers of the remaining 900 jets on order.

Access to growth capital is also an issue at Eclipse, which needs money from investors to continue operations. Eclipse is in the midst of another funding round, even as the financial turmoil on Wall Street reverberates around the world. The company is expecting to lose $300 million this year.

http://www.abqjournal.com/biz/23102427biz09-23-08.htm

Deep Blue said...

Gadfly: Thank you for that informative post.

BTW, the comment made to me from an EAC Sr. Exec (I'll leave it your imagination who it might have been) was suggesting that in testing, the stress put on the E500 was so severe and beyond technical requirements, that the testing rig failed before the E500 did.

This may strike some as the same kind of "inflation" that attends EAC's order book.

Thanks again and regards.

Dave said...

Hmmmmm....... Any ideas.....

Hopefully those responsible at Eclipse will be punished via the courts.

gadfly said...

PM

'Let's not go down that path!

gadfly

Dave said...

Roel is doing the Vern thing all over again. He's claiming there will be an order book of 2300 in europe/russia alone. Not even Vern inflated the order book this much. Vern is starting to look like honest, mature management by comparison to what is coming from Roel now.

Dave said...

Roel is claiming DayJet was taken out of the order book a few months ago, however, a few months ago Eclipse expressly said that wasn't done:
Additionally, DayJet has deferred beyond this year delivery of its remaining orders and options for 1,400 more Eclipse 500s. Eclipse president and CEO Vern Raburn confirmed that DayJet hasn’t canceled any orders for Eclipse 500s and said the air taxi’s troubles aren’t “anything more than a minor hiccup.”
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/awaiting-new-funding-dayjet-postpones-expansion-plans/?no_cache=1
So when precisely did Eclipse take DayJet out of the order book as Roel is now retroactively claiming was done?

airtaximan said...

DB,

ever see a test rig fail?

The rig should have been designed such that it would never fail before the test-subject.

IOW, if you are smart enough to design a part... you are smart enough to design the test rig, as well.

Should tell you something.

Productionman said...

"Hopefully those responsible at Eclipse will be punished via the courts"

I won't hold my breath… After all the resources are stripped and move to the Russian plant next year - or wherever - who’ll be around to be brought to justice…. No one – exactly… I would have more faith if they had fired the complete Eclipse management group rather than just Vern and installed a highly skilled turnaround team… No – keep the old and let the air slowly leak out of the tire – maybe no one will notice it’s going completely flat until the lights are off for good in ABQ…. By then it’s to late for legal atonements………. Sometimes mob mentality is not all that bad… Sorry… Some days I think a few people deserved to have their ass kick for reaping so much chaos and misery on many innocent hardworking folks… I have a shoes…….

Dave said...

Eclipse 500 static testing was accomplished at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. Southwest Research, under contract to Eclipse Aviation, was tasked to design and assemble the static test load frame and integrate the load control and data acquisition system.
http://www.aerospaceonline.com/article.mvc/Airframe-Is-Cleared-To-An-Initial-10000-Hours-0001

Dave said...

I won't hold my breath… After all the resources are stripped and move to the Russian plant next year - or wherever - who’ll be around to be brought to justice…. No one

If the gang that can't shoot straight self-exiles themselves to Siberia to avoid prosecution that wouldn't be all bad. Perhaps Roel's Favonius can be seized to help pay off debts.

Deep Blue said...

SP's comment concerning distinction between Russian plant construction and enterprise investment in EAC is important.

Having lived and worked in the former soviet union on several large-scale joint venture projects, the "arrangement" being discussed in the various press has all the markings of a typical risk-sharing venture (although I am not privy to the term sheet, if there is one).

This kind of arrangement may roughly be a "BOT" (build operate transfer) kind of structure where the onus for working capital may strictly be Etirc's. It is possible that other investors may follow-on the supposed Russian state plant investment by capitalizing the venture (probably not Etirc per se) and this recent development may be one piece of the larger building blocks.

But...I doubt it. It also has all the appearance of an Etirc confidence game. Moreover, the ABQ enterprise (let alone after-market infrastructure financing demand) is so upside down as to require funding that is in all likelihood never going to materialize, except possibly in a C11 or C. 7 asset sale (more likely, though I see no thesis for buying anything to reactivate the E500 line).

Lastly, keep in mind the relative complexity of actually reactivating all the potentially hundreds of suppliers necessary to stock Ulyanovsk. Of course, it may be that the "Russians" simply re-engineer the E500 into a strictly Russian VLJ product with Russian engineering and suppliers (this could be interesting; the Russians are damn good aerospace enginners).

Etirc may simply lift the current production schema from ABQ and modify it in a new Rusian production operation (a kind of reverse engineering, to the extent that has value). This is classic Russian industrial practice (not unlike the Chinese either).

Also, keep in mind the complexity and capital requirements to actually do what Etirc Aviation holds out: distribute, market, sell, train for and service the E500 line. This is an enormous industrial undertaking and Etirc does not in any fashion appear credible in this regard.

Dave said...

Lets also consider the stated current Eclipse order book of 900 with 300 coming from Europe/Russia. Well, virtually all of those 300 orders are from ETIRC with 220 publiclly recognized ETIRC orders:
http://www.sandhillcapital.com/NewsDetail.aspx?id=67
ETIRC hasn't demonstrated that they theselves can pay for their hundreds of orders, so ETIRC is just like another DayJet with lacking the financing to pay. Also there's a huge conflict having the CEO of a company promote said company because he's the largest customer (with about 33% of the stated order book...not significantly different in customer concentration than with Eclipse and DayJet). How many real bonafide orders that customers can and will pay for does Eclipse actually have?

Productionman said...

"But...I doubt it. It also has all the appearance of an Etirc confidence game"


Scheme by which a swindler (Con Artist, Con Man) wins the confidence of his victim and then cheats him of his money by taking advantage of the confidence reposed in him........

Hmmmmm....

julius said...

airtaximan,

have a look at:

http://aviation.etirc.nl/news-items/eclipse-500-in-stpetersbourg/

"Eight orders on Eclipse 500 very light jets were received at the 12th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, Ulyanovsk Government has reported.

The orders reportedly came from from Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Potential buyers are reported to include VTB Bank, Moscow-based developer Krokus City, cell products retailer Evroset and brewery Baltika.

The craft will be produced by Ulyanovsk jets plant which is currently being built by Luxemburg’s ETIRC Aviation. To date some $150m has been invested into the plant.

The plant is to produce the first 50 jets by the end of 2009."

So there is already a delay and a new financing round: +55M$.

But what about the U.S. market?
When is ETIRC offering normal support to its european customers
(U.K., Austria)?

Julius

Baron95 said...

ron said...
The single engine climb rate of the Eclipse is better than the Baron with both engines. I climb above all the weaqther. It goes almost twice as fast, twice as high, with about 25% more fuel burn. It has turbines. It is very quiet. My wife doesn't get bounced around. Regardless of what you think, It is a robust design. It lands slow. It is way easier to fly than the Baron.


Ron, please consider continuing to post and share your experiences here. Just tune out some posters like Fred that are negative for nagativity's sake, but listen to others like CW, TP, ATM, ASM, Flyger, Gunner, that ofer good couterpoints.

I'm delighted to read your post. The #1 factor that people in this Blog fail to take into account is "the alternative". For people like you and Ken that bought yours jets for $1M or so, what is the alternative? a P-Baron is one of the best. The last one left the assembly plant in 1985 - 23 years ago. Ditto for 414As, Aerostars, etc. Any of these planes with zero time engines nice interiors and semi-decent avionics but a 25 year-old airframe will cost close to $1M. ANY OEM used turbine with zero time engines would cost more than that. If you want to buy new, the TBM and Mustang cost 300% more than what you paid.

My only serious concerns with owning an Eclipse is the avionics (time has passed them by) and ongoing support due to company finances.

If you manage to get your EA500 fully upgraded with ETT+GvioNG 1.5+FIKI and Eclipse stays in business to honor the warranty, JetComplete, etc you'll be one of the smartest GA owners around.

But if Eclipse (the company) fails before that, you will be in a tough spot for a while.

Either way, you'll be flying a plane that is much better than a Baron, but from an avionics point of view will lack the features that are now common place even in entry level SE-props like DA40/C182 etc.

If I were in your shoes right now, I'd be cautiously optimistic about the prospects, but would fly the EA50 only to comfortable runways in VMC or "easy" IMC only.

So - continue to enjoy your plane - Going from a P-Baron to an EA500 must have made you an incredible proud owner and pilot and you have every right to celebrate your achievment and enjoy it with your family and friends.

Be aware of the potential pitfals: Rotate exactly at VR, land exactly at Vref, easy on the brakes, stay away from short runways, don't go into stressful IMC until all the AP disconnects and false CAS are resolved, don't do IMC approaches to minimuns til Gavio 1.5, etc and you will be fine. No need to be paranoid like people here are trying to convince you to be. The wings will not fall out at the first gust.

It is just like any other plane, it has limitations (mostly avionics) and it has some traits that require a bit of extra caution.

Again - thanks for posting and continue to enjoy your plane. Your choice still has a chance of turning out to be a great one.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

ATM said:

The rig should have been designed such that it would never fail before the test-subject.

You beat me to it brother, Eclipse should have designed a better test rig or, in their review of an outsourced test effort, should have insisted on a better rig - PERIOD.

Test to permanent deformation and/or failure provides validation of mathematical models and predictions - all good info to have.

If the test was to 150%, and the rig broke at 152% (just an example), than what do we really know about the underlying aircraft design?

Given the wide variety of build quality seen in pictures and alluded to in posts here and on the Owner's Forum and in the testimony before a House committee investigation, I would not have a warm-fuzzy about the ultimate strength of the 'average' Eclipse.

Baron95 said...

DB said ... Any comments about fastening issues in composite airframes?

I (and Boeing) have lots oc comments on it - how many weeks do you have? ;)

Seriously though, it turned out to be a non-event and the 787 composite pieces are using mostly standard fastening components and techniques. The only issue (for Boeing) has been getting enough of the fasteners from Alcoa.

BTW, this is not leading edge technology. Lots of planes before the 787 have used a misx of composite and metal parts that get fastened together.

As for FSW, again, it is a non-event. Some people here are believeing too much Eclipse's hype. It is just another metal joining technique. Once the join is made and tested that is it - nothing to it.

airsafetyman said...

From the Ruskie bank's own English website: "Vnesheconombank is expected to finance the project in full the total value of which is 205 million US dollars".

The key word here is "IS EXPECTED", as in after x,y and z have been accomplished. Would Roel change the wording in his own press release and try and stampede investors into believing its a done deal? Would Roel do that? Noooooo! And what FAA stooge would sign off on the Ruskie plant? The three morons in the Congressional hearing?

Dave said...

As for FSW, again, it is a non-event. Some people here are believeing too much Eclipse's hype. It is just another metal joining technique. Once the join is made and tested that is it - nothing to it.

Baron I believe what was being said about FSW (as well as Eclipse's design margin, etc) had to do with how well their manufacturing process works. I believe specifically that Gadfly was saying that it wasn't FSW that was inherently bad, but that problems could creep in if the manufacturing process wasn't exacting and given what else we've heard about Eclipse's manufacturing process such things can't be taken for granted. All of Eclipse's manufacturing techniques are being called into question - FSW or not. Consider what we've heard about the riveting techniques that Eclipse has used...

Dave said...

And what FAA stooge would sign off on the Ruskie plant? The three morons in the Congressional hearing?

You'd think that would give Hayes a heart attack since he ranted and raved so much about keeping the US aviation industry competitive and sending jobs to Russia to benefit a Dutch company wouldn't exactly help US aviation...except then the US aviation industry can then US Eclipse as a foil to compare themselves to.

Deep Blue said...

B95:

Thanks. It is interesting that Alcoa has such an apparent lock on fastners (no pun intended).

Why is that in your experience?

You'd think if anything could be made in volume and low cost, it might be various fastner products. With the likely high margins AL is extracting from their market positon, you'd also think the fastner market would be flooded with competitors (esp. for a such a relatively low-tech product--I do appreciate however the inherent design, material and engineering quality that must be maintained.

Baron95 said...

fred said...
i believe i have more or less a clue about what can be good or not for Europe...

once in London , the closet Airport (Heatrow) is what ?


Aparently you don't. If you had a clue, you'd know you'd be landing a London City wich is, well, ZERO miles from the City ;)

In any event, private jets are rarelly a compeling choice for HUB-HUB or major-airport to major airport flying.

Youe examples show you have no concept of how biz airplanes are used.

Try in your example being a France Telecom engineer flying from Rennes (CNET) to meet with a British Telecom counterpart in Ipswich. Driving time to the local airports is close to ZERO in many cases. You don't need to arrive at the airport 2 ours before to account for security and traffic. Your private plane will NEVER ever leave without you, no matter how late you are, and it will depart as soon as you arrive if ou arrive early. You don't need to change your reservations or scramble to find a hotel if your meeting runs late - your plane will always be there waiting for you. You can fly with ALL the liquids you want. You can fly with ALL the tools and metal that you want to carry. You, particularly if you are a female, will not be subject to your purse and bags with all your private and personal items to be open in plain view and have a person that stuck his/her hands in thousands of bags sticking their hands on your intimate items.

Fred - you clearly have no clue about how a personal plane is used for business or pleasure and all the advantages.

There is ABSOLUTELY no question on the desireability of private plane travel/ownership. It is just a matter of afordability.

If people could afford private plane travel like they can afford private car travel, you'd see public transportation (airline flying) be a small percentage of total travel just like buses, and subways and trains are a small percentatge of total travel today even in Europe - I think it is less than 2%.

