Speaking of that august publication, it has a few interesting titbits in the latest issue. Normally only available to owners or position holders, several public spirited individuals have shared their copies with me. Thanks to one and all...
The first page carries an 'ad'. Since hardly any new owners are taking delivery, the flight simulators are empty. Why not take them up on their offer, as it's probably the last chance you'll get. As a by product, FPJ Inc will collect some cash. Well, if I'm honest, I'm told it's the ONLY source of cash left...
We currently have excess simulator training capacity. If you have a second or third pilot associated with your aircraft who has been unable to attend training due to past training constraints, we can now address these needs through the end of 2008.
The 'spy in the cab' industry-leading Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) program which was such a hit with owners has now been formally released. It seems that people continue to abuse the FPJ, especially while landing. Read the EAC spin of their 'discoveries' yourself...
We evaluated 13,770 flights from October 2007 to September 2008. Approximately 1,075 events, or only 7.8%, were highlighted during this time. Unstable approaches constitute the largest number of operational risk events, followed by excessive bank angle at low altitude and exceeding maximum ramp weight.
Must be reassuring to know that your every move is being recorded for later download and analysis by those crack people at EAC. No wonder the owners are praying for bankruptcy, to clear the records of how badly they've landed.
Or how overweight their wives are...
But there's more good news! Those "Random Transponder Code changes" and the ever popular "Random Autopilot pre-select changes" join the "Random Comm/Nav Surveillance (CNS) switching" on the 'eliminated' list. Phew, that's a relief, so as soon as the AvioNG 1.5 software/hardware updates are approved, you will all rest easier. Hang on, you need to get these done by EAC. Which will be in an order dictated by the way the wind blows on Saturn in a month with 'z' in it.
We evaluated 13,770 flights from October 2007 to September 2008. Approximately 1,075 events, or only 7.8%, were highlighted during this time. Unstable approaches constitute the largest number of operational risk events, followed by excessive bank angle at low altitude and exceeding maximum ramp weight.
Must be reassuring to know that your every move is being recorded for later download and analysis by those crack people at EAC. No wonder the owners are praying for bankruptcy, to clear the records of how badly they've landed.
Or how overweight their wives are...
But there's more good news! Those "Random Transponder Code changes" and the ever popular "Random Autopilot pre-select changes" join the "Random Comm/Nav Surveillance (CNS) switching" on the 'eliminated' list. Phew, that's a relief, so as soon as the AvioNG 1.5 software/hardware updates are approved, you will all rest easier. Hang on, you need to get these done by EAC. Which will be in an order dictated by the way the wind blows on Saturn in a month with 'z' in it.
Or something like that.
So, keep a careful watch on your transponder, autopilot and all those other 'random' bits that keep your life interesting while aloft in your FPJ.
Finally (from the Flyer, anyway) the following advice, which confirms what several here already knew:-
Static Port Moisture - If you park your plane in rain or high humidity environments, cover your static ports to prevent moisture from accumulating in the static lines. Custom static port covers are on order and will be available at the Company Store in the coming month. Until covers are available, you can use low-adhesive painter’s masking tape to cover the ports. Be sure to remove the tape or covers prior to your next flight.
This statement surely begs the question, why did they locate the ports so badly, in the first place?
Meanwhile, word reaches me that several of the 'senior leadership' continue to hunt for new jobs, which will be hard with EAC on their CV's. The looming cash crisis is made worse by strict bank limits, which could be breached early next week. What this means is that the company has agreements with it's banks, stipulating certain targets. Once, for instance, the minimum cash at the bank is reached, the bank reserves the right to refuse payments. I've got some advice for those of you who's EAC expenses cheques bounced in August. Expect similar treatment next week.
So, keep a careful watch on your transponder, autopilot and all those other 'random' bits that keep your life interesting while aloft in your FPJ.
Finally (from the Flyer, anyway) the following advice, which confirms what several here already knew:-
Static Port Moisture - If you park your plane in rain or high humidity environments, cover your static ports to prevent moisture from accumulating in the static lines. Custom static port covers are on order and will be available at the Company Store in the coming month. Until covers are available, you can use low-adhesive painter’s masking tape to cover the ports. Be sure to remove the tape or covers prior to your next flight.
This statement surely begs the question, why did they locate the ports so badly, in the first place?
Meanwhile, word reaches me that several of the 'senior leadership' continue to hunt for new jobs, which will be hard with EAC on their CV's. The looming cash crisis is made worse by strict bank limits, which could be breached early next week. What this means is that the company has agreements with it's banks, stipulating certain targets. Once, for instance, the minimum cash at the bank is reached, the bank reserves the right to refuse payments. I've got some advice for those of you who's EAC expenses cheques bounced in August. Expect similar treatment next week.
Several owners have contacted me with concerns for the immediate future. A number are in the middle of preparing to file suit (under various headings) in an effort to either a) get their aircraft upgraded or b) their money back. These efforts may lead to something, as I'm aware that Frankenjet depositors have been able to extract cash. However, the long suffering FPJ position holders are being told that nothing will change unless the promised 'UBS funding round' is successful.
Something which seems highly unlikely at this stage.
Keep your eyes open for events at our very own FPJ 'enterprise'. Once your election is out of the way I expect events to move rapidly. I hope, for the sake of the workers, that these 'moves' are positive. Sadly, I think not.
Shane
386 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 386 of 386Jet vs. Turboprop
Real World Experience
Isn't Alpha Flying with its fractional ownership of PC-12s about the most successful business that carries people around in private aircraft? I don't think they have been mentioned on this blog, but they have added one after the other PC12s to their fleet (maybe 30 by now) and they earn a profit in their business. This is a real example of a successful business based around a turboprop.
Alpha is in tune with its customers. If the customers preferred to go a bit higher, a bit faster albeit in a smaller cabin and at higher cost then Alpha would undoubtedly comply. Alternatively, if customers were willing to go slower and/or in something smaller at a lower cost, Alpha could comply with that. But the "sweet spot" is a large cabin, sub 300 kt. turboprop.
This sounds a little like the Epic vs. Eclipse comparison. Some might well side with Ken and go a bit higher and bit faster for more money; I suspect that more would prefer the larger cabin, greater load, longer range and lower cost of the turboprop.
Back in the days when the Eclipse was going to sell for $837,500, or $1.070,000 or even for $1,595,000 it hardly made sense to compare it with a turboprop that cost more money. The Eclipse was then just compelling for the money even for someone who found the cabin size or useful load to be small. Now the comparison is necessary for anyone to make a rational, personal choice.
Isn't Alpha Flying with its fractional ownership of PC-12s about the most successful business that carries people around in private aircraft? I don't think they have been mentioned on this blog, but they have added one after the other PC12s to their fleet (maybe 30 by now) and they earn a profit in their business. This is a real example of a successful business based around a turboprop.
Also there's SATSAir, that has been mentioned here before.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for dropping back in!
.)
DayJet is still in business because as predicted by this board they are using their other tentacles, so that way DayJet could spend their customers money while going on their merry way:
VMware CEO Paul Maritz has secret plan for defunct airline's technology
And guess what? Here's Bruce Holmes at a Naverus (where Vern's ex-wife works) event representing DayJet Technologies:
Naverus PBN 2008 Summit
DayJet Technologies is already advertising on Microsoft's website:
Microsoft Solutions Finder:DayJet Technologies, LLC
"Those who can't fly to ATP standards want prop planes; "
Ken,
Dont go getting too full of yourself. Airplanes are designed to be flown by humans. Most humans are capable of flying to ATP standards if they are willing to commit the time and dollars. Having an ATP certificate doesnt mean that one isnt an idiot and/or a-hole.
The great majority of people do not seek ATP certificates primarily because the utility of doing so doesnt compute unless one's employment requires such credentials.
KennyBoy :
(once again , it is an affectionate term , even if sometimes you're a bit over the top , we've been missing you around ...)
do not try compare an apple and a potato !
you like your jet = fine !
would it be a good choice for professional use ? = No ! the SDR from DJ say so ...!
it is probably a Good plane for a single owner like you , but it lacks to many details to be a natural choice (let apart good one) for any professional use !
(details : security , reliability ,residual value in , let say 6 months or price now : who would be crazy enough to buy a 2M$+ EA500 where no one knows how long it is going to be kept as a flying machine ...)
Ken,
"Those who can't fly to ATP standards want prop planes; "
good morning - wake up!
What about Europe etc. where you need a type rating for a/cs
heavier than 1999 kg or with more than one engine(MEP)...
Naturally a type rating is needed for all jets and turbo props.
If you think the EA500 should only be flown by ATP-rated pilots then you should appreciate that those pilots don't move to the EA500!
If the pilot must not have an ATP license, why is an ATP-standard needed?
BTW: The training cost have an impact on the total costs.Professionals look for reliability, too!
Julius
P.S.: Ken, be sure if the EA500 is sooo efficient, professionals will buy it for their business!
A few comments:
1. Dayjet Technologies: (BTW, the website actually doesn't work). Whatever software DJ may have created may have some application as a decision support tool in various industries/scenarios; however, you may notice that there appear to be no takers from the charter industry or from fractional which face constant "operational reconfiguration/optimization challenges; as for DJT's usefulness in aggregating passengers in a air taxi design, it is a meaningless exercise if price isn't set to actual demand; in this regard, DJ wasn't even close (still way too high for the kind of mass market they aspired to); meaningless as well if the wrong aircraft is deployed (it was) and meaningless if customers can't understand the relatively complicated decision making that DJ demanded of service buyers (time window; willingness to pay etc). One has to wonder if DJ's capital was invested in DJS or DJT, DJ INC or some combination, and what the status of investors is (do they now own shares in DJT? Given the abruptness of DJS's closing and the rather cavalier attitude they displayed toward customers and employees, it doesn't seem likely that investors got treated any differently).
2. LinearAir: I hope by now that observers of this tiny company realize that it never was configured as an "air taxi" business; it never had the capital to go to market, advertise and build a franchise of public users; moreover, it never overcame the regulatory hurdles of frequency to do so; the current investment that it announced is how it has been capitalized since inception: very small tranches around airplane purchasing with some small percentage for support; LinearAir is really another variant of EAC and DJ: lots of press; lot's of curiosity; little if any viable or truly breakthrough plans and commitment. But best of luck to them however; they're at least "still in business" although one has to wonder just what kind of business it is.
3. EAC/ETIRC: Every time I've seen a founder leave his venture and then do so in a way that is a complete abandonement, it has signaled contempt from the founder to his enterprise, along with his realization that the project failed; and then he left a ticking time bomb as his final F-off to the investors that pushed him out, typically relishing their failure as his revenge and psychological rationalization. Additionally, every time I've seen "investors" like the ETIRC gang, it has signaled that the last round investor is looking for the back exit door for himself while he throws up the facade that the front door is still open and that there is still a business there, when in fact, they don't have a clue how to run it, how to modify it, how to adapt and especially, how the market really works and who the customers really are (or aren't); they don't have the overwhelming level of capital necessary to do so. All they want is their relatively small, last round returned, regardless of how they do it. Ask yourself why on earth ETIRC/RP isn't doing what any rational professional investor or turnaround player would do: restructure through court; shed debt; disolve equity; recapitalize under a radically improved cost structure. In my experience, when last round players refuse BK/restructuring it is because they believe there is an imminent exit for them from another party that will buy the story (including one that "EAC has been cleaned up, the founder removed, costs lowered")and that if they go to BK, they will lose control, freeze cash they are transferring to themsleves and scare away some entity they still think can be closed. ETIRC thinks they are remaining media neutral and private, when in fact all their very visible actions and behaviors tell all. It is a shame that a responsible party can't get control of the venture, come clean on production (50-75 a year for now, at best, after full cert/compliance/upgrades). The additional dagger in their side however is the current fleet: really, it's the next 5 years of demand, already built (but not complete) so even a mature 50 per year production plan will fail, as long as the current 250 units are in the market. The market's already been sold 5 years out (and more likely, forward produced 10 or more years, possible longer, even indefinately). Pumping that many planes out the door, in such incomplete status, is in my view the singular fatal business decision EAC made.
Whelp! Here's some input on cabin size;
I love flying the Aerostar 600. Cool looking and cool to fly. But all the people that I jitney around don't like the little cabin. And sometimes I've got to say flying with my head canted to right gets a little irritating after a long flight. I've been looking seriously at the Cessna Crusader and talking it over with family members. Everyone of them is voted it a better plane to ride in after looking at one because of cabin space even though its barely the same speed or slightly slower at altitude than the Aerostar 600. Room for pottie, room to stretch a little, club seating, ect.
SOOoooo......PC-12 might be slower and not as glamourous from the PILOTS point of view.....but the riders in the back sure do like that BIG cabin...even if it takes a little longer to get where they want to go...Why do you think the old flying barge twin Seneca is still so popular?
Ken,
For a guy who refused to second guess Vern and EAC for years, promoting them and their wares on this blog, shamelessly I might add, you are certainly suspicious of Rick over there at Epic.
Let's take him at his word, or let's just believe Bombardier's Q-series sales and acknowledge on FACT:
For passenger service, a prop does just fine. The contention someone would pay a hefty premium (E-500 compared with the props for the same mission at 1/3 the price) is a big fat misnomer.
For those in the know, its just alie.
For you, it may make you feel better about your decision, but its total BS.
People are flocking to single prop compared with EAC-taxis... and you cannot argue with that. The Q-series sold amazingly well over thelast few years, and its a commercial prop airliner.
Stop the insanity and wake up.
Your facination with your check-ride is curious... as is your penchant for a jet. I guess bth are chest-thimping material for some.
Passenger just want cost-effective relaible and safe transport.
You, my friend ARE in another category...almost all by yourself, I might add.
One has to wonder if DJ's capital was invested in DJS or DJT, DJ INC or some combination, and what the status of investors is (do they now own shares in DJT? Given the abruptness of DJS's closing and the rather cavalier attitude they displayed toward customers and employees, it doesn't seem likely that investors got treated any differently).
I think the investors in DayJet invested in all the tentacles. I think the ones who get shafted are the outsiders who did business with DayJet Services.
LinearAir: I hope by now that observers of this tiny company realize that it never was configured as an "air taxi" business
They seem to be a relatively standard air charter business that has gotten lots of publicity due to association with Eclipse.
Additionally, every time I've seen "investors" like the ETIRC gang, it has signaled that the last round investor is looking for the back exit door for himself while he throws up the facade that the front door is still open and that there is still a business there, when in fact, they don't have a clue how to run it, how to modify it, how to adapt and especially, how the market really works and who the customers really are (or aren't); they don't have the overwhelming level of capital necessary to do so. All they want is their relatively small, last round returned, regardless of how they do it.
Roel still hasn't found out that he's the Greater Fool. I don't think he'll realize it until Ecilpske doesn't pan out. I think this guy has dodged a lot of bullets without having so far been personally held accountable for scandal (L&H and Computer Associates come to mind), but this could finally do him in because as CEO, Chairman, majority owner, business partner, etc nobody would believe him when he claims ignorance.
ETIRC thinks they are remaining media neutral and private, when in fact all their very visible actions and behaviors tell all. It is a shame that a responsible party can't get control of the venture, come clean on production (50-75 a year for now, at best, after full cert/compliance/upgrades).
I think if Eclipse had done this soon enough, they could have been saved. Instead Roel could think of nobody but himself and instead doubled down on production with Russia and is putting all of Eclipse's customers money to use benefiting ETIRC rather than helping Eclipse restructure.
dave :
#Roel still hasn't found out that he's the Greater Fool. I don't think he'll realize it until Ecilpske doesn't pan out#
i believe this is highly doubtful ...
if you read about Roel's past , one thing seems to be a constant : He knows very well until where he can go too far ...
but he never went over , as you pointed out , he has been already very close to take it ...
but never been charged yet !
which is , in itself , something remarkable enough to doubt the " i didn't know" story ...
Ken said, "The perceived efficiency of a turboprop doesn't actually pan out in real life."
We're finding that this is very often true on all but the shortest flights. At altitude in the CJ2, we can see efficiencies in excess of .5nm/lb before wind is taken into account. Our hourly costs in total are not cheap, but the King Air 200 that we fly is often more expensive on a per mile basis. Plus the reduction in time required to get from here to there on most of our trip profiles is significant.
KM "Those planes are slogging it out in weather in the 20's"
The 20's are comfortable no-man's land from a traffic standpoint, and usually much better weather-wise than a good chunk of altitudes utilized by the piston equipment, but the 40's are even better. The owner/pilot I fly for won't even consider aircraft like the Premier IA and the now-doomed Grob Spn because he doesn't want to be limited to FL410.
KM "But there is a real effect I see from some TBM and even King Air owners--they don't want to have to pass a tough checkride to move up to a jet."
I think this is only partially true. I think that if the FPJ had been delivered with the promised equipment and functionality from the outset, I think many more pilots would have been willing to hazard a type checkride. One Eclipse pilot I spoke with (who had a wallet full of type ratings) said the FPJ was, by far, the hardest type process he'd ever been through. Ken's rightly proud of his accomplishment and understandably confident in his airmanship capabilities. However, I'm not surprised that many turboprop owners conclude that the effort is not worth the reward, because of all the stress and concern many would rightly feel due to the plane's HAL-like operational idiosyncrasies.