I really wished you'd spend your itme to be better informed. You are obviously an intelligent and accomplished individual. Please don't put down personal air travel in Europe just because you want so bad to be anti-Eclipse. We need people like yourself to be a positive force in making personal flying more attainable in Europe.

(With that I conclude my quarterly response to Fred's posts)

Baron95 said...

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...
As to Ron's question about why the focus on Eclipse - I think the recent House testimony should address that


CW et all, I think we need to make sure we separate the way things once were from the way things are. The house testimony was primarily about events that transpired in the summer of 2006 - 2 years ago.

Some of those issues (e.g. no-flaps approach speed being incorrect on flight manual) have been fixed and some (e.g. high workload due to incomplete avionics) remain.

Ron and Ken and the other 250 owners have some key interests:

1 - When will my plane be brought up to "final" config Gavio 1.5+FIKI+ETT?

2 - How will my plane going to be supported afterwards.

Very early owners, should also ask:

3 - Are there any un-acceptable/shody work on my plane and have it corrected. I'm not too concerned about this, because the early planes have been in service for over a year and presumably have gone through at least one annual/C-check by an A&P in the field, plus have accumulated 100+hours. So any shody work should have been fixed.

I think it would be good for us to keep things separate.

Baron95 said...

Shane said... Think about it. Before they can show the Russians they are ready to INVEST in the new plant, they have to find a combined $1.1 BILLION.


I think you double counted there - something like 3/4 of the 2008 loss should already be in the liabilities.

But point well taken. Eclipse needs another $0.5-0.6B to make it to the point where they are building planes in Russia.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Baron, we will have to agree to disagree about the build quality and company culture issues.

There is absolutely no evidence that the fundamental issues discussed in the testimony on the Hill has been addressed in any significant way.

Recent photos out of ABQ, GNV and elsewhere show oversize fasteners, ground adjustable trim tabs and wedges, paint, filler, etc., this points to remaining issues re: build quality.

You and I remain in violent agreement about the software and avionics related issues.

The problem remains the apparent lack of a safety culture and the continued pushing of incomplete and partially functional tin out the door.

gadfly said...

baron and Dave

Years ago, in hard financial times, I bought a used Chrysler product. In the morning, I would punch in “neutral” on the push-button transmission control, start the engine, and clear the neighborhood of mosquitos for three blocks in all directions. By the time the “blue screen of death” cleared, I was at work . . . and down a quart of oil.

A few years later, I purchased a new VW “Dasher”, and was told that it was a normal thing to burn a quart of oil every 400 miles . . . even read it coming directly from the VW factory.

To borrow a phrase, ‘As for FSW (. . . or in the case of oil consumption) again, it is a non-event.’

Then, I began driving Honda’s and Toyota products . . . presently a couple “Lexus” (or is it “Lexi” in the plural . . . never can remember), and am surprised if I detect even a slight change in oil level between 10,000 mile oil changes.

In either case, it’s a “non-event” . . . each car got me to my destination, most of the time . . . but the difference in quality and manufacturing excellence indicated by the amount of oil used made a profound impression on me.

Maybe the “FSW” connections will hold . . . only time and usage will tell . . . but based on the other indicators, I’ll stick with the dinosaurs, thank you! Half the fun is getting there . . . and having total trust in the method of travel.

gadfly

(But I must admit . . . it sure was an exciting event, to watch an Albuquerque neighborhood disappear right before my eyes in a cloud of blue smoke . . . quicker than a coastal fog in Orange County, California.)

Baron95 said...

gadfly said...
it seems to me to be most unwise to use it in a highly stressed airframe. ‘How ‘bout using it for “one way missiles” for a few years, where long life is not a requirement?!


WHAT!!!???!!! Gad, where do you get this stuf? Long life not a requirement for missiles? Eclipse a "higly-stressed" airframe. I'm starting to have serious doubts about your so called "experience".

Do you have any idea about the requirement and the life cycle of a missile? Pick any one and think about it.

How about a Navy Slammer D. Lets see. It will spend years, and years, aand years being:

- Repeatedly mounted/unmounted on Rhinos and SuperBugs.

- Splashed by salty water/rain.

- Lauched at 6Gs from steam catapluts, landing at 5Gs from arrester cables, turning at 7Gs under the wings of the Bugs.

- Going from a balmy 110F at the Gulf or Indian ocean to -65F in 2 minutes or so.

Then, if that sucker ever gets fired for real, it will go for 30+miles while doing turns at 12-15gs and it has to work to save the pilots life.

How about a SM-3 missile, sloshing in the oceans for years and then have to leave a tube at 9G to save the lives of 5,000 people on a carrier.

Geez.

FSW is just another metal joining technique. If there are field problems, it will be addressed by SBs or ADs, just like riveting, chemical bonding, etc are. Nothing really remarkable there. Only Eclipse chose to make a big "new-tech" deal of it. You are falling for it.

Don't.

Baron95 said...

airtaximan said...
DB,

ever see a test rig fail?

The rig should have been designed such that it would never fail before the test-subject.


Where do you guys come up with this stuff??? This is totally ridiculous. A test rig is designed to achieve a test point. For certification purposes, so long as the test rig enabled the wing to demonstrated 150% of 3.8G load it is done.

As I said in a different post, there may be reasons to proceed past that point to learn/calibrate FEM/FEA models.

It has been very common for test rigs to fail prior to wings failing - Mooney for example chooses to boast about that to this day. Early composite wings were almost impossible to break because of all the "margin" on top of "margins" that were put there.

If Eclipse took their wings much beyond 150% with no permanent deformation/failure, then they didn't do their job. If the test rig failed, say at the equivalent of 7 or 8 Gs vs around 6gs or so, it is irrelevant. There is very little you can learn if your model is that far off. Most of the datapoints would have come from the sensors and deformation measurements way before that anyway.

AGAIN: Test rigs fail ALL the time prior to structure failure. It means nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Joe Patroni said...

Deep Blue...

You need to figure on using a "pull" fastener (Huck, Cherrymax) in a composite panel, especially if it is carrying any kind of load.

You can also drive an "A" rivet (dead soft), or maybe a "B" (a little harder), depending on the size of the hole and the thickness of the composite panel.....but I wouldn't use them anywhere except for a Non-structural panel (access panel, wing fairing, etc.

Either way, a hydraulic "C" sqeeze is better than hand driven. Hand driving can start delamination around the fastener, if care is not taken.

Another not-well-known fact.....many composite panels made by the OEMs have aluminum strips embedded in the assemblies, usually to give a screw or fastener something to "bear" against. These pieces MUST be phosphate-anodized, or epoxy primed before going into a composite assembly. If the aluminum starts corroding for any reason, eventually the aluminum will seperate from the composite material.

See, us airplane-fixer types have a lot more to think about than you thought we did. :)

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Baron,

Reliability requirements for manned vs unmanned systems are different, very different, and common reliability calculations and predictions make sometimes significant allowances for environment (e.g., atmosphere or space, combat or peacetime, overland or maritime - just to name a few).

This is an apples to oranges comparison.

Gad's point is spot on, what is OK for an unmanned combat system is not necessarily OK for a manned commercial aircraft - from a pure reliability standpoint or a basic design standpoint.

I believe Eclipse has worked out an approach for the corrosion issues Gad has brought up concerns about, but it is not a rational comparison to look at unmanned combat systems and then apply it to manned commercial aircraft.

gadfly said...

baron

Very good point(s) . . . and you have fully expressed almost everything that I would have liked to say, and much more . . . but since it came from you, maybe the "faithful" will get a clue.

And, see, you DO understand the extreme dangers of corrosion . . . and you DO have a concern for the lives of those working with these flying contraptions.

Thank you for making a strong point . . . many points, if fact . . . and you get full credit.

"FSW" needs time to mature, before lives depend on the process, especially, on highly stressed airframes carrying loved ones (or "explosives" and "flammables") in corrosive environments.

gadfly

(Please do carry on . . . you're making the point in a most excellent manner. And I do not feel threatened nor insulted. In fact, this little discussion is achieving one of the most important reasons for the existence of this "blogsite".)

(Now, I notice you're on a 'kick' about test fixtures . . . you're leaving yourself wide open on that one, friend. Been there, done that . . . 'had some basic experience in such animals . . . design and manufacturing and testing . . . be careful to not get in over your head. You might wish to stop while you're ahead.)

FreedomsJamtarts said...

If you take 300 European orders, subtract Etric own circle jerk orders, subtract Alpha Airways, and JetSetAir - how many orders are left?

None!

Pure unadulterated BS.

Once they have EASA certification, they will get 2000 orders.

Wishful thinking.

This all reeks of the worlds worst perfume....


Desperation!

Baron95 said...

Deep Blue said...
B95:

Thanks. It is interesting that Alcoa has such an apparent lock on fastners (no pun intended).

Why is that in your experience?


DB, this blog is probably not the right place for this discussion. You can search airliners.net forum for the 787 fastener problem and you will get a lot of opinions that are much more valuable than mine.

My "experience" is extremely limited when it comes to fasteners. My interest is in the strategy used by Boeing in the outsourcing of the 787 design and production and their failure to secure enough fasteners to assemble EVEN ONE FREAKING PLANE - LN001.

So lets table this discussion on this blog, except as it relate to the point of how the fasteners were applied to Eclipse, which seems to have a fair amount of interest

(not by me - as I am totally unconcerned about that aspect of the EA500 - poor build quality is just a fact of life in GA - e.g. Malibu's and Meridians have left the factory with dozends of fasteners simply not installed in the presure vessel - that on a 80 year old established mannufacturer - people posting here that think the poor fastener installation is an Eclipse-only issue have no clue about GA mannufacturing)

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Shane,

Could you please add links to each of the Subcommitee hearing testimony and the FAA SCR onto the home page?

Deep Blue said...

As a non-engineer may I respectfully add that missles do not typically pressurize and de-pressurize per se; they do not sustain atmospheres for human environmental needs; I do not believe they have "cycles" like passenger tubes. This is probably the most central issue in airframe stress and integrity.

Baron95 said...

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...
Baron, we will have to agree to disagree about the build quality and company culture issues.


I don't think we disagree on that. I do believe there are serious build quality issues persisting to this day at Eclipse. My only point is that, unfortunately, that is par for the course in light GA mannufacturing.

Deep Blue said...

B95: fair enough.

May I ask your views on outsourcing? I believe this was a central strategic failure on Boeing's part. As for EAC or other GA OEMs it may be instructive.

Thanks.

Shadow said...

Baron said: "If you had a clue, you'd know you'd be landing a London City wich is, well, ZERO miles from the City ;)"

Baron, if YOU had a clue, you'd know that London City requires individual aircraft types to be approved for the 5 degree steep approach into the airport. The Eclipse 500 hasn't gone through this approval process, so that airport is off limits to EA-500 operators.

Speaking of approvals, I'm still waiting for EASA certification that was promised "by the end of summer". It's now officially fall. Perhaps this approval will come next Tuesday, which I believe is the same day that suppliers will be paid and refunds issued to customers.

Baron95 said...

Gad said ... Maybe the “FSW” connections will hold . . . only time and usage will tell . . . but based on the other indicators, I’ll stick with the dinosaurs, thank you!

Gad, by your analogy, you should continue to drive old chrysler cars with no SW to speak of, but all the bad traits.

The fact that you "evolved" and are now driving cars with such tight piston/cylinder tolerances that not a single oil molecule dare squeeze by, which necessitates such precise computer controlled spark and fuel delivery with multiple processors and a couple of million lines of SW, shows that the "new way" could work.

Now transport yourself back to 1989 when the first LS400 came on the market.

Ken and Ron took a gamble and jumped on the Jap luxury car. They had a wondeful experience for a lot less money than it was previously possible in that price range.

You played it save and bought a Chrysler K-car. You had a horrible but predictable experience that gave you some comfort.

TP, Wytech, TBM-R-Us, bought the much more expensive S-Class. They had a great experience becasue they had the additional means ($$$) to spend on it.

Who came out on top?

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Baron95 wrote.
As for FSW, again, it is a non-event. Some people here are believing too much Eclipse's hype. It is just another metal joining technique. Once the join is made and tested that is it - nothing to it.

If a real manufacturer qualified it that may be the case.

Considering:

1/ People on the shop floor are telling us that Eclipse does not have conformity under control, and

2/ The FAA production inspectors are telling the Senate that Eclispe does not have conformity under control, and is signing off conformity without inspecting for it, and

3/ Vern quoted one of his managers saying "the quality of these planes is crap" in his submission to a US court.

What facts give you the warm fuzzy feeling that the Stir fried load/ fatigue and damage tolerance testing was performed accurately, and that the results of this testing has any relevance to a non-conforming production eclipse?

Why do you think (established) welding processes are subjected to such high inspection standards in aviation? It takes a level three NDT inspector to define the inspection regime for any load bearing aviation weld.

Here you have a pressure vessel welded with a new and novel process, from a company that can't even follow the instructions for installing a Huck?

airtaximan said...

Baron,

yes, you are correct test rig fail all the time, but not "before" the test article, unless it was designed improperly... but his I mean, they tried to test to a point, but the rig failed, right?

I imagine they tried for a reason... to say, the rig failed before the test article, means it could have been better designed.

That's all.

Its a stupid comment, and means nothing from a "part" test stand point.

I made my point poorly, but stand by the resoning. If they couldn't design the test rig to withstand higher loads than the article, there's probably a problem. Also, if they brag about it, as if it means something regarding the test article... they are wrong, again.

Its a meaningless statement.

Dave said...

Gad, by your analogy, you should continue to drive old chrysler cars with no SW to speak of, but all the bad traits.

Baron I think you're still missing what other bloggers are saying. They are saying that they don't trust the manufacturing processes of Eclipse given what they've heard, not that they'd for instance be against FSW if it was used in the Mustang (because people trust the Mustang manufacturing process moreso than the Eclipse manufacturing process).

Baron95 said...

Gad said... Now, I notice you're on a 'kick' about test fixtures . . . you're leaving yourself wide open on that one, friend. Been there, done that . . . 'had some basic experience in such animals . . . design and manufacturing and testing . . . be careful to not get in over your head. You might wish to stop while you're ahead.

Just so we are clear. I claim NO-NONE-NADA direct hands-on expertise on test rigs (though I do have some process expertise). Like you Gad, I like to always be totally open. I have no issues on having a point I made be corrected by another blogger. That is how I learn. This is an OPINION/Entertainment site. I have plenty of those. It this was a FACTUAL or more formal forum, I'd be much more careful with anything I wrote.

I sincerely hope that NO ONE is foolish enough to base any decision of consequence on anything that I write here. I am entertaining myself in this blog. I'm learning, provoking, etc.

I try not to be reckless or wildly innacurate in my posts, but neither am I being careful to be always accurate or ballanced either - that would be work, not fun.

And in case I haven't said it recently, sir, despite my provocative jabs, I do respect you and almost all posters here. I may disgree with a point you make, but I value and read with interest your points. But some times, I think it is expected in Blocs to make hyperbolic statements, so I am trying a few myself to see if I like them.

It is cool how over these last few months I feel like I can almost tell what some member will say next ;)

Cheers, Gad. And please DO send a missile down any opening you see. ;)

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Baron95 wrote Now transport yourself back to 1989 when the first LS400 came on the market.

Ken and Ron took a gamble and jumped on the Jap luxury car. They had a wonderful experience for a lot less money than it was previously possible in that price range.

You played it save and bought a Chrysler K-car. You had a horrible but predictable experience that gave you some comfort.

TP, Wytech, TBM-R-Us, bought the much more expensive S-Class. They had a great experience because they had the additional means ($$$) to spend on it.

Who came out on top?


That is a lame example Baron. The Lexus was built by Toyota, which in 1989 already had a couple of decades of automotive experience behind them, with an ever growing reputation for quality. The move into the luxury market was barely more than a marketing risk.

A better parallel would have been to have had Ken and Ron buy a Moller sky car (I would guess he must have got started selling the kool aid back about then.

WhyTech said...

"Kind of like great sex with a woman who is HIV-positive."

Now there is a graphic, easily understood statement!

WhyTech said...

"It is cool how over these last few months I feel like I can almost tell what some member will say next ;)"

Works both ways!

metal guy said...

Baron Said: ... early planes have been in service for over a year and presumably have gone through at least one annual/C-check by an A&P in the field ...

You’re assuming that Eclipse has not forbid A&P’s from opening panels for inspection purposes.

Baron95 said...

Deep Blue said...
As a non-engineer may I respectfully add that missles .... I do not believe they have "cycles" like passenger tubes.


Yes they do. Missiles have required checks and inspections, hours on wing, hours on storage, max cycles, etc. Just like a plane. As a matter of fact they may have more, as you'd expect, given the conditions they operate in.

You think it is bad if an EA500 uselage would fail and depresurize in flight? Think about what would happen if a Slammer C shel were to fail and that missele warhead went skiping on a carrier deck on a 5G landing and hit a bunch of parked and fueled F18-s - that my friend, is a bad day.

The FAA is in a battle with the DoD on certification/standards from some UAVs.

gadfly said...

baron et al: (That means, “All the rest of you readers . . . pay close attention . . . I don’t stutter”!)

We bought that old “K” car from a friend, because we were “broke” . . . in 1970 we had little on which to survive in Albuquerque, and for $75, even that “K” car seemed a bargain . . . and it was “double ugly”.

But concerning the rest of the discussion . . . we could all take a combative attitude, based more on emotion, etc., than sound reason. At my age . . . I’m creeping up on 71 in a few days . . . correction: make that coming up “full throttle”, “pedal to the metal” . . . and I have little patience for silly arguments and discussion based on “PMS” type feelings.

We, who call ourselves “professionals” in the field of aviation, and have loved the industry for these many years, have been threatened by an “upstart” . . . let me rephrase that: “We have been attacked by someone who has violated the many things that have been won at high cost, in lives and fortunes . . . and just plain old day to day hard work and an effort to do the right thing.”

Basically, there is little loyalty between the many who gather at this water hole . . . there seems to be an attitude that this is the Serengeti . . . and only the “hippos” or the “zebra” or the “wildebeest” can survive until the next season of rain.

Folks, general aviation has a supply of water, sufficient for “all”. It is (remotely) possible, for us to share the problems, and concerns of design, manufacturing, . . . even the finances of our “love”, without attacking each other. If such a thing should happen, the “phoney money” is easy to detect.

Once, someone asked, “How do you know a counterfeit . . . do you study all the counterfeits?” “No, you study the real thing . . . and the counterfeit becomes obvious.”

Whether in the area of “religions”, or “phoney money”, or among the businesses that claim a new form of aircraft, study the “real thing”, pay close attention to proven detail, and you will generally not go wrong.

gadfly

(And now, will the ushers come forward and take up the offering?! Yeh, we never miss an opportunity to fleece . . . er, feed the flock!)

Dave said...

Roel Pieper being caught in an obvious lie with the size of the order book with what he said today:
"DayJet was removed from our order book months ago," he said. "That's why we can safely say, although we don't like it, all of our plans have been adjusted."
On the optimistic side, Pieper said DayJet could get sold or restarted, thus activating the orders once again. But the loss of the orders means less of a wait for the buyers of the remaining 900 jets on order.


But this is what Roel said about the size of the order book last month on 8/26/08:
According to various U.S. media would be the major reason for the dismissal of the financial crisis in the United States, bringing the number of orders has fallen significantly and even some customers have withdrawn their orders. But according to Pieper is not. "There is a huge increase in orders. We have more than 2,400 orders now. Therefore, we must produce more. Eclipse is even an extra factory in Russia to build the orders to do.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.quotenet.nl/biz/wereldrecord_jets_bouwen_roel_pieper.php&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=18&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522roel%2Bpieper%2522%2Band%2B2400%2Band%2Beclipse%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
How do you know Roel is lying? His lips are moving.

Baron95 said...

Yes ATM we are in sync - either way that is tangential to the EA500.

The structure is certified. Whatever data they got, they got, hopefully it was instrumented properly and they exceeded 150% by a healthy margin and have good datapoints for the future. If they didn't, no great loss.

Incidently, you should know that Eclipse is attempting to get a 5 lbs (that is right five) GW increase. Obviously by analysis - so that will be the first use of the test data. Of course that is such a small increase that the FAA is not even going to bother reading the substantiation.

The reason is to compensate for the weight increse of the G400Ws in the Gavio 1.5 version.

In case you didn't notice, I'm using Gavio to mean AvioNG+G400s.

Baron95 said...

Deep Blue said...
B95: fair enough.

May I ask your views on outsourcing? I believe this was a central strategic failure on Boeing's part. As for EAC or other GA OEMs it may be instructive.


Here to stay on most new clean sheet design. Spirit will design and build the G650 wing and the Cessna Columbus fuselage for example.

The novelty is the degree of outsourcing of the "design" itself, not just mannufacture, and the degree of "investment" a.k.a. risk-sharing being required.

787, G650, Cessna Columbus, A350 risk sharing partners, take the risk and investment on the design and production facilities, and then make money (hopefully) as the planes are sold. These up-front investments can total several hundred million to a few billion dollars.

Eclipse, in a sense, was a head of the curve for GA. They tried (and failed) to outsource design, certification of the airframe to Williams, the avionics to Avidyne, etc. What they failed to do, was sign them up as primarily risk-sharing partners. Instead, they paid them money to do it.

On the other hand, if Spirit fails to deliver section 41 for the 787 or if MHI failed to deliver the wing-box to Boeing they'd be out of their own money.

And that is where credibility comes in. Vern will never ever again be able to drive a risk-sharing program in aviation. Boeing will, because when they were late, on their side they stepped up to the plane (somewhat) to help mitigate the losses of the risk-sharing partners.

Baron95 said...

Shadow said...
Baron, if YOU had a clue, you'd know that London City requires individual aircraft types to be approved for the 5 degree steep approach into the airport.


Where in my post did I say that you were going to London City by EA500? I was making a statement on the utility of using GA planes in Europe.

London City 5% slope is planned for all Biz Jets that are serious about selling into that market. For example, Embraer is planing to have London City approval for the Phenom out of the gate - it is that important, well understood and not an issue for VLJs (other than you need to certify the profile).

And do you or Fred have a clue about the restriction (and expense if you get past the restriction) associated with landing a VLJ on LHR (the airport he said had to be used)?

So, on this one, I do have a clue. I think you also have a clue, but Fred has absolutely no clue.

Shadow said...

Sorry, B95, my bad. Thought this was the Eclipse 500 critic site, not the VLJ critic site. Assumed you were talking about the Eclipse 500, not VLJs in general. Won't make that mistake again. (roll eyes)

Baron95 said...

FJM said ... Why do you think (established) welding processes are subjected to such high inspection standards in aviation? It takes a level three NDT inspector to define the inspection regime for any load bearing aviation weld.

Here you have a pressure vessel welded with a new and novel process, from a company that can't even follow the instructions for installing a Huck?


Freadom, you are just helping make my point. FSW is probably the ONLY part of ABQ EA500 assembly that is highly automated and has less variability than any welding or hand pulled riveting could ever had at Eclipse.

If I had serious concerns about the EA500 structural integrity, which I don't, I'd be looking about all those areas that are notoriously hard to do consistently before I'd even waste time on FSW. Just because it is new doesn't mean it is harder to do consistently. On the contrary. You introduce something new usually to simplfy and enhance repeatability.

airtaximan said...

gavio... a new favorite word, invented rigth here... congrats!

Vernacular, AVIONG, flyantologly, e-clips, Con-jet, die-hards, now Gavio...

I LIKE it!

PS. AVweb basically reporting the hearings have only just begun.

I think this program and plane are becoming the "tar baby" of the industry.

Perhaps, n the spirit of Republican Socialism the US gov't will PAY a foreign government to save the US aerospace industry, regulatory agencies, and the US public in general, from further harm, cost and socio-economic dammage... and pay Russia to take over EAC as a bailout??

...bad humor... sorry

Baron95 said...

Freadomjam said ... That is a lame example Baron. The Lexus was built by Toyota, which in 1989 already had a couple of decades of automotive experience behind them, with an ever growing reputation for quality.

I guess you are right - I see the limitations of the example. Moller maybe to extreme also. I think a better example might be the Tesla electric sports car.

But these analogies rarelly add much. I just did cars cause Gad started. It is his fault ;)

gadfly said...

You know what? . . . I’d hate to be in a burning building with these folks. By the time they determined how many stories were on fire . . . and who and what started the blaze, the fire department would be coiling up the hoses, heading back to the station, and writing up the reports.

“Back in the olden times”, our crew aboard the sub (the “boat”) “got after it” on a few occasions . . . and that’s why the “gadfly” is here to harass all you folks . . . don’t you hate it when that happens?

gadfly

(Did he say “sync”? . . . I thought he said “sink” . . . some words ‘just initiate a certain response among us submariners! Now if he had said, “Dive, Dive!”, I’d thought we’d have some peace and quiet for awhile.

Now, this one that calls himself, “Deep Blue” . . . he can’t be all that bad . . . anyone who has actually been in the “deep blue” of the Pacific knows what a wonderful place it is . . . and I mean down in the deep blue hundreds of miles from the nearest . . . anything . . . even the sub was a hundred yards away. There’s nothing much there but the far off bottom of the ocean . . . and with that memory in mind, I only saw a similar thing, once, looking up from a “Lear” at 49,000 feet . . . either way, the experience is never to be forgotten . . . and I don’t want to see anything, even an “upstart phoney company”, taking that experience away from future generations.)

Baron95 said...

Hey - guys - thanks for saving me from one of the most boring meetings of my life.

How boring? Just count the number of B95 posts today.

I now return to do real work and spare you of any more missile and FSW discussions.

Have a great evening everyone.

gadfly said...

baron

You are right . . . I started it . . . I'm to blame . . . no question about it.

gadfly

('Just one little question, please. What is the latest accusation? . . . I lost my pencil and I'm not all that great at taking notes . . . throughout school, I was always drawing pictures of airplanes and submarines . . . and watching the seagulls gliding out over the playground there in Burbank.)

julius said...

baron95,

you had been at London City Airport - direct from U.S . or southern France? I used the airport only twice.

Just to remind you:
WWW.visitlondon.com



Julius

Shane Price said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Patroni said...

There seems to be a lot of commentary along the lines of "If you don't like the airplane, then ignore it...it has nothing to do with you".

Which would be true, if the airplane had none of these (alleged) design and production issues, then it would just be (IMO) an airplane with a limited performance envelope, when compared to it's competition. The airplane probably fits the needs of some people perfectly.

The problem is, that it (appears) to have design and production issues that aren't going to be fixed any time soon, if ever. My concern is the follow-up knee-jerk reaction by the FAA and lawyers if/when these airplanes are involved in "incidents"

Crap always rolls down hill in this business. Just ask the Part 135 guys about the stuff rolling downhill after the Challenger@ Teterboro deal. When the Feds end up finishing their review of every 135 operation in the country, and force the changes they want implemented, there are going to be a lot fewer Part 135 airplanes out there. It's going to be a lot more hassle to operate a 135 airplane than it's worth.