I don't think the Q-series Bombardier example works. It's a mid-70-seat plane that has rediculously awesome fuel specifics and is usually configured to fly more people than the CRJ700 it replaces. It's just a no-brainer for the operator and most of the passengers' propaphobia is offset by the reasonably priced ticket. The fear is still there however. I often fly in the back of Q400s and like to watch the nervous look of the passengers whose faces are looking directly at the spinning propeller. They would prefer it be somewhere else.
Could be a tertiary contributor to Alpha's success. PC12 has decent speed/DOCs. Roomy cabin. The folks sitting in it can't see the propeller.
Jeff
Another unhappy (ex) customer...
Atlantic Marina Holdings LLC
v.
Eclipse Aviation Corporation
11/3/2008 2008-CP-10-6276
Unfair Trade Practices. Defendant was negligent in its sale and manufacture of a $1.8 million jet aircraft that was delivered to the plaintiff with several deficiencies that were never adequately resolved. After pouring an additional $128,000 in the aircraft, the plaintiff sold it at a substantial loss.
Looks like getting out of an FPJ will end up being more expensive that getting into one...
Shane
Ken,
This from someone with considerably more hours than you in an FPJ:-
Ken is lying about the FPJ fuel burn. It is the same as the C90 but 100kts faster. Fuel burn is calculated in terms of pounds per hour or gallons per hour.
I would prefer to fly any turboprop instead of the FPJ.
The truth is a bitch, isn't it?
Shane
we must see the good side of things ...
with EAC , lawyers say "Crisis ? what Crisis ..." ;-)
Unfair Trade Practices. Defendant was negligent in its sale and manufacture of a $1.8 million jet aircraft that was delivered to the plaintiff with several deficiencies that were never adequately resolved. After pouring an additional $128,000 in the aircraft, the plaintiff sold it at a substantial loss.
Looks like getting out of an FPJ will end up being more expensive that getting into one...
A whole new class of litigants in addition to depositors and 60%ers. I would expect that case to be both interesting as well as expensive, but more money is at stake than for the depositor's cases.
I've heard "fuel burn" applied (or mis-applied) to "fuel burn rate", and "fuel burn(ed) for the trip". I won't argue the preferred terminology.
I think the E500 and C90GT both "use" (consume) around 400 pph, at what, maybe 350 vs 250 KTAS for the sake of comparison?
Thank makes the E500 40% more efficient, which I think is Ken's point, rather than a pph comparison.
Plus, it's 100 knots faster.
Good things both, indeed!
I like the C90GT, and will give the E500 it's due- considering both power plants are a fairly state of the art, and well matched to their respective platforms; comparing the MTOW's gives perhaps a better hint at source for the relative fuel efficiencies: about 6000 # vs 10,000#, the Eclipse is 40% lighter.
Thinking about MTOW's, I think long ago we had a quite interesting discussion regarding price-per-pound. If the C90GT is 10K lbs, and $3M, then at 6K lbs, the Eclipse should cost $1.8M. (Not so far off, instead at $2.1M it's 70%).
BTW, here's a nice article on the C90GT:
http://www.flyingmag.com/pilotreports/649/beechcraft-c90gt.html?print_page=y
(I'm still waiting for that interesting piece from 'ole Ms. Karen at Charter-X :)
Shane your source on fuel burn is full of it. You can expect 50-60 gal per hour at altitute with the E500. Ken was in no way lying about it.
Tell your source to get his hours in a plane on something other than X-Plane for Windows.
jeriksen,
hat's off to you my friend...
"It's just a no-brainer for the operator and most of the passengers' propaphobia is offset by the reasonably priced ticket."
This IS the reality, and whether or no it is fair or not, illustrates the issue at hand, and the central premise which led to Dayjet's failure as well as EAC's....
People will pay less and fly in a prop, compared to a jet. If they are willing to pay more, they are likely to pay MORE still and fly a real jet.
The FPJ is really small... people who do not mind tiny planes will chose a prop, most often at 1/2 or less the price. Think BAron, don't bother thinking Kingair unless the seats are filled, then again, think Caravan... or might as well think Caravan ;)
The "value proposition" is not there for most passengers. And yes, a Q is unfair, as is a Baron, or even Kingair with 6 or 8 passengers...
That's the point.
In order to make the ea-50 work (not accounting for real safety risk, company risk, resid value etc...) you probably need to compare it to a kingair with 2 passengers onboard going 400 miles, or fly it exceeding MTOW and claim some payload range.
In any case, its a loser, unless you have one friend and no more to take along. Or... ah, never mind
BTW, I love your post, you seem sane and in the know.
Thanks
Shane,
A simple IP trace is all it takes to show that ken meyer and eclipsepilotosmiv are using the same ip address. Maybe it's both Ken and Shari using the same ip or Ken playing games. Bet on the later one.
TRACER
Jeriksen,
"I often fly in the back of Q400s and like to watch the nervous look of the passengers whose faces are looking directly at the spinning propeller. They would prefer it be somewhere else".
Hmmm, good marketing point- I wonder if that's why Beech tried a pusher with the Starship. Piaggio is a pusher too. Seems like aerodynamically, a prop in "clean air" would be superior, but maybe in "plain sight" is worse.
-----------------------
EclipsePilotX,
(by the way, what's OMSIV stand for? Sorry I don't recognize it- thanks)
You are correct about Ken's numbers (and 59 gph comes out to about 400 pph).
The source Shane quotes is correct too- about burn RATE (not burn totals).
We're all correct, just not using the same terminology.
Bill...
amazngly, I often find myself agreeing on stuff someone else just wants to argue about, except we really agree when you look at the real facts.
Bottom line, a little palne is a little plane
Some will be OK with flying inside it, some won't
The one's who are OK ina small plane, are almost always OK with a prop
And in the end, the prefer to pay less, not more.
And in the end, the prop is just as quick... or thereabouts.
And EAC thought no one likes props, and Dayjet agreed and they are SOL... and so is their model.
But Ken, carries on... and on... and on....
FYI:
If Mooney is having issues, then it can't be that much longer for Eclipse...
e.d.t.
Mooney Halts All Aircraft Production
Nov 7, 2008
David Collogan david_collogan@aviationweek.com
Mooney Airplane Co. terminated the employment of about two-thirds of its workforce last week, including all production workers, leading to questions about the company's future in the current challenging economic environment.
Company officials notified the Texas Workforce Commission that it was getting rid of 229 employees, more than 70 percent of the total, and terminated all new aircraft production activities. A spokesman indicated that the action was temporary, until the buyers can be found for the existing inventory of new airplanes, but that promises to be a difficult task, given the current tight credit environment which is causing problems for most aircraft manufacturers.
Mooney had about 400 workers on the job earlier this year and was attempting to expand its sales presence in Europe to take advantage of what had been growing demand for small aircraft overseas. But orders began to fall off and in June the company cut 80 workers, reducing the workforce to 320. The cuts made Nov. 4 leave only about 90 workers still on the job. The remaining employees are in various support activities including Mooney's service center, warranty administration, service parts and sales and marketing, according to a company spokesman.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MOONEY11078.xml&headline=Mooney%20Halts%20All%20Aircraft%20Production&channel=busav
Company officials notified the Texas Workforce Commission that it was getting rid of 229 employees
The difference between Mooney and Eclipse (amongst other things) is that Mooney has class enough to WARN.
Shane Price said...
Ken,
This from someone with considerably more hours than you in an FPJ:-
Ken is lying about the FPJ fuel burn. It is the same as the C90 but 100kts faster.
Shane, I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass. There you go again, probably quoting your "professional pilot" friend.
EVERY SINGLE TIME it become totally apparent that this person has very, very, very poor aeronautical knowledge and it is invariably completely wrong. Yet he posts like he is the master of information.
HE IS WRONG. He is making an ASS out of himself, and by extention YOU.
Please stop this insanity.
He apparently can't read or comprehend what Ken wrote, and/or is confusing fuel burn with fuel burn rate.
On any reasonable flight, the EA500 will burn less fuel than a C90. While the fuel burn rates are comparable, the Eclipse will be going about 120kts (50%) faster and therefore have much better efficiency in nm/lb of fuel and thus have a lower fuel burn (real pilots knwow what that is) for the flight.
There is no other way to put it. This professional pilot of yours is an idiot. To see you associate yourself with him is a shame.
Ken is correct. There may be several things wrong with the EA500, but it is prob the most efficient (in terms of burn for a flight) pressurized turbine GA flying by a good margin. The TBM850 comes very close to it.
Again, please stop posting this guy's uninformed non-sense.
And for those talking about Q400 and other TP airliners, please!!! That is a niche and it is declining in the western world. You want to compare the CASM of that plane with a contemporary and comparable jetliner, then compare it with a B6 E190 for example.
Lets see the Q400 do this
"The B6 E-190 chartered for VP Candidate Sarah Palin set a distance record by flying ANC-BUF nonstop. At 2,694nm and over 6 hours, B6 claims its the longest commercial airline flight the E-190 has ever made."