The OEMs have design and manufacturing down to a point where they can predict the performance of a specific design within 1-2% before the first piece of aluminum is cut. The down side to this, is that the airplanes are manufactured to much tighter tolerances than they were before, and the repair tolerances are a lot tighter.

This is why I'd be concerned about having confidence that the people designing the airplane knew enough to design a structure properly, and spec out the correct fasteners, and that the people building and maintaining said airplane were trained to identify the correct fastener, and install it correctly.

The good news is that one individual fastener typically isn't enough to cause problems. It becomes more of a concern if you are worried about a bunch of fasteners.

PawnShop said...

Ken and Ron took a gamble and jumped on the Jap luxury car.

Baron, I think the blog sentiment could be summed up as: "Ken and Ron took a flyer on the Sterling" - which despite platform similarities with the "equivalent" Acura, has nowhere even close to the durable qualities of the latter.

You played it save and bought a Chrysler K-car.

I don't think you'd find a pushbutton transmission on a K-car - Gad's talking more in the time frame of a 1963 Chrysler Imperial ( the ULTIMATE demolition derby car, BTW ). ( As an odd side note, that very car featured a unique climate control servo that Mercedes-Benz saw fit to use on their cars clear into the early '80s. )

Would you like the combo?
DI

PawnShop said...

Gadfly -

Good photos of the Flight 587 vertical stabilizer can be found here, and NTSB's full report is here ( danger, danger, 212 page pdf file ).

Pay at the first window,
DI

gadfly said...

DI

The second car we owned in our marriage was a '51 Plymouth . . . and I replaced the engine with a '50. I could determine speed by looking at the pavement between my feet . . . and was working for United Airlines at ORD at the time.

The second Chrysler product I ever owned . . . with the "push button" transmission, was probably a "Dodge" (by then, I think "Desoto" had gone "bye-bye") . . . with long sweeping fins, etc. I think they were considered "hard tops". "Tan and Pink" with "Blue Smoke" . . . memory is faulty at this point. Six months was enough of that game.

At least the wheels did not fall off . . . and it weighed about the same as the landing weight of the little jet . . . maybe less. And frankly, I felt safe in it . . . far safer than I would feel in the little ABQ bird.

gadfly

(And, yes, the gadfly is "nuts" . . . but he's not stupid!)

Deep Blue said...

B95:

Very nice post on outsourcing; thanks.

It is a pity indeed that EAC apparently did not actually construct all that many true risk-sharing arrangements. Having been an aviation entrepreneur trying to "break the mold" I can sympathize with VR et al in having to "buy" people/suppliers into the process, thinking it's an investment.

More patience usually does the trick, as long as your investors go along with the timing; a tough sell, typically.

gadfly said...

Thank you, DI, for the "report". Up until now, I had only seen that "brief" glance at the time of the incident, and had attempted a quick speculation of the conditions.

I'll take some time to study the report . . . not that my opinions mean much, but I do wish to learn and improve my own designs.

gadfly

(The principles of my earlier comments still apply to application of fiber/composites . . . having had much experience in both design and manufacturing of minor and major structures. Our first major construction, two 137 foot diameter "free span" transluscent domes, 18 foot high, at Winona, Minnesota, lasted about fifteen years under severe winter and wind conditions . . . it was our "first", and located on an island in the middle of the Mississippi River. The principle designer, Ray Richmond, died of cancer, last December, here near Albuquerque . . . my close friend.

His work may also be observed in the satellite tracking telescope dome in the Manzano's, just east of ABQ, and on the mountain on Maui . . . a 92 foot retractible dome for Rockwell . . . now Boeing.)

Deep Blue said...

Joe P said:

"The OEMs have design and manufacturing down to a point where they can predict the performance of a specific design within 1-2% before the first piece of aluminum is cut. The down side to this, is that the airplanes are manufactured to much tighter tolerances than they were before, and the repair tolerances are a lot tighter. This is why I'd be concerned about having confidence that the people designing the airplane knew enough to design a structure properly, and spec out the correct fasteners, and that the people building and maintaining said airplane were trained to identify the correct fastener, and install it correctly."

JP: If I understand you correctly, you seem to imply (you may very well be correct) that the inherent engineering design of the E500 is the real issue; that in addition to all the management and manufacturing issues that are vetted on this blog, that the actual "pen-to-paper" design elements (to use a phrase Gadfly might endorse) has inherent flaws and that should force the EAC team back to square 1. I'm sorry, this may have been suggested before. But obviously a central issue.

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

"Tan and Pink" with "Blue Smoke" . . . memory is faulty at this point.

Memory improving?

I could determine speed by looking at the pavement between my feet . . . and was working for United Airlines at ORD at the time.

Did you call out V speeds as you'd accelerate? A friend bought a used Skyhawk a few years back, and told me it was in lieu of a new Jaguar: "Cost the same, has the same top speed, but in the Jaguar, nothing good happens if you pull back on the steering wheel at 65 MPH."

Would you like napkins & plastic cutlery?
DI

Shane Price said...

I've used London City Airport lots of times.

Only problem is...

It's nowhere near the City of London!

No really, it's miles and miles away from the centre. Too many minutes in a taxi, and the light rail system is a poor substitute.

Try Heathrow and take the express tube (15 minutes) or Gatwick (30 minutes) instead.

However, if the stock markets continue their current tailspin, none of us will need to bother visiting the City, so the discussion becomes academic.

Oh, and the FAA audit (you know, the one delayed from August) is not going well. Not at all well...

Seems most of the people who knew what they were doing have already left EAC, and the 'answers' the FAA inspectors are getting leave something to be desired.

I can just imagine the discussions at EASA, right now.

Shane

airtaximan said...

DB,

from what I know...

the e500 design was based on "optimizing", which was interpreted as low tolerance.

this is death to a design, unless you meet the spec deadnuts on, AND the spec and design meet the market deadnutson.

(new term = dead nuts on)

Manufacturability was defined as low tolerance "precision" parts. In the real world this means HIGH REJECT RATE. Its a dumb design becasue its not practical and not low cost. High reject = high cost.

Same with the overall config... if you need to eak out every bit of performance, there's no room. In other words, the build and tolerances MUST BE close to perfect, or you should REJECT the whole shebang.

On a more important note, a la FRANKENJET, al planes are hanging brakets for engines - IF you do not optimize the design based on market requirements, someon else will make better use of the engine.. or replace your marginal design with a single, for example.

If you design a twin plane for low cost customers, and there's a comparable single... you are SOL.

So, EAC screwed the pooch - they have a jet for a prop mission... AND they have a twin for a single mission. The twins that compete, are slightly more expensive, BUT no one that really wants a twin cares about the price difference. Its insignificant, for those who really can afford a twin.

They are in no man's land - a small niche market, with no possibility of reaching higher rate and promised lower cost.

Also, there's no margin in the design, so they cannot make it any better. Better, means more competitive, a better seller.

They are ODA. with the e500.

And yes, it IS the dumb design... from many perspectives.

EA550Owner said...

Just to set the record straight, I am not "Ron". And for my first post here I might as well note that I am enjoying my airplane very much (although not as much as Ken) and I am concerned about Eclipse, past and future. Occasionally I have found the critic blog remarkably useful and occasionally I've found it to be remarkably silly and hateful. Sometimes in the same post.

P.S. Oh and BTW I invented the term "GAVIO" a few hours after Eclipse announced the Garmin kludge.

gadfly said...

Deep Blue

The “gadfly” sits, daily, near a high-end computer, using a high-end 3D CAD system, and a 24 inch hi-definition LCD monitor . . . and is presently designing a new home . . . that will be built, this time, by “others”, who understand only the basics of the lumber that comes from Home Depot, and a tape measure. It matters not that I am producing all details with double 14 point accuracy . . . humans will drive the final nails, after cutting the 2x10's with a portable saw . . . and can barely read a simple 2D layout.

If I could put the parts into our 4 axis mill, or one of our 5-axis Wirecut-EDM’s, I could build a new home to within a few ten-thousandths of an inch. But that is ridiculous! And I must watch others, this time around, build a two story home with a full basement. The first time, I did most of it . . . and “did it my way”, so to speak . . . even digging a full basement by hand and wrecking bar (for the rocks) . . . and laid most of the blocks, and wiring, plumbing, siding, hardwood floor, etc., etc.. But I’ll have to let others do it this time.

Therein seems to be the problem with the designers of Eclipse. The people that must build the thing, are barely able to understand the “old” world of manufacturing . . . with their 12 weeks of training. Yet the designers have “tuned” their design, to the 14 point accuracy of a new computer system . . . without recognizing the major difference between what can be computed, and what is possible with humans.

Often, I design machines and tools based on the accuracy of a given machine . . . and assure that all details of a given part are completed in a single set-up on that machine, knowing that even taking a part out of one machine and putting it into another machine, will compound a series of inaccuracies and variables . . . so I avoid that like the plague. Did you get that? It is of vital importance in the “new world”, where computerized machines are concerned. And it is an ongoing battle with folks trained by “old professors” that have never gotten grease under their finger nails, nor been burnt by a hot chip of 300 series stainless steel, fresh from a carbide end mill . . . without the option of stopping the machine in the middle of a long final cut.

Never, ever, move a critical part from machine to machine, if you require maximum accuracy . . . Ever! There’s a few other rules that must be followed . . . like, “mill holes”, do not drill them, nor bore them . . . and a few others that violate old concepts. But that’s for another time.

Humans never do the same thing twice . . . and to expect a finished aircraft to be the same as the computer model . . . that’s living in the land of OZ. Therein is/are the problems of the little jet in a nutshell.

Whatever is possible in a computer, is thrown overboard when humans are required to produce the computer model . . . no matter how good the intentions, nor how skilled the technician.

gadfly

(DI . . . I don't recognize the stuff in the background, but that's the car. The other one . . . the Plymouth, could keep about 10psi oil pressure in the dead of an Illinois winter for about ten minutes . . . then dropped to zero. The "new" older, 1950 engine, with a "cracked block", sealed by rust, lasted another year . . . always started, had 4x55 airconditioning, year round . . . we finally "stepped up" to a year old '62 VW bus. Those were the days, my friend . . . we thought they'd never end . . . but they did, Thank God!)

airtaximan said...

rlebel,

welcome...

thanks...

I am sure you are a cool guy.

Enjoy your plane, be careful

ATMAN

PS. we can be wrong and silly, but really not hateful... just like EAC can be wrong and silly...

right?

Black Tulip said...

Shane,

My thoughts exactly on London City Airport. Unless you are doing business at Canary Wharf, it's a long ways from anywhere and very specialized in aircraft handled. The express subway to and from Heathrow is excellent, especially since it has been running safely of late.

airtaximan said...

clarification:

"If I could put the parts into our 4 axis mill, or one of our 5-axis Wirecut-EDM’s, I could build a new home to within a few ten-thousandths of an inch"

actually, you could put parts into the hands of others, who would have to try to assemble a design that requires precision to 10ths of an inch.

BIG DIFFERENCE....

Baron95 said...

Thanks DI - just what I needed since I depart at 12:10PM EDT tomorrow on an AA A300.

On the bright side, AA will be parking all of their remaining ones this fall.

And, after the way Airbus handled that accident (publicly blaming AA training), little chance of AA ever buying an Airbus product.

P.S. I do agree with Airbus on that one. This business of picking up the wing of an airliner by jabbing the rudder was not cool.

airtaximan said...

db,

"It is a pity indeed that EAC apparently did not actually construct all that many true risk-sharing arrangements."

risk sharing is really a funny way of saying "profit sharing"... right? When the suppliers do not see the potential, its pure risk.

IOW, if someone is selling a business case / order book / config / BS story that really does not hold water... its pure risk, and the OEM (EAC) will pay for all the development.

I want to be clear... I am not saying the OEMs have all the answers. The SSBJ programs, started by entrepreneurs are looking for OEMs... and none are really stepping up - and they could be wrong.

Embraer, might have some true RSP partners on the Phenoms... I am not sure.

Just EAC were a-holes... and had more money than brains/experience/logic... so they paid their own way, and the way of all the failed technologies along the way.

Low cost taxi jet does not mean you burn $2.xB... no way. Does not mean you shun convention at every turn.. no way... does not mean you thumb your nose at the way of the industry and PAY, pay, pay.

If no one wants to pay their way onto your revenue sharing program, you are probably making a huge blunder.

airtaximan said...

"The novelty is the degree of outsourcing of the "design" itself, not just mannufacture, and the degree of "investment" a.k.a. risk-sharing being required."

man, you have nailed it on this one, for sure.

Sourcing is the key. Choose the wrong supplier and you are dead.

Sound familiar?

You pay their way - you are dead.. sound familiar?

The single greatest reason to select a manufacturing RSP partner is the involvement in the design from the manufacturers (expertise) perspective.

Want to get it right... let them pay. Let them agree with the business case. Let them decide how to make it. Let them be responsibel.

EAC got this all wrong. ALL of it.

gadfly said...

Actually, taximan, we developed a system of tool design, that if followed, allows anyone of the most primitive skills, to assemble the parts, with near zero variation in final assembly.

After a four or five year battle with GE over the system, they now use it in the manufacture of certain critical parts of their engines . . . and in their inspection fixtures, exceeding the accuracy of their Coordinate Measuring Machines. In fact, the design is such, that no error can be induced by the person assembling the units . . . parts are completely interchangable, and there is no adjustment provided, nor allowed, for the life of the device. Certain workers hate us . . . because if they intentionally damage a part of a tool, a replacement is made overnight, and put back into place . . . as if nothing ever happened.

It has no size limit . . . and before I learned of the operation of Eclipse, I would have gladly shared the system with them . . . imagine, a set of "jigs" to maintain an accurate consistancy between each and every airframe, throughout the manufacturing . . . pardon me, the "assembly" process. And it would also apply to the basic airframe as well. But I decided early on that I wanted no part with the management and "pay schedule", thank you!