Baron95,
FPJ versus C90
yes,it is rediculous to compare an uncomplete a/c with an approx 40 year old one.
The C90 was not designed for fuel efficiency and the uncomplete FPJ not for flights
under thick layers of clouds with icing conditions.
This type of discussion degrates the blog...
Julius
P. S.: If you drive with your 2008 car to 2008 C90GTI, you should compare the finish of the products!Yes, this an unfair comparison!
Not to make this blog a surrogate Mooney Critic venue, but let's not miss the analogies.
Mooney has been in a cycle of hiring and firing for a looooong time ... producing a handfull of airplanes each year ... without a Production Certificate BTW.
Then some leadership shake-ups, repeat, repeat again.
Then in an uncharacteristic cat fight with Lancair/Columbia, they dump a LOT of money into engineering to regain the "fastest piston single" claim.
Instead of sticking to their great reputation and great airplanes their new bosses burned their future on a battle that reportedly has sold ZERO additional airplanes.
Mooney is temporarily down. But history shows they will likely be back ... with most of the same team. But hopefully new (old) leadership.
They are small, cramped, relatively economical, fast, sometimes challenging to fly, lack FIKI, have a rabid following, have equally rabid opponents (aka Bonanza owners) ...
Stick to core strengths. Deliver good airplanes. Make smart choices. Survive until a better day.
Fuel burn and flight time for a typical 500 nm flight (Eclipse & Mustang numbers from the AFM, C90 and TBM 700 numbers courtesy of RMS Flitesoft):
Eclipse: 1:34, 713 pounds
TBM 700: 1:49, 672 pounds (-6%)
C90: 2:25, 970 pounds (+36%)
C510: 1:36, 986 pounds (+38%)
CJ1: 1:31, 1234 pounds (+73%)
It's a fact: the Eclipse is very hard to beat for its combination of speed and efficiency.
Ken
P.S. News from Albuquerque yesterday: Avio NG 1.5 was approved by the FAA.
"It's a fact: the Eclipse is very hard to beat for its combination of speed and efficiency."
Ken,
As usual, you are deliberately stacking the deck in favor of the Eclipse by considering only part of the technical tradeoffs. Any efficiency comparsion, to be truly a meaningful comparison, must take into account at least cabin volume and payload, and normalize these in some appropriate way to have anything like an apples-to-apples comparison. Most if not all of the examples to which you compare the Eclipse are capable of much more in these caregories than the EA50, and make a deliberate tradeoff between fuel efficiency and cabin volume/payload. And, for a 500 mile trip or shorter, taking into account door to door time, travel by car is almost as fast and far more fuel efficient, even with 5-7 people on board. Your "efficiency" argument for the EA50 is cooking the books as far as I can see.
"Avio NG 1.5 was approved by the FAA."
A decade late and a billion dollars short!
Ken,
It's a fact: the Eclipse is very hard to beat for its combination of speed and efficiency.
sounds great - but ask some professionals (taxi operators), why they choose Mustang, Phenom!
And what about FIKI - not there, next year, and GPS appr. yes - next year.
When does your plane get FIKI, Garmin (GPS)...
Julius
P. S.: EAC is now producing uncomplete FPJ since 2006 - sound perfect!
P.S. News from Albuquerque yesterday: Avio NG 1.5 was approved by the FAA.
Just as I've predicted. Now watch for EASA to follow and then once Roel has what he wants with Eclipse's customers footing the bill on all things EASA-related (1.5 FAA approval was needed for EASA), he'll then close up shop and leave Eclipse customers high and dry while he's off in ETIRCland having completely spent their money.
That figgers...He's jus' pullin' a Frank Lorenzo...................Till Frank started getting death threats, then he promptly retired.........
Ken,
As things have played out, and knowing now where Eclipse stands from a financial stability point of view, would you purchase again?
dave :
2 observations ...
First , you have to be careful in Kenny choice of words : it is a news FROM ABQ ...
any written confirmation from FAA directly ?
The EASA Special Conditions related as :
CS 23.903
CS 23.995(a)
CS 23.1141(e)
have not been lifted at the present time ...
so if EAC/Etirc are on "a dollar short" it can be a problem for EA500 to have enough to maintain activity until a EASA Cert. can be granted ...
on top of it , it is a good thing for EAC , as for Etirc getting the Cert. as a ripe fruit , i am not so sure EASA would like it too much ...
do not forget EASA is an European Agency , they never , NEVER EVER , try something for what they can be blame for after ( in E.U. it is called "proactive safety of regulations " a polite term to say "we won't play with our asses to please yours!")
do not forget that granting a Cert. is putting Eac/Etirc in E.U. consumers protection laws as for warranty (if they go under , Who ? ) , maintenance (at the time being , not a single plant is certified by EASA for such in Euroland ...)
and the CERT. would be property of EAC , changiing it to Etirc is an other $$$ to be spend ...!
Whytech said, "for a 500 mile trip...travel by car is almost as fast"
Maybe for you, but not for most of us. My wife flew 550 nm between our two houses in about an hour and a half while I drove the long trip. It took me three DAYS.
But since you seem to want a longer comparison, here it is for a typical 1000 nm trip:
Eclipse: 3:00 1197 lbs
TBM 700: 3:32 1177 lbs (-2%)
C90: 4:29 1760 lbs (+47%)
C510: 3:13 1737 lbs (+45%)
CJ1: 2:50 2075 lbs (+73%)
As for your concern about space, that's exactly the point! The Eclipse has 4 to 6 seats and can take 700 lbs of payload a rated 1300 nm (45 minute reserve). Bigger planes are for people who need to haul more than that.
Ken
HOLY COW!!!!
You should see the new Ford truck I jus' got. It has an 8.0 liter twin turbo diesel, jumbo crew cab and gets 20 mpg. GPS HUD display and automatic airconditioning, with a delux leather interior. It also has AUTOMATIC shift on the fly 4 wheel drive that directs power to the wheel with the most traction.
BOY! Does it ride nice!
I jus' wish the factory would hurry up and install the GPS, traction computer, airconditioning, and twin turbos. And the friggin HUD they were going to fix, still displays all the data in mirrored reverse on the windshield. They prommissed all the stuff would be ready for delivery when I picked up the truck but unfortunately the factory is having problems. I'm gittn' kind of worried since all the auto makers are tanking rite now...
;)
kenny ... kenny ... kenny ... !!
3 days to do 550 miles ?
you know my friends , cars are the big metal box where you seat , it is making some noise and most use it to go from A to B ... ;-))
a car IS NOT the things of different colors and shape you put on your feet before running ...
550 : 72 hours = 7.63 mile per hour ...
did you go running ???
"My wife flew 550 nm between our two houses in about an hour and a half"
Ken,
Please - meaningful comparisons only. I said "door to door" by which I meant to include all time that one spends which is specific to flying a trip, compared with other modes. Includes time getting to and from airports, parking the car and transferring baggage, waiting for the rental car at the other end, preflight inspection, fueling, wx briefing, flight planning, etc, etc. Agreed that these times would be substantially the same for most acft, but none of these would typically apply to driving a personal car.
As for the trip requiring you 3 days of driving time, there is, as usual, something you are not telling us. It would seem that one could do 550 miles by bicycle in 3 days.
Guys,Guys,Guys....Maybe there was known icing between the departure and destination and had to wait for weather???? It is approaching winter...
Impressive. How long has it taken them to install two Garmin 400's?
Ken,
I have cherry little 93' GEO Metro convertible. Pristeen and garage kept with only 21,000 miles on it. It is a collectors item on the low side and is cute as hell. Very efficeient, gets upto 55 MPG. It only holds two people though. Most people don't like it very much becaeuse of its size and there is not much in the way of fuctional goodies in it other than airconditioning that only works when its not to hot out. A true little roadster But I don't care what anybody else thinks about it, I love driving it down to Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Hollywoood beach at nite with the top down. Granted its a tinky-tink car but its a blast drive....and I don't care what ANYBODY thinks!
Aside from all the chiding here on this blog you get Ken, I wish I had a EA500 too...My brother was considering a deposit on one way back when they were $850,00.00. He's glad he didn't at this point. He just would have NEVER taken delivery of an incomplete aircraft.
flyboy :
as whytech said : meaningful comparison ...!!
our poor kennyBoy seems to be a bit overwhelmed by his speech ... ;-))
a bit like if i would say that with a careful choice of "autobahn" (highways) in Germany , i would do the 550 Miles in a bit less than 4 (four) hours and about a full tank of unleaded ...
Not that it matters, but the idea of three days in a car reminds me of a memorable trip . . . the car was a ‘51 Chevy, passengers: six sailors (five continued after Oklahoma), just graduated from Submarine School in Groton, Connecticut . . . time: late December 1956 . . . distance traveled, 3,000 miles from Groton to Los Angeles. Total time, 72 hours, including six hours to tow the car into Elk City, Oklahoma, to replace a broken phenolic timing gear. Weather conditions: brutal, sometimes DIKI (Driving In Known Icing) . . . major flooding through Oklahoma (a foot deep on the highway approaching NM, and in New Mexico, water running down Central Avenue (Highway 66) in Albuquerque, up over the curbs in front of UNM . . . and then a major sand storm in the Mojave in Southern California. Most highways were two lane, with few conveniences. But we didn’t have any blowouts or flats.
So, we’ve come a long way since then . . . 3,000 miles in three days in 1956, to 550 miles in three days in 2008. Ain’t technology wonderful?
gadfly
Fred;
I think my humorous analogies ARE rite on...
As I've always preached: "Success is in the the understanding and completion of the details"
Ken is NOT giving us ALL the neccessary details to come to proper conclusions.
Ken, ifya can, when giving us details, make it more like a log with some more descriptions, items and a little more detail so that individuals don't deduce or interpolate improper information. 'member..they are all pilots(at least most of them..) and they interpolate those performance charts on a regular basis and may be gitting confused about what you are saying...
ex: My wife decided to lay over at a fuel stop because she wanted to go shopping at a particular store or there was known icing and we had to wait for weather because my plane has no FIKI..ect.
Mr Gad , yes , tech is wonderful ;-) specially taken your way ...
flyboy :
yes , your analogies are humorous ...
but with Kenny , any analogies is ! ;-)
As everyone knows, Adam's second reincarnation folded recently. Here's a photo taken near their former headquarters two days ago:
Adam's End
TBM,
That is a very sad photograph ( sniff ). Being a closet Skymaster fetishist, I loved the idea of the Adam 500. And anybody could love the cabin.
But the reality of the enormous weight issues, of all the details left unsweated, problems not resolved, customers left holding the bag - left it as nothing more than an idea that came close enough to disappoint.
Reminds me of something else - can't put my finger on it right now...
Would you like a little 'wistful' with that Whopper?
DI
ATM,
“Amazingly, I often find myself agreeing on stuff someone else just wants to argue about, except we really agree when you look at the real facts”.
I agree! To my chagrin, when I said, “I think the E500 and C90GT both "use" (consume) …”, I too was ambiguous, and did not mention my implied “for the trip”, leaving “per hour” an available interpretation.
“But Ken, carries on... and on... and on....”
I hope we can say the same thing for our friends in Albuquerque!!
------------------------------
EDT,
I think Mooney is in perpetual bankruptcy. But they keep coming out- I think the only explanation is that they have a superior product (just not a superior market).
I think Eclipse focused on developing what they (rightly or wrongly) perceived as a superior market (lots of opportunity), and -to their credit- also tried to develop a superior product- but in reality, there can only be one “first” priority: they focused on the market FIRST, product second.
Unfortunately, the market is a bust (air taxi), and the resources misallocated to exploiting that (and customers), resulted in the product delays and difficulties.
As a startup company, I would have expected Eclipse to have concentrated on developing a good reputation, with the product, rather than market penetration numbers.
But, they have succeeded, in “developing a reputation”, without a doubt !
Ken,
Duck and cover!!
I and many, appreciate your details of “life with an Eclipse”, and know you are posting honest results you have encountered, and are thankful for the info. And I think we all acknowledge there are conditions, particularly on the east coast, that would lead any aircraft to have somewhat differing specifics.
I think the E500 is great for personal transportation, and maybe eventually, for small companies too.
I can think of many mountainous areas of the western US and Canada where it would save enormous amounts of travel time (ah, not sure about 3 days, but I can think of some really long day drives).
That’s exactly the market I though Dayjet could legitimately service, but I just didn’t see how the volume would work out.
(Apparently nobody else does either- Maybe Big Ed has packed up his bags and ants and is scheming up a DayJet-NG or something, for the west coast- with a rack on top for surf board and skis :).
Thanks for your valuable contributions!
--------------------------------
BTW, with regard to the C90GT, I noticed the range is comparable (1200-ish nm), looks like the C90GT has a slight edge on payload with full fuel- 837 lbs (“200 pound pilot”+637 lbs) for the C90GT versus 700 for the E500, and more room with the double-club seating, but the Eclipse has a slight-to-significant real-world speed edge, depending on trip length.
-----------------------------
Gadfly,
“But we didn’t have any blowouts or flats”.
Hey, Eclipse is working on that tire thing too!
Ouch! I stayed in the Holiday Inn just behind the A500 when I went out to see Adams after giving them my deposit on an A700.
Turboprop_pilot
Ken is the master debater... king of parsing...and taking little details and twisting them in or out of his favor is his game.
I love the fact that we have the consummate bright side, the ultimate defender, the hidden persuader, if you will... in Ken.
He sold or got a refund for his second plane, which is a big indication of how he feels about the product, company and all thigs considered.
I was not a big critic of the performance of the lane, just payload range and appropriateness for a taxi service... especially al la Dayjet, where seats is a key issue.
The overall utility of the plane in my opinion is poor, all things considered. Especially for taxi service... but for some, like Ken, there is a lot of fun and many missions he and his wife can accomplish.
All the best, and yes, Ken, I hope you go on and on...
bill.e.goat,
Hey, Eclipse is working on that tire thing too!
hey, that's EAC's problem - too many "old" open items and a lot of "new" ones, too!
When will the autothrottle be available
(it is a standard!)?
I think an operator dislikes scheduled flights to ABQ and some down time over there.
That doesn't seem to be a problem or concern for Fam. Meyer!
Julius
I think the E500 is great for personal transportation, and maybe eventually, for small companies too.
I can think of many mountainous areas of the western US and Canada where it would save enormous amounts of travel time (ah, not sure about 3 days, but I can think of some really long day drives).
That’s exactly the market I though Dayjet could legitimately service, but I just didn’t see how the volume would work out.
That pretty much defines Eclipse and why it is doing so poorly. Eclipse's biggest and happiest market (personal users) was defined by Eclipse as their smallest market (and still does to this day). If Eclipse would have said "We're a great little company making great little jets for people," they'd be OK, but instead they have to talk of massive IPOs and huge non-existant markets and setting up factories based on sales volumes that will never materialize no matter how good or bad the world economy is.
TBM, D.I., TPP,
Sorry about the Adam thing- it is sad to see "the truck show up".
(I thought they had the interior volume to make airtaxi more palatible, relative to the E500. Don't think the economics worked any better though).
TPP, I hope you either-
1) got the deposit back :), or
2) had a nice stay at the hotel :(
(I should think it rather unethical to use deposits for operating expenses, but don't know the legal details).
---------------------------
Mentioning things that go bump in the night, or economic downturn:
Anyone know how Spectrum is doint with their S33 and S40?
(Looks like they've got some decent deep-pockets support, if Linden Blue's General Atomics (Predator, etc., and reading, yes, really "atomics") is sinking some of the defense profit into it.
A bit further upmarket, how about Sino-whatever, and the SJ30? Skimming about, I saw sn 007 was delivered last year, maybe more since then, although the 2008 first half GAMA deliveries were listed as 0. I don't know how they manage to stay in business year after year- maybe with various foreign financiers, there is hope for Eclipse.
SJ-30 SN007 delivered (Nov 10, 2007):
http://www.sj30jet.com/news.html
Zero SJ30 deliveries in 2008Q1-2 :
http://www.gama.aero/resources/statistics/dloads/2008ShipmentReport.pdf
------------------------------
Shane,
“Meanwhile, over on Controller, a really strange transition is taking place. More than 60% (when you include the 28 from DayJet) of the aircraft and/or positions listed are being sold by EAC".
Maybe it's time for a more "disruptive" marketing plan: Ebay. With the "DayJet" name defunct, perhaps there would not be confusion with a name like "eBayJets".
Whytech is right to suggest that a truly meaningful comparison of the aircraft would require looking at more factors than just miles per gallon.
The traditional way the industry compares the performance of aircraft is by multiplying an aircraft's range times speed times cabin volume.
With that figure and the price of the aircraft you can then compare performance per dollar of each aircraft.
Here are the numbers:
E500 370kts - 1125nm range - 85.5 ft3 cabin volume
TBM850 320kts - 1365nm - 98.4 ft3
Mustang 340kts - 1150nm - 158 ft3
CJ1 378kts - 1275nm - 195 ft3
Phenom 100 380kts - 1160nm - 226 ft3
PC12 270kts - 1450nm - 321 ft3
Performance = range x speed x volume / 1000000
E500 Performance = 35.6
TBM850 Performance = 43.0
Mustang Performance = 61.8
CJ1 Performance = 94.0
Phenom 100 Performance = 99.5
PC12 Performance = 125.8
You can then calculate value by dividing performance by the cost of the aircraft. Here are those numbers.