The technology is free for the asking . . . or rather, for the time it takes to spend a few days learning at our facility. It was too good to keep secret and patent . . . someday, it may be SOP. Until then, the "old timers" are slow to learn.

gadfly

metal guy said...

Gadfly,
Can I get an invite to visit your shop someday?

gadfly said...

Jeff Bethel

Consider yourself invited. Get the info through Shane . . . there's still a slight shadow over some of us from the time we were being sought by his majesty. One of these days, it won't much matter.

gadfly

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

ATM, your bringing up the SSBJ is an interesting point.

The concept that Barents' Aerion SSBJ program is attempting is basically to license the detail design and production of an aircraft (seriously cool BTW) based on Aerion's supersonic aerodynamics.

I believe that the Charlie Foxtrot at Eclipse is responsible in part for the difficulty Aerion is having in attracting an OEM partner, even though they have deposits in on over $2B worth of aircraft.

I like this concept for the SSBJ (licensing/outsourcing), but it is slowing the project down tremendously - in fact, I think the new G650 will end up owning the market the Aerion was aimed at given time-to-market advantages.

I really want to see Aerion succeed but their reliance on finding a partner with the vision and the capital strength to carry it out is a weakness.

If ever built, it will be a beast for sure, it is dead sexy.

airtaximan said...

gad,

next time, I expect a "taximan - for a guy who knows nothing about manufacturing...biy, you sure are right about this!!!!"

happy to pay straight man, for you.

Reality is, I an probably one of the least educated people regarding this subject, on this blog - BUT, i think and pay a lot of attention.

Tell me I am close to correct, in most cases, and I'll be happy to listen and learn more.

ATMAN

airtaximan said...

CW,

most of the rest of the world is comfortable outsourcing... how come Aerion cannot get'er done?

Probably becasue of technical risk... or maybe NIH... who knows?

They may have to wait until the next economic turnaround... another 5 years or so before anyone jumps on it.

Yes, the 650 might claim the market - developed/produced in house by Gulfstream - low(er) risk.... and they will sell a lot.

How about a no shit low cost, low risk, higher volume category killer cabin and op spec air taxi plane?

Compete with real jets, not props?
Ever going to happen?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

ATM,

Aerion's challenge is they want to license the detail design and production of the whole F'ing plane - that takes big cajones to belly up to the bar on IMO - Eclipse has sucked up $1.5B, with a need for at least another $500M plus the funds recently announced for the Glorious People's Eclipski Plant.

As for your twinjet air taxi, think Sierra Industries just certified the plane you are talking about - Williams FJ-44 powered and glass-cockpit updated Citation II.

I think that platform for on-demand mid to long range flights, coupled with existing props for short haul - in a hybrid service model would kick ass and take names (are you listening SATSAir?).

metal guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Total Eclipse said...

If some company has dumped hundreds of millions into a new design - any design - barring a modern day Edsel, the chances of it not being salvageable are minimal. I wouldn't be as concerned about IOUs for instrumentation, software, tires, etc. as I would about the propulsion, and that's one area of the E500 that I know was in good hands with P&W Canada and their PW610F engines. Not to say that Williams isn't a great engine as well, but at least Vern didn't try and go into uncharted territory there. I also think that Vern's team encouraged all their electronics suppliers to come up with designs that were innovative, as robust as possible, and especially low cost, but never at the expense of safety. For instance, if you look at the FADEC engine controllers, the boards are something you might see on a military program, not a GA plane.

gadfly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...

If some company has dumped hundreds of millions into a new design - any design - barring a modern day Edsel, the chances of it not being salvageable are minimal.

I believe time will tell one way or the other.

gadfly said...

airtaximan

The best educated man is one who admits ignorance on a given subject, and begins asking questions, and works at understanding. The person with an “empty tank” has the most to gain by going after the answers.

Remember a silly little phrase, and it may take you far:

“Ignorance can be fixed, but stupid is forever.”

Or said another way, “Ignorance is a condition . . . stupid is a choice.”

Sometimes it would have been nice, if I had some diplomas on the wall, but it was better that I gained knowledge, and put it to use. And, yes, I did get in a few thousand hours of class time after high school . . . but somehow never went after the sheepskin.

You just keep asking questions . . . and good people will be complimented that you have honored them with your question . . . and give you good answers. And if they don’t know the answer, they’ll go out of their way to find the answer, and you’ll both learn something. And as an added benefit, you’ll gain a friend.

Those that won’t answer your questions, they probably don’t wish to admit that they don’t know.

The “cost” of asking a lot of questions? . . . maybe some “pride”, and God knows there’s a surplus of that floating around.

gadfly

(‘Here I am preaching again . . . without a license.)

just zis guy, ya know? said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Baron95 said...

E500 Fan said...
If some company has dumped hundreds of millions into a new design - any design - barring a modern day Edsel, the chances of it not being salvageable are minimal.


You mean like the Beech Starship? Or the AASI JETCRUZER 500? Or the zombie Swearingen SJ30? Or the Adam 500? Suported but aborted in terms of sales (never broke even)we have the Boeing 717 and others. In Military aviation the list is huge.

I think there is a resonable chance that the EA500 will live on and be suported in some form. But it is far from a sure thing and it may be very painful for the owners. Or not.

And what may save the EA500 is not the amount of money "dumped" to use your word. It is the number of planes in the field. If there were 20 instead of 250, I'd say its chances were very, very poor.

Baron95 said...

From aero-intelligence....

Things appear to be happening in the correct order for Embraer as the company prepares for the entry into service of its first very light jet, not to mention aircraft barely off the drawing board. On Monday, Embraer opened a 47,700-square-foot service center in Mesa, Ariz., to look after the Phenom 100, Phenom 300, Legacy 450, Legacy 500 and Legacy 600 business aircraft. "The grand opening of this service center reinforces Embraer's long-term commitment to providing a full-service support network for its growing fleet of executive jets in North America and signals its readiness for the Phenom 100 to enter service," said Edson Carlos Mallaco, Embraer Vice President, Customer Support and Services, Executive Jets.
Mallaco said the company is spending more than $100 million to bulk up service for the fleet of business jets it is launching in coming years. The Phenom 100 and 300 will be assembled in Florida; the 100 is undergoing final certification testing and the company hopes to have all the flight hours and mountains of paperwork completed by the end of September.

Baron95 said...

And ... Cirrus Design this week eliminated about 100 jobs at its plants in Duluth and Grand Forks, in Minnesota. "We're dealing with some straightforward realities," company president Brent Wouters told the Duluth News Tribune. "We're in a difficult economic environment that has impacted the aviation business.

just zis guy, ya know? said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fred said...

Baron :

thanks for your comments on me !

i always feel refreshed when someone say negative about myself , i have a reputation to keep ...:-))

that said , no need to say anything bad , the "thing" speak for itself ...

for me , you sound exactly like those bankers who were sooooo clever not long ago , sharing between themselves hundreds of billions of profit ...

now the plot unveil , the clever were as thick as colombian drug dealers ...

just the tax-payers are supposed to make it for the losses , while the same ones who claimed themselves as "new genius" are enjoying a perfect way of life in the Bahamas , leaving staff to face the bills and blame ...(staff which i don't pity , for most of them, as few months ago they were the same very ones to show-off so much with their figures of wages then ...!)

does it remind you of anything ?

anything coming from ABQ ?

so , please , when you will have a tenth of my professional experience in my field (which is to sort out what can be good practice in bizz and what is plain scam ,fancy shit and loosy dreamers ) may be i will entitled you to say anything bad about my person ...till then i will continue to say what i think about something which is such a joke , that it could hardly be seen out of USA ...
Monsieur Shane was right : Reality sucks , even more than you can imagine ... ;-)

fred said...

#Like you Gad, I like to always be totally open#

Holly shit ....!!
i do remember a talk about Dassault ...

always open ??? totally ???

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Baron95 wrote Your private plane will NEVER ever leave without you, no matter how late you are, and it will depart as soon as you arrive if ou arrive early.

You obviously haven't flown IFR in Europe Baron. The odds of getting a slot on demand for a flight Rennes - Ipswich are roughly on a par with Eclipse's odds of avoiding liquidation!

Once you have a slot for that flight, you had better not miss it!

fred said...

so for once , i will have a "positive" post ...

yesterday evening , i had a very interesting talk about risks management in Russia ...

with a guy who is doing this inside a state-pool of banks
(the only banks which are of some interest are State-banks [VEB , VTB , Gazprombank , etc...] or foreign [but not all , Raiffesen is very good , SociƩtƩ GƩnerale is very shitty ] last year , i don't remember exact numbers , but i think it was some 1000 or 1400 locals banks were stripped of their activity license , anyway something ridiculous ... )

so , we were talking about what we call "one shot project" (it used to be so common in Russia , mostly with Foreign subsides or with money granted by state for any projects , like a firm which did receive some big $ , build the outside wall of factory but nothing else, the wife of owner was spending like mad in Paris ... Money ended-up in a Swiss bank account , after some checking the money was blocked on account , the guy is now breaking stones in penitentiary colony close to Omyakron where Temp° in winter a "good" -50C° , his wife is in a women-camp only 4000 Kms away ...:-)) which is to some extent what Beresovsky did with Aeroflot , now he is self-exiled in London )

and conversation drifted happily on the subject of interest of the blog ...

so at the question "WHY?" :

the answer is very simple , if a firm come to your country demonstrating it can invest 200M$ (the part that ETIRC is supposed to put in the jar !) train peoples to adapt to western production standard and doing it in a remote part of the country in a plant that is left to rot since (almost) the collapse of Soviet Union ...

it is very good !

IF the said firm CAN demonstrate such abilities ...

fred said...

freedom ...

he doesn't have to fly in Europe ...
he just comes around and say "I am the baron of the blog ..."

all administration servants bow to their knees ...

Air Force (silly me , we do not have Air-Force , we have paper-planes = they haven't been designed by his excellency ...) escort his plane , 3 by 3 on each side ...

i say it again :
whatever is normal in your country , may be totally awkward in somebody's else country ...

exactly like the transportation network in Europe , no one waited on Eclipse ... very often Train beat Planes ...!!

it is different of USA , but is it worse ??? i don't think so , only different ...

the only one who cannot adjust to this , are the same one that will have a "nice boat anchor" soon ...

fred said...

to the comment :

"it is the number in the field , which counts!"

it would be ALMOST true IF all planes were flying ...

out of EA500 , how many are flying NOW ?

How many in 6 months time ?

you see , i think you can still buy the latest "Concord" for a fraction of its costs , is that of any use ???

fred said...

as for finance rounds :

i think it would be easier , less messy and definitely more ethical IF the believers would be left to FINANCE themselves the fruit of their dreams ...

after all , it is almost nothing ! only 600M$ for unpaid bills , 500M$ for 2008&2009 deficit exercises , 200M$ to run the plant in Russia ...

only 1 Billion 300 millions US $ ...

almost nothing ! pride has its price ...

fred said...

Monsieur Shane

#However, if the stock markets continue their current tailspin, none of us will need to bother visiting the City, so the discussion becomes academic. #

May i propose something different ?

most peoples should consider this :

there is 2 types of successful peoples ...

the ones who build their life around their work ...

and the ones who have their work tailored to suit their life (may be i'm a little too french on this !)

i wouldn't like to open my eyes , hen around 55/60 y.o , at the weeding ceremony of my daughter , having problems to remember what is the name of that silly guy trying to rob from me , or not remembering last time we walked home walking , hands in hands , after her class ...

money for money is worthless , there is so many occasions nobody should miss at any cost !

so why always be in a hurry to trap yourself into some more trap ?

i feel no need to remind you that with one's terminal breath , it is always better to have all those wonderful memories of the times you spent together ...

than to have a last thought in the form of : if only i would have known , then ...

eclipso said...

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/dot-eclipse-certification-probe-just-beginning/


.....FAA certification and “alleged regulatory lapses in the certification and manufacture of the Eclipse EA-500” is just the beginning of the Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector general’s investigation into Eclipse Aviation.....


Like I said before....don't think for a second that it's over

airtaximan said...

CW,

handing an OEM a detailed design is a pretty tough thing. They would almost be better off:
1- working with IAI and flying a conforming prototype
2- making a deal for a small piece with and OEM and letting them do the detail design... manufacturability and certifiability is tough to design in, unless you are the OEM.

The real value they add is BAss' money and the orders... OEMs are NIH-minded, and really would just do it themselves, rather than share.

Just my 2 cents.

Dave said...

Looking more into Eclipse's statements, it looks like Eclipse Eclipse and ETIRC don't have any deals - despite all the hay that was made about them - unless and until Eclipse gets EASA. ETIRC's 200+ orders are conditioned on Eclipse getting EASA:
"We have 300 orders sitting and waiting for EASA approval," Pieper said, adding that another 2,000 orders can be expected in Europe and Russia once the approval becomes official.
What Roel fails to mention is that most of those orders are his own. Also when has ETIRC shown that it had $500+ million to buy, staff, fuel and maintain hundreds of aircraft? Looking beyond that, if there were all these thousands of orders just waiting out there for an EASA certified twin jet, why doesn't the Mustang have them? Eclipse can get their order book to say whatever they want (as they repeatedly demonstrate), but how many of those orders will be real legitimate orders. Eclipse seems to feel that having their order book in the mid 2000s is what it should be, so that's what they've done for years and years no matter how fake it was.

fred said...

dave :

the order book is pure fantasy !
why Mustang and others jet are selling in Russia ?

because they are spotlessly certified !

it is a con game , i produce something that i buy myself ...

i can claim the product is a real success as long as i buy them ...

does it give any value to product or firm ?

nope !

fred said...

by the way :

if owners would finance the firm themselves , it would cost them only about 5 M$ each ...

if there is double of already owners ( 250 delivered + 250 waiting )

it is only 2.5 m$ ...

i know that it is a french romantic thing to say that "when you love , you should never count..."

but 2.5M$ to make sure the bird is going to survive isn't that much ...

and if they are believers , they should have no worries about the future or/and the reality of order-book ...

unless ...

Dave said...

if owners would finance the firm themselves , it would cost them only about 5 M$ each ...

That would defeat Eclipse's advantage (per the existing Eclipse owners) of the aircraft being cheap. It could be done, but for the cost of the aircraft plus keeping the company in business would be around the cost of two Mustangs.

Niner Zulu said...

Dave,

You nailed it. The Eclipse order book is as phony under Roel as it was with Vern. It's one thing to pay $1-$1.5m for the FPJ. It's quite another to pay $2.15m.

Seriously - there are 2,000 people in Europe/Russia waiting to buy an FPJ - who are more interested in saving $850,000 over the price of a Mustang than they are about owning a more capable plane?

I wonder how the Russians will feel about Roel once they learn they have been duped.

fred said...

i am going to be positive (twice in the same , may be i should seek doctor advice ?)
dave:
#but for the cost of the aircraft plus keeping the company in business would be around the cost of two Mustangs.#

as i wrote , "when you love , you're not supposed to count ...!"

fred said...

9Z :

#I wonder how the Russians will feel about Roel once they learn they have been duped.#

i don't know about him ...

but i can tell you the story of a russian that cheated the state fund for Eco. Dev. ...

the guy "forgot" a few hundreds thousands $ before flying off to Cuba (thinking of it as safe )

the Cubans "sold" him for a discount a 10cents per ton on chicken price ...

last i heard of him in was in the part of Russia where to piss or to poop , you have to light a fire before ...or you're dead !

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

Fred,

i feel no need to remind you that with one's terminal breath , it is always better to have all those wonderful memories of the times you spent together ...

Ahh, my friend, you see beyond the surface of so many things with that one statement.

I hope, also, that the wedding went well. When I asked my father in law (to be) for his daughters' hand in marriage, he responded:-

"Are you sure Shane? She's very like her mother, you know..."

Riebel,

Occasionally I have found the critic blog remarkably useful and occasionally I've found it to be remarkably silly and hateful. Sometimes in the same post.

First, welcome to the blog.

Second, your sentiments reflect my own, perfectly. The really great thing about 'here' is the freedom to express opinion and share information. The annoying thing is the pettiness which sometimes intrudes.

I can assure you that there are many people reading this to inform themselves. The inbox, which I've failed to mention for a week or three, hums along merrily and provides vital data to cross check 'rumor' against fact.

That was the first source for the DayJet difficulties and many other strands.

So, if you want to share something, but don't feel like posting it directly, email me:-

eclipsecriticng@gmail.com

Shane

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Hands up who thinks Eclipse number 250 conforms closer to the FAA approved type design than S/N 002?

Eclipse signing off S/N 002 as compliant without it being in compliance (or even being adequately inspected) was the FAA inspectors basis for starting an enforcement action.

Somewhere about S/N 50-100 two of Verns selected managers had an email exchange where one stated " the quality of the planes is CRAP". Vern presented that email to a court. Don't blame the critics for the bad news.

We have (unconfirmed) reports that the drawing (= approved type design) never kept up with the changes made on the shop floor to get planes out the door.

Maybe the changes made on the shop floor improved the design?

Unfortunatly if they are not controlled, classified (major minor) and certified per part 21, then you have the same theoretical safety standard as the Epic homebuilts, without the knowledge of who was making the decisions that a homebuilder has.

Deep Blue said...

ATM said:

"How about a no shit low cost, low risk, higher volume category killer cabin and op spec air taxi plane? Compete with real jets, not props? Ever going to happen?"

You ask a very central question and one that gets to the core of just what a VLJ is; what the E500 was designed for (I would argue strictly for private GA owner/operators; whcih means as well, the entire air taxi order expectations, including Russia, Middle East etc are utterly incoherent).

Unlike military aircraft that are typically designed for specific, tactical missions (attack, bomb, transport, lift, spy, fight, train, evac, etc) our civilian sector makes no such demands (except arguably the airline sector).

I don't believe we have an actual built-to-purpose air taxi jet yet. In part because we still really don't know what an air taxi is.

But most central to its eventual realization is an aircraft radically less expensive in price and total ownership cost, than anything currently in or coming into, the market (I do not believe anyone could make money in an air taxi scheme with any of the current VLJ aircraft under consideration for such a role, including any of the traditional business jets).

Moreover, air taxi isn't just an airplane; its a system, including support services. The GA industry is nowhere near ready nor priced right.

Dayjet's "Nexgen" project was/is promising; much more work needs to be done there. In the meantime, I'll send later one potential spec of such a built-to-purpose craft(and it sure isn't the E500 or a VLJ). Thx.

airsafetyman said...

"..if there were all these thousands of orders just waiting out there for an EASA certified twin jet, why doesn't the Mustang have them?"

Not to mention that Dassault can start cranking out Falcon 10s again anytime they want to.

Dave said...

You nailed it. The Eclipse order book is as phony under Roel as it was with Vern.

I hope the chickens finally come home to roost with Roel. He seems to have repeatedly dodged getting personally caught up in fraud and going to prison, but he's repeatedly been caught up with his fraudulent friends who have gone to to prison. Perhaps this time he wont be able to get out of it. In the past he's gotten out of it as a board member with his CEO friends, but now he's the CEO.

Seriously - there are 2,000 people in Europe/Russia waiting to buy an FPJ - who are more interested in saving $850,000 over the price of a Mustang than they are about owning a more capable plane?

Over and above that these same people wont make a conditional order based on Eclipse getting EASA. The only one making the conditional orders is Roel yet supposedly he thinks people are dumb enough to not realize how fake it is given what has already happened with DayJet and previously with Nimbus.

In case people forget or we have new people reading Eclipse had announced a large order for 1000 units from Nimbus and that deal fell apart:
http://www.ainonline.com/ain-and-ainalerts/aviation-international-news/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/sky-obscured-over-financing-of-nimbuseclipse-500-mega-deal/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Bmode%5D=1
Shortly after that deal fell through Eclipse again claimed to have a huge order book:
http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-strategy-outsourcing/5988950-1.html
Only later did it come out that it was DayJet as DayJet didn't want to publicly admit they were behind the 1400 orders. All this had been done under Vern, but it looks like Roel is doing the same thing. Roel is of course inflating the order book with his own company with nearly 300 of the 900 orders coming from Roel himself even though Roel doesn't have the money to pay for them.

I wonder how the Russians will feel about Roel once they learn they have been duped.

Hopefully the Russians wont find out because Eclipse/ETIRC will never be able to show they have the financing to actually run the factory.

fred said...

9Z :

# Seriously - there are 2,000 people in Europe/Russia waiting to buy an FPJ - who are more interested in saving $850,000 over the price of a Mustang than they are about owning a more capable plane? #

answer :

NO ! the problem with the Russian mentality would be :

each would be owner TRYING TO SPEND 850.000$ more than the one before ...!

Dassault Falcon has been sold already in pretty weird configuration for this purpose...

i have heard of one carpeted entirely with furs , real one , not synthetic ... (i think it was mink ...)

for this they are as bad as Chinese ... i've got a friend working in Beijing , something to do with night-life , he told me that the worst is to sell the first bottle of champagne ...
after they play at "who is going to order the most ..." russians are very much like this ... ;-))

so the marketing of Etirc/Eac doesn't stand a chance , all the ones i have seen trying to sell something "because it's cheap " were lame failure ...

FreedomsJamtarts said...

to answer my own question...

I would expect the Eclipse S/N 200-250 are more similar to each other, that the variablity in manufacturer reduce vrs the first ones. I would doubt they are closer to the approved, tested type design though.

Dave said...

Dayjet's "Nexgen" project was/is promising; much more work needs to be done there.

As long as DayJet and/or Eclipse are involved (or for that matter Dottie Hall at Naverus), I wouldn't trust the results.

Pioneered a marketing-driven sales strategy that generated a $3+ billion backlog prior to delivery of the first aircraft.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dottiehall

fred said...

dave :

#In case people forget or we have new people reading Eclipse had announced ...#

may i remind readers of :

How good was USA and air-taxi ...
before ;
How exceptional the growth in Europe will be ...
before;
How wonderful to have a few hundreds (thousands?) orders from Turkey ...
before ;
How wonderful the potential in Russia is ...

i predicted a long time ago a Mega-order from Zimbabwe (paid in Zim$ at the discounted rate of few billions per US$ = trillions of trillions of orders ...)

we aren't any far off , now ...

fred said...

Monsieur Shane :

#"Are you sure Shane? She's very like her mother, you know..." #

the only one time where i asked such thing ; i got more or less the same answer ...

but me , i ran away ! ;-))

Deep Blue said...

Dave:

One might also include the FAA in any set of questionable players in NexGen.

fred said...

sorry !

i made a mistake ...

a Fpj in Zimbabwe would be only "123.550.000,00 ZWD or Zim$"
(but with their inflation , just the time to type this and it is already completely outdated ...)

so the 2000 for Russia would have a value of 247.100.000.000 $ ...
(ok not US...)

Roel ...repeat after me :

ZIM BAB WE ! ;-))

Dave said...

So it is financial pressure that supposedly stopped Eclipse from making 1000 units this instead of the factory simply not being able to produce at a volume remotely close to that:
Presently the only Eclipse aviation’s factory with up to 1000-jets annual capacity is based in New Mexico, the USA. However, the company managed to market only 150 aircrafts last year due to financial pressure.
http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/7122/

fred said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fred said...

dave :

this is the translation of the original news from Lenta.ru

The American company "eclipse aviation", which is specialized in the production of super-lightweight aircraft, reached agreement by bank of development about the building in Ulyanovsk of its plant. This it is discussed in the official press release of company. It is assumed that plant it will produce to 800 aircraft "eclipse 500" per year.

Financing project will take upon itself [Vneshekonombank](weird and russian way to say "we remain in charge!) - its expenditures will be about 205 million dollars. With this [VEB] as the Ulyanovsk province, they will become the main shareholders of new plant. To finish its building it is planned by 2010.

"Now the only plant of company is located in ABQ . Its power comprises to thousand of aircraft per year; however it works not at full power. According to the communication of the newspaper "the financial times", in last year of exercise it was possible to realize only 150 machines. In this case Eclipse could not fulfill obligation on a number of contracts because of the financial difficulties."


VERY INTERESTING POINT :

it is ONLY an agreement of lending , the money is not received as seen on some other medias ...

the Building will be finished in 2010 ONLY ( how about producing planes straight away = installation and calibration of machine ,recruiting and training : when ?)

The province of Ulyanovsk and the bank become the main shareholder (once again = very far from touted ...and bye bye eventual liabilities from US past )

Funds are going to be held and controlled by the bank itself ...

Dave said...

Eclipse had talked about pursuing sales outside the US because the brand is "damaged" here. Well it turns out that Pieper isn't seen to well in the Netherlands:
A promising operation? Russian aircraft have not really a solid reputation. And enterprises of Pieper for the same holds true.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.dag.nl/10101801/NIEUWS/Artikelpagina-Nieuws/Pieper-ziet-zakenjets-vliegen-in-Rusland.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=28&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Roel%2BPieper%2B%2522%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_nl%26as_qdr%3Dd

By the way seeing the corporate culture of Roel and Ed - Roel wouldn't give refunds for the Opinio magazine, yet he goes around in an 80 foot yacht while Ed wont give refunds for DayJet while he lives in an $8 million dollar home. These guys simply don't care about their customers and will spend their customers money on themselves without any guilt or remorse.

Dave said...

Here's something showing how slow business was at DayJet. Tuscaloosa was added in July:
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2008/07/07/daily29.html
But nobody who used DayJet wanted to fly to/from there:
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20080924/NEWS/809240291/1001/news07&title=DayJet_closes_before_it_is_able_to_serve_Tuscaloosa

Shadow said...

Dave,

I must mention that Ed has an $8 million home despite sinking, and apparently losing, $10 million of his own money in DayJet. So he isn't coming out of this unscathed.

I've never seen any mention of Vern putting up his own money for Eclipse. I believe he started with seed money from Bill Gates and Paul Allen. So, unlike Ed, Vern had everything to gain whether Eclipse failed or succeeded and nothing to lose (other than his job). When he was shown the door, he walked away with a pile of cash he personally amassed during his tenure.

Two completely different stories, here.

Can someone with proper credentials address the way DayJet is telling customers to receive refunds? This is so not my area of expertise.

Orville said...

From the Dayjet FAQ:
7. Who can customers contact with any questions?
Questions can be sent by email to finance@dayjet.com. Please be sure to include
full contact information (name, address, dates of travel, member number and
reservation number).


Does anyone know anyone who has tried making contact? Curious what, if any, response would be received - or for that matter - if anyone is even monitoring that email address.

Dave said...

I must mention that Ed has an $8 million home despite sinking, and apparently losing, $10 million of his own money in DayJet. So he isn't coming out of this unscathed.

He isn't coming out of this unscathed, but it isn't like he's ending up bad off.

I've never seen any mention of Vern putting up his own money for Eclipse. I believe he started with seed money from Bill Gates and Paul Allen. So, unlike Ed, Vern had everything to gain whether Eclipse failed or succeeded and nothing to lose (other than his job). When he was shown the door, he walked away with a pile of cash he personally amassed during his tenure.