E500 $2.15M
TBM850 $2.8M
Mustang $2.395M
CJ1 $3.375M
Phenom 100 $2.98M
PC12 $3.7M
E500 - 16.6 Perf / $
TBM850 - 15.3 Perf / $
Mustang - 20.7 Perf / $
CJ1 - 27.8 Perf / $
Phenom 100 - 33.4 Perf / $
PC12 - 34.0 Perf / $
This shows that both a Phenom 100 & a PC12 provide about twice the value per dollar of an Eclipse.
“But Ken, carries on... and on... and on....”
I wonder if he is aware that the Energizer Bunny has been arrested and charged with battery.
Bill.e,
"We're a great little company making great little jets for people,"
Whch cost $2.9M a pop... so we are out of business...
FC, your ananlysis is correct... there is something to be said for a low acquasition price attracting a new market which redefines the convention value curve. In this case, I must say, the market for these "Kens" is much smaller than Vern thought, and the value does not fit with any other large market...
so... the result IS the result.
Bill-e is right, except the price is 2X at low volume... conventional volume if you will.
Bake in the enterprise "risk" and you have a no brainer decision.
The plane had a shot at $1M... even just with private pilots...
FC,
there are some analysis that favor speed much more than any other parameter, especially for the jet market.
The props market analysis does not favor speed as much.
Incidently, there are "pushers" and "blockers" for these markets as well...
The "well established brand" is a big deal for most decision makers, as is the support network.
I am not sure what all this means, in the end, the EAC model killed itself... but the explanation for why most people will not buy an Eclipse product, even a "forward priced" one, is probably explained by the following commercial realities.
- most people do not favor speed (like EAC thought) in an aircraft market where payload-range is so limited. Props do OK, in this market for the most part.
- most people will not care about low-balled acquasition and support pricing, in a market where neophyte companies probably won't be around long enough to make good, anyways.
The consumer has voted already... my impression is Cessna and Embraer have taken the market for small jets. EAC found some early adopters, who got stuck with a deposit or a few deposits, and did not have the sense to jump when it was practical... otherwise, as their lack of any sales demonstrates, they actually have nothing.
Does ayone here think that if EAC was just starting to take deposits, anyone would choose to buy their plane? Even if it was finished? At $2.X million - which IS the price?
Now imagine Cessna and Embraer joined the market just today... with their offerings...
I think we have a loser.
While Ken may be happy enough to keep one of his two purchased EA-50s... I think there are far fewer Kens than Vern hoped.
And... the air taxi thing was just a lot of hot air.... the plane was designed for Vern's needs... not a taxi markets, or even a family of 5normal size people.
Not a poke, just an observation.
And all the SDRs and cracking and blowing etc... point to complete BS on the "designed for high cycle taxi market" BS... as well.
airtaximan,
remember VR is a small person.
If Ed and RP are sitting in the back, there will be an African bush taxi feeling.
No place for working, pondering...
How to get rid of a heavy coat?
In rain on the ramp?
Julius
Whytech asked, "Please - meaningful comparisons only. I said "door to door" by which I meant to include all time that one spends which is specific to flying a trip, compared with other modes. Includes time getting to and from airports, parking the car and transferring baggage, waiting for the rental car at the other end, preflight inspection, fueling, wx briefing, flight planning, etc, etc."
OK, that's fair enough.
It took her 15 minutes to drive to the airport, 15 minutes more to pull out the plane and crank up. Her flight was 1.6 hours, and she was at our other house .4 hours after landing: Total time was 2.5 hours door to door for the 550 nm trip.
I didn't fair as well. My trip was 853 statute miles, entailing 15.4 hours of driving. But alas, I can't drive 15.4 hours straight through, so I split it up over 3 days. I could have done it in two, if I'd wanted; let's assume that's what I did. If you count her drive time to and from the airport, surely you need to count my downtime in the hotel, right? So, she needed 2.5 hours and I needed 32 hours! :)
I just don't think your idea that 500 mile trips are just as quick in a car makes much sense, not to me anyway, and I do approximately that trip length all the time.
Ken
"It took her 15 minutes to drive to the airport, 15 minutes more to pull out the plane and crank up. Her flight was 1.6 hours, and she was at our other house .4 hours after landing: Total time was 2.5 hours door to door for the 550 nm trip."
So what? She could have made the same flight in an average recip twin in 4 hours and had operable weather radar, deice boots, a functioning autopilot, real brakes...and a heater that actually works. If there was any weather or icing at all she could not have departed in the first place.
DI said ... I loved the idea of the Adam 500. And anybody could love the cabin.
Really? Who in its right mind would design a cabin class passenger plane in the 21st century with those huge spars going right through the middle of the cabin. Pleaaaase!!! The Adam 500 was an abomination. It had zero useful load and was slower than a Malibu which had the same size cabin and less than 1/2 the power.
A disgrace for modern aeronautical design.
So what? She could have made the same flight in an average recip twin in 4 hours and had operable weather radar, deice boots, a functioning autopilot, real brakes...and a heater that actually works.
Really? And what Recip twin would that be? If you are talking about new, there is only the Slowneca and the Expensibaron. NEITHER of which is presurized. Have you EVER tried to top weather and mountains in an unpresurized plane and your family on-board? Ever tried to put an 18-month old on oxigen.
One more time. There is NO viable current production piston twin in the market if you want to fly your family reliably and comfortably.
I cringe everytime I get a slam dunk aproach because I know I'll be hurting the ears of my loved ones.
GA NEEDS a presurized new production smal turbine. Too bad Eclipse messed it up.
But don't pretend for a minute that the junk we fly (including me - flying one of the better ones) can pass for humane transportation for our families and loved ones.
My hat is off to Ken. He made a quantum leap from the C340 to the EA500 at a bargain. I hope Eclipse survives in some form and completes his plane.
And I hope D-Jet and Cirrus Jet manage, against all odds to produce their SEJ in volume.
That is what GA needs. Not more Slownecas and Expensibarons.
"Really? And what Recip twin would that be?"
That would be a Cessna 421C.
Fully pressurized, weather radar, roomy cabin. We use to flight plan at 180 knots and it worked out well. 550 nm trip was three hours. If you are looking for a current production airplane the Eclipse doesn't qualify for any comparison because it really isn't even flyable in its current sorry condition. If it did have all the equipment necessary for safe and efficient flight, it would doubtless be "too fat to fly", so comparisons are really pointless.
"GA NEEDS a presurized new production smal turbine."
It already has one, although not thoroughly new: The King Air 90GTi. Got it all at a bargain price IMHO. In todays climate, I am confident you can buy one brand new with everything there and working at around $2.6-$2.7mm. Love that Pro Line avionics suite, big cabin, flushing potty, and support just about anywhere you go. Just the ticket for your BDL-MVY trip! I'd definitely prefer this to the Mustang; the Phenom 100 might appeal to me more, but it will be at least 3 years before this is sorted out and support is widely available. The PC-12 is still my favorite but is $2mm more.
I'd be interested to see where Flightcenter's numbers come out on the C90GTi.
airsafetyman said...
"Really? And what Recip twin would that be?"
That would be a Cessna 421C.
So your best option is a 25 year old airplane, that has a troublesome engine and has an engine out climb performance of 200 ft/min if all the stars are aligned in your favor? I'm sure you are aware that most 421s are getting very old in the tooth with many cycles due to 135 work, right?
Don't get me wrong. The 421C is one of my all time favorable airplanes. But I can't imagine that Shari would be happy checking the oil on those geared 520s and draining the 8 drain points on the 421 in a cold snowy night prior to take off. I also don't think she'd be able to breathe on a night take-off behind those geared 520s for a couple of minutes.
And the dispatch reliability of those things are awful.
I discarded the 421Cs for that reason alone.
Ask youself this question. Why did Cessna stop making the 421C and all other of their piston Twins a quarter of a century ago?
Are you sure you are really recomending a 421 to a private pilot & family?
The GTi is a $3.1M plane and there is no used market to it yet. It is horrably expensive to insure and maintain.
Yes it is a comfortable ride if you don't need to top weather and are not in a big hurry.
I do not like the choice of Pro Line for that airframe. It is way too complex and lacks functionality (e.g. SVS) compared to the much lighter and less expensive G1000.
"The GTi is a $3.1M plane and there is no used market to it yet. It is horrably expensive to insure and maintain."
It is only $3.1mm if you dont know how to negotiate. HB is very quick with the discounts, especially at the end of a quarter or year.
While I dont have any first hand experience with maintenance, your statement seems to conflict with my second hand info, especially for a new airframe under warranty. Your concept of "horribly expensive" may differ from mine. When I was considering a King Air a few years ago, it was the turbine acft insurers were most confortable with - like an old shoe. Maybe that has changed.