I believe awhile ago it was reported that Vern only owed a small percent (in the low single digits) of Eclipse stock. I don't think Vern ever put up an appreciable amount - at least it hasn't been reported that he did.

Can someone with proper credentials address the way DayJet is telling customers to receive refunds? This is so not my area of expertise.

I wouldn't say that I necessarily have the right credentials, but I have followed other BK cases, which DayJet hasn't declared BK yet isn't issuing refunds. DayJet wants customers to go to their credit card companies to have the credit card companies issue the refunds directly. It is a highly unusual move to be made for a non-BK company unless they are planning on filing for BK because credit card companies can put on additional fees (chargebacks). I would guess DayJet is doing this so that they have additional time to spend the money on the execs and then by the time the chargebacks come DayJet will then declare BK leaving the credit card companies as unsecured creditors with little hope of getting the money back since the secured debt holders have all the assets of value and DayJet will have spent all the cash by then. Telling customers to file with their credit cards directly only serves in causing a delay as DayJet could issue the refunds themselves.

Dave said...

Something else to keep in mind with the 2010 start date for Eclipske. For Eclipse USA last that long the payroll would be around $37M (assuming 900 employees with a loaded labor average of $20 per hour) during the next 12 months. If Eclipse continues making 1 per week the labor charge alone would be 3/4 of a million dollars per unit. These costs also aren't including the part costs for Eclipse and unless Eclipse gets resupplied, it will have to pay a lot of money to get more parts. Eclipse needs hundreds of millions to get going - either here or in Russia. Merely having a Russian factory built doesn't do anything since you have to pay for your labor and your parts for either or both factory and Eclipse doesn't have that. All Eclipse got with that Russian factory is an albatross around their neck since there's no way they'll make and find a market for 1200 units per year or even just 800 units per year. Having two factories puts tremendous strain since they've got way more opportunities to lose money with inefficient manufacturing.

airtaximan said...

Shadow,

Regarding the credit cards, a normal way to proceed would be to issue refunds. It could take a person with a credit card terminal or computer a day to do hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of refunds.

Dayjet knows who did not fly, and who is entitled to a refund.

The only reson to not do it this way, is to try to stiff the customers... becasue its too much of a hassel, or they are unaware of what to do.

I would like to know if the customers recevied notice their flights were cancelled... I mean, individual calls or emails... anyhow...

If Dayjet spent the money... and there's no money in their credit card account... the cedit card company gets stiffed.

Puzzling.

Shadow said...

Dave,

You're missing the point. Roel is building a new house in Russia for Eclipse to move into. The N.M. factory will stay open long enough into 2010 for Eclipse to transfer all production to the Russian facility, leaving the N.M. taxpayers holding part of the bag.

That is if Eclipse can find enough money to limp along until 2010, or Roel finishes his behind the scenes work to transfer everything necessary to allow ETIRC to produce the Eclipse in Russia before filing Chapter 7 in the US. Roel is just playing a game of financial chess right now in between his sailing activities. Don't let the Mr. Howell captain's hat fool you!

AvidPilot said...

Welcome to the European Technology and Investment Research Center (ETIRC). In the world of Investment and Development Banking, ETIRC is a reliable and trusted Gateway into Russia and the CIS, providing a strong economical, technical and political network. ETIRC is also active in Turkey, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Israel." www.etirc.com

When I read garbage like this, I want to vomit. What a load of crap.

"Reliable and trusted". NOT!

HELLO ROEL YOU DUTCH DINGLEBERRY!! WHAT ABOUT THOSE REFUNDS DUE TO ALL THE CUSTOMERS WHO CANCELED THEIR ECLIPSE'S?

The scam continues.

Dave said...

You're missing the point. Roel is building a new house in Russia for Eclipse to move into. The N.M. factory will stay open long enough into 2010 for Eclipse to transfer all production to the Russian facility, leaving the N.M. taxpayers holding part of the bag.

I'm not missing that. I believe that is what Roel is *trying to do* and I'm pointing out how getting the factory in Russia still means that Eclipse/ETIRC needs huge sums of cash. I think Roel has been working ever since he got on Eclipse board to steal Eclipse stuff and transfer it to ETIRC while leaving those in the US holding the bag. I don't think it will work, but I think that has been Roel's plan. I'm saying people (namely debtholders/landlords, depositors and current owners) should crunch the numbers for themselves and then figure out where they stand.

Shadow said...

Dave, to be honest, I think I'd rather own Lehman Bros. stock right now than to be an Eclipse debtholder/landlord, depositor or current owner.

airtaximan said...

avidpilot

you must admit, they have hundreds of employees (over 1000 if you believe Roel) and they are delivering very few planes... this mean they have cash to burn, still.

Why they do not prioritize the refunds, is well, thier choice.. BUT, everyone should be suing righ now.

Its a complete smack in the face - AND at the very least, everyone should put EAC and ETRICK on notice that payments during this period will be considered "preferential" and scrutinized in BK.

once again, they are still burining cash like mad - why they don't pay up the refunds... is criminal.

airtaximan said...

"Here's something showing how slow business was at DayJet. Tuscaloosa was added in July:
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2008/07/07/daily29.html

But nobody who used DayJet wanted to fly to/from there:"

Begs the question what criteria they were using to open airports... this seems like a basic decision that you need to get correct to be in this business.

Baron95 said...

fred said...
Holly shit ....!!
i do remember a talk about Dassault ...


Actually Fred, I haver warmed up considerably to the 7X. I confess to be biased against 3-holers and so was never interested in following the 7X. After our little chat here, I did try to review it, and it appears it will be a very successful plane. But most importantly it is introducing new tech in GA flying and I am all for that.

So, yes, I did change my views on the 7X and the Dassault organization.

Who knows, maybe in another 10 or 20 years I may even like the Rafale ;)

P.S. Don't take any of my comments personally - I'm on just a mission to reform you ;)

Baron95 said...

FreedomsJamtarts said...
You obviously haven't flown IFR in Europe Baron. The odds of getting a slot on demand for a flight Rennes - Ipswich are roughly on a par with Eclipse's odds of avoiding liquidation!


Who said anything about a slot on demand? You get your slot reservation and then adjust it based on your principal's schedule.

It is not hard at all to get late night slots.

If cost is not an issue (as in my example) there are several "techniques" that corporate pilots use to mae sure they go when "the man" arrives. I'd be glad to share some of those with you in private.

Hint 1 - for beginers: A certain flight department might for example have a 7PM, an 8PM and a 9PM slot with different tail numbers. At departure time, you inform eurocontrol clearance of a "equipment substitution and tail number change" and go.

Now, I don't claim to know ANYONE that has done that. wink, wink ;)

Baron95 said...

Re EA500 vs Mustang in Europe:

1 - The price difference in Europe is not $850K - the difference compounds when you add taxes, inport fees, etc. It is substantially over $1M.

2 - Landing/ATC fees will be substantially higher for the Mustang than the EA500, which is in a different class (less than 6,000lbs) all together.

3 - Other perating expenses (fuel, insurance, financing, hangar fees, would be much higher also.

4 - etc...

So, if the EA500 had decent avionics and support (which I realize it does not), it would be substantially less expensive to operate in Europe than the Mustang.

So again, there is nothing terribly wrong with the Eclipse design, except the avionics. If Eclipse hadn't screwed up the execution so badly, it could have been competitive.

airtaximan said...

yes Baron,

And if it was a prop with even better economics....

it would be even more terrific for Europe!!!

- After years of looking at this thing, I've concluded, in my own mind... you will NEVER need a jet for a pro mission, until some revolutionary technologies are developed making jets MUCH better than props at low altitudes.

UNtil then, there's a jet mission and a prop mission.

E-500 is a jet designed to compete poorly for a prop mission, on the elements that you so rightly point out are valuable.

Dave said...

So, if the EA500 had decent avionics and support (which I realize it does not), it would be substantially less expensive to operate in Europe than the Mustang.

So again, there is nothing terribly wrong with the Eclipse design, except the avionics. If Eclipse hadn't screwed up the execution so badly, it could have been competitive.


However, the comparison was meant in regards to the order book size. Almost all of Eclipse's european orders are from Roel himself and Roel claims there will be 2000 more orders when the FPJ gets EASA certified. That begged the question of why if there were so many orders out there for a european twin engine jet, why wouldn't Cessna already have them as there is already a european twin jet available now. This isn't saying there isn't a market for the FPJ, just claiming they'll sell an additional 2000 units upon EASA certification doesn't make sense.

Dave said...

UNtil then, there's a jet mission and a prop mission.

There will be a modest market for people who simply want to own a jet and can afford it, however, there wont be a mass market air taxi for jets as they are now (but of course there will be some charters). There is a market, just Eclipse has a tendency to move the decimal point to hit their numbers to try and fool investors.

Baron95 said...

ATM said ... you will NEVER need a jet for a pro mission,

Let me try one more time. A personal airplane is NOT and will NEVER be economically justifiable for many people. It is NOT and it will NEVER be a rational economic decision.

It is a matter of WANT not need.

An S63AMG is a terrible economical choice to drive to the office. That is a Smart FourTwo mission being "flown" by an AMG that get 11MPG.

You guys need to move on. This is a discretionary product (like fast cars, sail boats, rolex watches, Coach purses).

I think it is stupid to spend $15 on a watch and will never do it. Some people think it is stupid to spend $150K on a car. Others think it is stupid to spend $1.5M on a plane.

But thankfully, for the luxury goods economy, there are lots of "stupid" people around.

When you reach a certain place in the flying/financial spectrum, you could care less if a C172 will do just fine to go BDR to MVY. You WANT (not need) to go turbofan.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

Yes, it is a niche product, just like the AMG is a niche product. But it can be very profitable.

The fact that Vern used the fantasy of the "new air taxi market" to raise $1B, is just sheer briliance (on his part) and stupidity (on the part of the investors).

It is a PERSONAL plane with occasional application in air taxi. Just like the SR22.

Baron95 said...

Dave said... However, the comparison was meant in regards to the order book size

I don't see any great mystery in the number of orders.

IIRC, Roel's latest statement is that there are 700 orders with 200 from Europe (or was it 900 and 300? lazy to read back).

That is possibly in the realm of possibility. Maybe 1/3 of those are options, so discount those.

Given that Mustand, Piper, Diamond, etc all report a few hunred orders on hand, I see nothing out of the ordinary with Eclipse also having a few hundresd orders.

Clearly, if Eclipse's problems continue, you will see those orders migrate from Eclipse to other options.

On the other hand, if they get Gavio1.5-FIKI planes out the door with EASA certs, it is not unreasonable to expect the ordrs to flow back in in some numbers.

Most OEMs forecast orders over 20 years for a design. 2000 orders for Eclipse from EU would be 100 net orders/year. Not unreasonable if they start pumping out GavioFE.

P.S. GavioFE = EA500 + AvioNG1.5 + G400 + FIKI + EASA cert.

airtaximan said...

baron,

I have no confidence in EAC's orders... never have, never will.

ETRICK has 200 orders... other start up air taxi cos have orders as well....

Mustang had 250 or so orders , until around a year ago...Cessna now says they have 500 orders.

Piper (not Pieper) says they sold 200 Piperjets, for around 2 million. And that's Piper - say what you will, they have the number 2 spot in the GA aircraft fleet. Thousands of them... these are customers who identify and trust Piper. (Pls don't ask why?).

Anyhow, EAC is a shit brand. They deliver a questionable product, they have questionable support, questionable finances, management, and questionable ethics. They even have a questionable TC and PC. And they have questionable ownership -Americans do not really like foreign owned aircraft Cos. Its a preference thing... but its there. The there's the questionable EASA...

So, how many real orders does EAC have, in Europe, Russia or elsewhere.

Not a lot. The Russian thing is a favor, at best - where on guy says "if you do this ...I'll do that for you, if it all works out in the end. If not, you never spend a dime."

The orders are BS. The rest of the clients are looking for money back - and I'd say worldwide, real orders that MAY come through are 300.

If you discount for reality, I'd say the 300 becomes 200 or less.

In fact, I will state that EAC will never deliver more than 200 planes from here on... NEVER. Not even the partially finished kind.

airtaximan said...

baron, I missed this post:

"You guys need to move on. This is a discretionary product (like fast cars, sail boats, rolex watches, Coach purses)."

UH, my friend, its not us that needs to move on, it EAC, ETRICK and Pieper...

I say there's a market for 500 EA500 worldwide, forever, really, all things considered.

All the BS taxi-plane stories are THEIR BS, not mine. I'm trying to be clear.

WhyTech said...

"once again, they are still burining cash like mad - why they don't pay up the refunds"

The answer preceeds the question: they are burning cash like mad. Any cash they hand out as refunds, they dont have to burn. Ethics aside (as is often the case when a company is going down) you do prioritize your use of cash and dont use cash for anything except those uses which extend your life as a business. Refunds to customers simply dont do this (except in the case where these refunds prevent a forced bankruptcy). Eclipse depositors dont seem to have the fortitude to force the issue, and perhaps they dont even have the leverage if they are so inclined, as they may not technically be considered creditors.

Deep Blue said...

Just spoke with several members of Etirc's (Roel's) Dutch team (all ex-consultants; not one a businessman, investor or aerospace specialist).

They have no idea what they are doing. They are panicking. They have no plans except to find some possible way to offload this project to the unsuspecting Russians.

Etirc is a comlete fraud, according to the Etirc members looking for a safe harbour (and EAC managers still cashing a paycheck).

Roel Pieper has been described to me by several EU businessmen as an utter savant.

I have no ax to grind. Let the industry beware.

airtaximan said...

whytech,

yup.