Several used ones currently listed on Controller.
"Yes it is a comfortable ride if you don't need to top weather and are not in a big hurry."
There are not any light turbine civilian acft currelty flying that will "top the weather." FL300 does a respectable job.
You are irrationally hung up on the speed thing. Run the numbers - you will find that the difference between 270 kts and 370 kts will not change your life one bit in practical terms.
"But I can't imagine that Shari would be happy checking the oil on those geared 520s and draining the 8 drain points on the 421 in a cold snowy night prior to take off."
did you really write this?
Do you expect her to fly Ken's plane in those conditions?
I know he figured out how to by-pass the In-Op stickers for the boots and all... but...
We need to remain serious about this planes capabilities.
I do not think its reliable transport in FIKI
There are a lot of whacko bugs
Even Ken asked for a refund on Shari's plane...
The old planes you are dissing provide at least a viable discussion.
Hoping for more doesn't really cut it...
The dream is dead. Unless you have $3M.
All the other planes will be limited.
And yes, Ken, some people live in the mountains and some live in Alaska.... not enough nto make the price affordable enough for you to really own a twin jet.. unless its from a dreamer CEO of a defunct company who gave you a plane at 50% off becasue the reality is, the market for enough volume was not there...
Like I said, there are only so may Ken Meyer's with exactly the right family and mission profile for this limited plane
Kudos, and enjoy - too bad the dream didn't last long enough for you to get a premium on deposit #2...... and make the first plane almost free... I think that was the sales pitch...
Baron,
I would much prefer my wife fly a 421C than an Eclipse, not even close. The Cessna Conquest or Piper Cheyenne would be an ever better choice. All are immeasurably better and safer choices that the Eclipse. I don't recall the 421C model having eight drains. It only has one fuel tank in each wing. As for dispatch reliability, ours was quite good. We averaged 800-900 hours a year in corporate service before aquiring MU-2s.
Whytech said,
"I'd be interested to see where Flightcenter's numbers come out on the C90GTi."
Me too. In addition, I suspect the 'book' numbers for the Eclipse 500 treat it too kindly. As posted previously, I know a senior Eclipse charter captain who said, "With a crew of two plus three passengers and bags, the Eclipse is a 250 nautical mile airplane. Maybe a little more if the weather is superb." (Okay, Part 135 versus Part 91.)
FlightCenter's analysis is very instructive and neccessarily simplified. Many aircraft have about the same full-fuel remaining payload - enough for three or four people. The range of the lightest aircraft suffers worst with more payload, not to mention passenger comfort.
Of course to achieve their range numbers, the turbofans have to blast off into low-earth orbit. An owner in a metropolitan area who won't see unrestricted climbs to the deep blue will achieve better effective range in a turboprop.
Flightcenter said:
"CJ1 $3.375M"
Are you thinking a used acft? Last time I looked a new CJ1+ was around $4.4-$4.6mm.
The biggest issue behind production of piston aircraft is...........
PRODUCT LIABILITY
The only way that this can be resolved is thru tort reform...and that ain't even gonna come close to happening with a liberal president and majority house of reps and senate.
This has been and is the main problem with production pistons. There are a few VERY fine piston singles and twins with very good safety records, but that means nothing when 30-40% of the cost is for self insurance by the manufactures. The cost of flying "yourself" has become prohibitively expensive. When I was a kid (16) with my student pilots license I could rent 150's for $6 per hour wet, 172's, $8 per hour. Today, there are very few 152's so a lot of places rent 172's for $85 per, and I've seen some places rent a "new" 172 for $115 per hour wet...(cough-cough...)
The additional issue behind all of this is a society that's always looking for fat sows nipple to attach itself to for a free ride instead of taking responsibility for their own actions.
This IS the single biggest issue why we do not see more aircraft of ANY type for owner/flyers.
OK . . . since much of this discussion is somewhat silly . . . I’ll add another one from 1956:
‘Leave the base at Treasure Island (Electronics “A” School), take the electric train from Goat Island (Yerba Buena), on the Bay Bridge into San Francisco to the Greyhound terminal . . . total time approx. 30 minutes. Climb aboard the bus, fall asleep for a few hours . . . wake up at the bus stop on San Fernando Road in Burbank . . . walk up the hill to my home in time for Saturday breakfast, and a weekend pass . . . maybe 30 minutes walking slow. Total time out for me, about one hour “awake time”. . . distance traveled, 400 miles. Total cost about $8 for round trip. It sure was easier and cheaper than flying from SFO into Burbank or LAX . . . and actually quite relaxing.
Now what? By this logic, bus travel is easier, faster (in a practical sense), and far cheaper than flying (there were no commercial jets back then).
Years ago, I worked with a neurosurgeon on a serious project . . . and one of his favorite expressions was, “Some dogs like Alpo, and some don’t!” That logic also works for private jets and air-taxis.
gadfly
(That same neurosurgeon, when one of us had a “stroke of genius” would tap his forehead and say, “Now that’s using the old kidney!”)
Kenny :
2.5 hours to do 550 Miles , it is not very far that the 4 hours it would take me to do the same with car (ok in perfect conditions with perfect not crowded highways ...)
the differences :
your plane : 1 million $ ++ , fuel ++
my car : 108.000€ + 110 € for unleaded ...
which is very far from your costs , will still be operational tomorrow and the day(s) after and eventually i can re-sale the car when i want ...
all of this to be ONLY 1.5 hours later than shari ...
you remind me of a friend who has a Bugatti Veyron ...
wonderful car ...
but with an average 15/16€ per kilometer overall cost , he very rarely take it out of garage !
and still pretend it will GAIN by re-selling it !
this is a rational choice question , i agree 100% that for some reasons from the heart you may choose whatever ...
but it has nothing rational into it !
(think of cut-flowers , you pay for something doomed to die very soon ...like FPJ!)
if you disagree = did you know that by spending a Zillion $ you can buy a device that would transport you in a split of second ?
Fred,
bonjour!
Ken
you will not convince our dentist.
He feels and thinks like a sales rep, like those "funny" guys who sold a Lehman cert to an old couple as a secure investment...
"Unfortunately" he is "sitting" on one or two of these "certs".
As current FPJ don't have any FIKI ,...EAC is going to hibernate and does not want to be disturbed - no training (no recurrent training?)!
If EAC will wake up in spring - or earlier at courts, we will see.
As a dentist I would like colleagues who say to their customers: Come, I drill a hole in your teeth, you pay for the complete treetment and 4 weeks later, I will close the hole!
Julius
"I'd be interested to see where Flightcenter's numbers come out on the C90GTi."
I couldnt find an authoritative number for cabin volume, but using an estimate of 200 cubic feet, the FC figure of merit is around 27 assuming a street price of $2.7mm.
Running the numbers on the King Air B200GT yields a FOM of about 28.
BT said:
"I wonder if he is aware that the Energizer Bunny has been arrested and charged with battery."
We know you can do better than this!
Fred--you can't read. You keep telling us that 550 nm by air is the same as 853 statute miles by car. What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?
Niner Zulu thinks EVERY Eclipse looks "sad." Actually N509JA looked great on the ramp, and garnered a lot of attention during the time I was there. What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?
Julius keeps saying I'm a dentist. I am not a dentist. What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?
Gadfly provides wonderful old stories of the "old days" in submarines, but knows nothing about the Eclipse. What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?
Black Tulip insists the book numbers for the Eclipse are wrong. They are spot-on, and I've posted evidence of that several times. What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?
Airsafetyman thinks a 30-year-old piston plane like the 421 is safer than an Eclipse. Having flown an old piston twin and trained mercilessly in a 421 simulator, I'm rolling over laughing at his idea. What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?
Whytech keeps trying to convince himself that he's better off driving than flying. What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?
Airtaximan says I demanded a refund on my wife's Eclipse. He's making that up; he hasn't a clue what I have or have not done with that plane. What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?
Some of you are fine, upstanding folks who would be interesting to chat with. But the blog has too many with whom there is just no point trying to connect.
It is time for me to hibernate a while again :)
Ken
So what ARE you doing with the 2nd plane Ken?
What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?
WhyTech
The battery charge didn't hold. They removed him from his solitary cell this morning, . . . and he was discharged.
gadfly
Ken said:
"What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?"
Ken thinks that he has all the answers. What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?
B95 said:
"I do not like the choice of Pro Line for that airframe. It is way too complex and lacks functionality (e.g. SVS)"
Beauty is in the eye of the pilot. I did a King Air B200 Initial course at FSI a few years ago in a Pro Line 21 equipped Level D sim. I had never touched the Pro Line 21 suite previously, nor had I any prior turbine PIC experience. I read the manuals before the course and arrived a day early to self instruct on a PC based Pro Line training system. By the end of the six day course I was feeling very comfortable with the Pro Line and the B200. I am not bragging, just making the point that the avionics and acft are pretty easy to learn if one is already a competent instrument pilot. The Pro Line is complex copmpared to steam gages, but so is the G1000 and pretty much all other glass panels.