Sue'em or be left with nothing.

Its clear they are paying themselves, and making preferential payments in advance of closing down.

Get in line...
Roel is such a p$ick, he even refused to pay for contractual MRO on Dayjet planes.. think he gives a rat's ass about you?

He's manoeuvering to lands far away, where he wont even have to smell you claims, let alone give back the money ETRICK is taking from EAC.

Get in line.

airtaximan said...

DB,

I am interested in your taxi-plane design...

Anyhow, I have called them ETRICK for over a year now - know why?

I think you do.

Ths guy is a bigger BS-artist than Vern.

TBMs_R_Us said...

Baron said,

When you reach a certain place in the flying/financial spectrum, you could care less if a C172 will do just fine to go BDR to MVY. You WANT (not need) to go turbofan.

Same logic says that the cost difference between E500 and Mustang is irrelevant, including higher operating expenses for the latter. Point still holds that if there really were 2000 orders for E500 in Europe/Russia, there'd be about as many for the Mustang, and maybe half as many for the TBM (half as many engines ;-)). But those orders just don't exist.

Joe Patroni said...

Deep Blue,
Re: Your comments yesterday

I think Stan B. summarized the basic airplane issues to a "T" on his first blog posts.

To summarize (from what I've seen in the public domain), I think this is what happened:

-Airplane was designed around a specific wing and powerplant, with an (unrealistic, IMO) empty weight, and (IMO) an avionics/electrical system too complex for the mission (you haven't seen Honeywell or RockwellCollins coming up with a similar avionics package)

-For whatever reason, airplane rolled out too heavy, which was demonstrated on the first test flight.

-At this point, they should have started from scratch with a new WING and new engine. Unfortunately, this would make the airplane more expensive.

-Because more power and weight was being added onto the same wing, takeoff performance and range suffered, and you are now seeing issues with the wheel/brake installation......is there even enough room in the wheelwells to install a bigger wheel/tire/brake?
If the wheels/brakes get bigger and/or heavier, you are looking at a heavier landing gear, which means a heavier retraction system....

- Because they had contractural commitments to deliver airplanes, and were trying to beat the new competition to market, they tried to fix what they had, instead of making the decision to start again from scratch.

-They seemed to think that the TC was the "finish line", and underestimated/had no idea of the requirements for an FAA PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE, which you GOTTA HAVE if you are planning on selling more than a couple of airplanes to the general public.

Basically, I think they tried running a marathon before they could crawl. They missed on their design by 10%, in a world where 1-2% either way spells the difference between a COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL project and an also-ran.

For an alternative way of doing things, might I recommend Quest Air and their "Kodiak"??

gadfly said...

Joe Patroni has the correct picture . . . except the last statement about missed design by 10%. The number is probably closer to 25%.

The Quest Air “Kodiak” seems to be a no-nonsense aircraft, built by real live people, that have seen the worst of every possible flying condition . . . yet go on with their God appointed rounds, day in and day out.

Some of these folks were my classmates in flight and A&P school . . . or the second generation (I keep forgetting how old I’ve become).

Guaranteed, you won’t find an “oversized rivet”, or a mistake hidden under seven layers of paint. Those folks play for keeps . . . and “approximately correct” doesn’t fly. In the world of the “Kodiak”, there are very few second opportunities to do a “go around”.

Thanks, Joe, for reminding us that true aircraft manufacturing of small heavy duty aircraft, with innovative design, still exists . . . and it’s made in the USA. (OK . . . the engine is made in Canada!)

gadfly

(‘Funny thing, here. The “Kodiak” could probably run circles around the little bird from ABQ, if put into the “air taxi service” . . . considering payload and on-time service . . . but they have a “higher calling”, pardon the pun . . . and not the altitude).

airtaximan said...

TBMs,

I'm with you on that...

Logic dictates that with similar performance, Cessna's network, history, brand, safety, etc... makes for a crappy trade to E500 at 30% off.

The market IS only so big... and Cessna has 500 orders on hand today for the Mustang, and few are from taxi-cos.

I'd say EAC would belucky to have as many REAL orders, given the reality of the unfinished plane, no-EASA, no network, no historical brand, safety issues, investigations, uncertain financing, investigations, etc...

It just does not add up - not even close

Baron95 said...

ATM said ... If you discount for reality, I'd say the 300 becomes 200 or less.

That is the ballpark of what I said/think also. I'd say they may have a bit more than that because of the early locked-in orders that were taken before their mess was well documented.

As for delivery, if Eclipse delivers the next 200 (as you said), they are likely to deliver 2,000 (i.e. they will survive). Their challenge is delivering the next 200 which will all be at a loss.

Baron95 said...

TBMs_R_Us said...
if there really were 2000 orders for E500 in Europe/Russia, there'd be about as many for the Mustang, and maybe half as many for the TBM (half as many engines ;-)). But those orders just don't exist.


Agree with all you said. The price difference from $1M to $3M was relevant enough. $2.15 to $3.0M with less capabilities for the EA500 would be a wash if the EA500 was complete. In its current state, you'dhave to be dumb to buy one.

Having said that, I think the reference to 2000 orders from Europe was obviously meant to be over some period of time - over 10-20 years if Eclipse survives and the design is incrementaly improved is possible - not likely, but possible in a sunny day scenario.

Anonymous said...

baron95 said...

Having said that, I think the reference to 2000 orders from Europe was obviously meant to be over some period of time - over 10-20 years

Then why a factory that does 800/year? That takes only 2.5 years to do all 2,000 planes!

Something not right with all this.

Dave said...

Having said that, I think the reference to 2000 orders from Europe was obviously meant to be over some period of time - over 10-20 years if Eclipse survives and the design is incrementaly improved is possible - not likely, but possible in a sunny day scenario.

If Eclipse was a normal aviation business, I'd agree with what you said regarding 10 years out and there being 2000 over that time, but Eclipse has shown to be anything but normal and Eclipse for years has been fixated on having an order book of 2000+. Additionally keep in mind that Eclipse is still selling themselves as an investment based on having a large volume. With Eclipse's stated production volumes they'd only have around 3 years worth of orders rather than 10 years and the stated order book has been rather consistent with the stated production rate for years - around 3 years worth of orders. If the Russian factory was only producing around 200 units per year, it would bleed money just like how the ABQ factory bleeds money at around 200 units per year. If as a gedanken experiment we grant Eclipse has european/russian orders of 200 units per year that will result in red ink and if the total annual orders is 400 worldwide, that would prevent Eclipse from being profitable when otherwise it would have by meaning Elipse has to produce hundreds more units to break even. If Eclipse had worldwide orders of 600 units per year with 200 covered by ETIRC territory, Eclipse would break even but in Russia would lose money for a net loss worldwide. I believe to break even worldwide Eclipse would need a sustainable 700-800 units per year if they've got two factories instead of one. Anyway, my point being if it is 2000 orders over 10 years Eclipse Russia is DOA.

Dave said...

Eclipse/ETIRC said that the Russian factory would kit-build aircraft. Does Roel plan on getting special airworthiness certificates for Eclipse aircraft built in Russia?:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/experiment/expt_operating/
Would Roel use US PC to then ship the kits to Russia and have the aircraft be:
Operating kit-built aircraft: to operate a primary category aircraft that was assembled by a person from a kit manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit, without the supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder.
This would of course raise the question of safety of the Russian kit built aircraft:
Also known as amateur-built aircraft or kit planes, homebuilt aircraft are constructed by persons for whom this is not a professional activity. These aircraft may be constructed from "scratch," from plans, or from assembly kits.

The safety record of homebuilts is not comparable to certified general aviation aircraft. In the United States, in 2003, amateur-built aircraft experienced a rate of 21.60 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; the overall general aviation accident rate for that year was 6.75 per 100,000 flight hours.

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

eclipse_deep_throat said...

dumb question: how will the market factor HondaJet into the equation?

we all agree the EAC order book is totally bogus. one friend at the plant casually said to me one day, "yeah, we'll loose 1/3 of our orders when HondaJet comes to market." so if the market is rather finite, Mustang, Piper, HondaJet, etc.... wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it really doesn't matter **what** they do in Albuquerque or Russia?? 2000 orders are Roel's wet dream ...which is merely another version of Vern's delusion. is there any doubt that HondaJet will get - or already has - EASA cert?? so Europe can't all be asleep at the switch just patiently waiting for the EA500, as if that is the only VLJ they get to buy. they have to know that HondaJet will be entering the market soon and that is bound to throw a wrench in all Roel's great plans in Russia, with or w/o bankruptcy in the USA.

i'm thinking that HondaJet will be a game-changing event since it IS a company with a consideral reputation for building good products (I'm still kicking myself for selling my Civic for a Ford Mustang... but I don't have the 'stang anymore either).

someone made the comparison with Lexus entering the lux car market, so i think the comparison is similar here. except that Honda may be able to pull off the impossible: to affect the market by changing everyone's "perception of reality." if people perceive the product as having better quality (avionics, engine, composite airframe, reliability), then that perception is reality. it might even be feasible for them to eat Cessna's lunch...

so, what are the rational players (defined as: people/businesses that need a plane for their biz, not as a recreational toy) in this market going to do? pay $2.15 million for a questionable plane from a company that has had a lot of issues?? or...if they want another choice besides Cessna, some will likely upgrade to the HondaJet. i'm thinking that if they can afford $2.15, they can afford the $3.65 mil price, which i'm not sure if that's still current...

any of this sound plausible??

E.D.T.

Dave said...

i'm thinking that if they can afford $2.15, they can afford the $3.65 mil price, which i'm not sure if that's still current...
any of this sound plausible??


Yes, there's no real reason to buy the FPJ in quantity. For the majority of air taxi flights where cost is the driving force a prop would be better and for those who want a jet irrespective of the economics, there's better choices than the FPJ if someone wants to own a jet and has the money to burn. If there's thousands of orders out there for EASA certified jets, there's no reason to think that Eclipse would be the main beneficiary.

Baron95 said...

Honda Jet is a $4M machine in today's dollars (fits between the Phenom 100 and 300, it is 3 years away and is not a direct competitor to the the EA500.

The real problem for the EA500 is when it loses its status of cheapest/most economical (nm/lbs of fuel) jet to the D-Jet and Cirrus Jet.

We are beating a dead horse. I think we all agree that, in its present form, there is little reason to buy the EA500.

But then again, consumers do the wierdest things - go figure. There are people even building a plane to take people into space - yeah, right!!!

Dave said...

But then again, consumers do the wierdest things - go figure. There are people even building a plane to take people into space - yeah, right!!!

It's no more weird going from air to space than from ground to air. It is like calling the Wright brothers weird for building aircraft instead of bikes.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Baron95 is right, consumers do the weirdest things.

Vern even found people who were willing to buy a stake in his kool aid factory.

fred said...

baron :
don't worry , i very rarely take things personally !
you see , i have been working in project-financing (audit on real utilization of alloted funds) and on finances polices advising for the last 10/15 years ...
so to be able to handle the pressure , i had to take it in a simple manner = i say what i feel , warn others and tell them that if they are too (insert ...) it is their problem ,if they claim after any stupidity in the form of "nobody warned me" or " i thought it would work..." i am the first one to tell them how dumb/greedy/dreaming they are ...

that is the reason why i never give any advice for free anymore , because at the beginning of career some made a fortune out of what i told them , at the best i had a free coffee on a table corner but the exact same ones where running after after my ass for 10 cents lost as soon as i was wrong ...

that said , i agree we all have some kind of biased opinion about something ...!

it is just a question of "do i let my biased view to close my eyes ?"

it is up to anyone ! for myself , since i have been living under more skies that i wish to remember , it is a bit hard to believe that a specific provenance is an absolute guarantee of anything ...

so when i see someone or a panel stating : "American owned" or " French touch of quality" or "Deutsch Ordnung und Qualiteit "

i cannot refrain a : "if the only quality is where it is coming from or by who it is sold , i wonder where is REAL quality "

(=US cars are not bad = they are just so badly finished compare to German cars / French Wines are good [some , an honest French would tell you , we call "good for making ink " a crappy one] but are they the best ? i don't think so / German order often end-up in a complete mess , it is not because it is Deutsch that it is always orderly !)

why do i say that ?

Because EAC ( and now Etirc) is playing with the "unknown unconscious " (sorry , no better word) of most ...

a perfect example is when they declare " EA500 is Perfect for Europe" or "there is 2000 orders in UE/Russia"

you see where they play is when they extrapolate a REALITY in the USA into the IMAGINARY vision of Europe and Russia in lots (most?) american minds ...
if you add this up with Joe Patroni post (excellent by the way) , then you have a perfect definition of where EAC went wrong ...

to go from A to B in the US , the best way is often flying ...

to go form A to B in Europe , the best is often NOT flying ...

nothing right or wrong into this , only different development in different lands ...

so to have a plane in UE is always related with :

NEED to go from anywhere to anywhere else at a moment notice , but it concern only a very few ones , and do they want to rely on Fpj quality ?

WISH to have an expensive toy , some have cars , some have mistress , some have planes : again very few ... and if they can afford such an expensive passion for flying , usually they do it in AirClub (so aircraft are multi-owned , the more owners , the less planes sold ) or they can afford to have better than FPJ ...

DESIRE to show-off , but would you show-off in a 2CV Citroen ? it was a wonderful car but not exactly anything to attract the eyes ...

so YES , 2000 orders ??? NO , NOT even in a 10 years period ...!! (unless it is a "disposable after 1er use" Fpj)

ps:deep-blue if i would tell you what one of the "Big Money Guy" in Luxembourg told me about R.P. , you would probably be blushing till the end of year ...

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 622   Newer› Newest»