Nothing wrong with the G1000. But, you wanted a "new production light (twin) turbine." You didnt say it had to cost less than $2mm, have G1000, go 400kts, and reach FL600 (still not enough to "top the weather"). The KA C90GTi, as do all acft, involves making some tradeoffs. My point is that it is a complete, proven, well supported package at an attractive price for the capabilities. The FOM comparison shows it to be high on the list. If I had around $3.0mm to spend on a new personal acft, this would be my choice.
Wytech said... By the end of the six day course I was feeling very comfortable with the Pro Line and the B200.
And 6 days to get comfortable with an avionics suite is fine, but...
I flew a DA40 with an instructor for a bit over 1 hr (first time flying a G1000 and the DA40). At the end of that flight he signed me off. A week later I flew it IFR (in VMC except for a thin layer in the climb) in busy airspace and was completely and totally comfortable.
Not a knock on Pro Line - it is a wonderful suite for 2-person crews. But, the market has spoken, for piston through light turbine, the "standard" is G1000. The average 2010 pilot will be as comfortable with G1000 as the average 1990 pilot was with Silver Crown. It is just how it is. Familiarity breeds safety.
I understand how HB went proline from 350 to 200 to 90. Makes sense from a family point of view.
I'd have done it the other way, though. I'd have gone G1000/GFC700/SVT from G36/G58 to 90 to 200 to 350 to Premier. Just like Cessna has done and now has from 172 to 510 on the G100.
"And 6 days to get comfortable with an avionics suite is fine, but..."
No, not quite right - look again. Six days to get comfortable with the airframe AND avonics. The largest portion of six days was on engines/airframe systems, both in the sim and classroom.
Black Tulip and Gadfly,
Those were some of the bah-ah-ah-ah-dest jokes on the blog.
:)
------------------------------
Ken,
Thanks for stopping by again and trying to keep it real, and amusing (!!!- say, where's M00 lately?).
While some agree and disagree with the relative merits in specific circumstances, I think everyone is happy your are enjoying your new airplane- congrats and "ciao for now"- I hope you'll swing back by sometime soon!
Wytech said ...Run the numbers - you will find that the difference between 270 kts and 370 kts will not change your life one bit in practical terms.
Lets run the numbers:
Lets say you need to fly west boud at FL300+ to top the weather, so to speak.
At FL300, the GT90 is doing about 240KTAS, af FL350 the EA500 is doing 370KTAS. If I look right now, winds are about 70 KTS on the nose at that altitute going west on HPN to say MDW.
Sooooo.... GT90 170KTAS over the ground, EA500 300KTAS over the ground. Lets not even talk about time to climb through the weather to FL300+, OK?
So ignoring climb/descent, on a 600nm westbound mission, EA500 gets there in 2 hrs, GT90 gets there in 3.5 hrs (76% longer flying time).
Add the fact that the GT90 is slower in the climb and may need a fuel stop because of the winds, and the fact that the EA500 can hunt for favourable altitudes from FL300 to FL410 with little impact on cruise speeds and range, and its advantage are off the chart.
So please, stop trying to convince yourself that speed doesn't matter. It does. First time you are flying against head winds you will remember how even 10/20/30 KTS help a lot.
I once was flying a turbo 182 westbound over the rockies and had to divert becouse my ground speed was 40 KTAS and I'd run out of gas - from that moment on, I never ever again said that speed didn't matter that much.
Niner Zulu said...
Report from AOPA.
Thanks for the report NZ.
I don't share your optimism on the Piper Jet, but I do wish them well. IMHO, if all goes superb for them (and it won't) they are still 5 years away from volume deliveries. It will be a different world by then.
It feels like Piper is really on a science project with their non-comforming prototype - try this, try that, etc. Cessna and even Eclipse went straight to comforming. Cessna had two major fixes - ventral strakes and VGs on the boots for FIKI. Piper hasn't even figured out what king of control mechanisms to use. They plan to experiment with cables, push rods, control augmentation, no-control augumentation. Why? Don't they have engineers and computers?
ATM said ... there are only so may Ken Meyer's with exactly the right family and mission profile for this limited plane
On that we can all agree - GA is nothing more than a collection of nich missions and nich planes to fit it.
Ken has 2 homes 550nm (by air), 850 miles (by road) appart, and a family of 4 with two pilots, and $1M to spend. The EA500 is perfect for him/her.
I have a frequent 100 nm mission from BDR to MVY over water in an airspace that limits me to 6000 ft that is not drivable in less than 8 hrs. The Baron can fly that perfectly, but I still have to fret over the engine reliability and lack of presurization for my family.
I have occasional 600 and 1000 nm missions to Mirtle and Bahamas that tax my patience on the plane (particularly against the occasional 30KTS head winds and bad weather en route.
The TBM850 and Mustang would be a wonderful fit for the mission at $3M, but costs would be way too high. A Blckhawk C425 would work well if I wanted to fly a 25 year old plane.
In the end, I choose to wait for the next Eclipse-like attempt at an affordable 1000nm presurized turbofan.
niche even ;)
B95,
That's a pretty convincing argument on the significance of speed !!
Regarding the Piperjet, I uncomfortably agree with your reservations. Uncomfortable, because it's an interesting project, and not too technically challenging.
But it's been my observation that a company that has let it's R&D capacity evaporate with relatively simple derivative after derivative, always has a tough time "getting back up to speed".
Happened with Beech and the Starship, Learjet with the 45, Boeing with the 787.
Maybe it's good Piper is "feeling their way around" a bit before they get "locked in" prematurely on conformity. In the big scheme of things, it's not that expensive to poke around with R&D for a year or two, compared to jumping the gun with a lot of bad decisions just to rush to production.
(I mean, what kind of management team would allow THAT to happen ??? :)
Schedule pressures seem to be corrupting the process of orderly R&D. As companies get more sensitive to risk and ROI, to get the funding to launch a clean-sheet program, it has to be "sold" as an "incredible opportunity". As such, the management and investors want to exploit the opportunity as fast as possible, before somebody else captures market share.
Old adage, "never enough time to do it right, always enough time to do it over", etc.
"So please, stop trying to convince yourself that speed doesn't matter."
Stop putting words in my mouth. I didnt say speed didnt matter. I said that the differnce between 270and 370 would not change your life in practical terms. I have operated a PC-12 over a three year period with trips BOS-PHX in winter months, headwinds sometimes 125kts; no big deal. Still one stop, still got there the same day, with the entire flight in daylight hours. Dont know about you, but a 1.5 hour difference just doesnt mean much to me in a practical sense. The point is that the flight difference in minutes, even though a significant % of the total, is near meaningless in the time scale on which humans operate. There are so many other events that can chew up an hour and a half that its not worth getting excited about.
Now, if the difference were such that an overnight stay was prudent enroute, then you might have a case for the higher speed.
Ken,
Julius keeps saying I'm a dentist. I am not a dentist.
beg your pardon - I do not want to annoy you!
BTW, up to now I had not no problems with dentists because I regularly visit them!
Enjoy your plane!
Julius
"They plan to experiment with cables, push rods, control augmentation, no-control augumentation. Why? "
Saw a report recently on this topic in the form of an interview with Piper personnel. Cant recall where or all the gory details. The gist was that Piper is working on the flight controls with an objective, in part, to avoid the need for some kind of SAS to handle the pitching moments resulting from the engine placement. Piper stated that the test flights already showed that it was manageable without an SAS, but they felt that they could do better, and were motivated to do so to preclude the FAA requiring an SAS of some sort. Cant say how accurate the Piper statements are - just reporting what I read.
FC,
Thanks for your interesting post on value being a function of speed, volume, range, and price- very informative. (Minor point- I think on there might ought to be some allowance for payload, as that can affect range).
I was impressed with it enough to go surfing around a bit- the Cessna web site prices the Mustang and CJ1+ at $2.8 and $4.7M, respectively- through in some options, take out some market incentives, and that's probably close to market price. ($4.7M seems stiff for a CJ1+, but I guess it's competing against the Premier at $5M-ish).
Adjusting the value figure somewhat with these inputs, the Mustang and CJ1+ "value index" comes out to be:
TBM850 - 15.3 (no change)
Eclipse 16.6 (no change)
Mustang 17.8
CJ1+ 20.0
There are a couple of "outliers" (not out-and-out-liars, as in Vernian statistics):
Phenom 100 33.4
PC12 34.0
I'd say the Phenom is somewhat underpriced at $3M, I would expect it to inflate by 15%, resulting in a "value index" of 29.0, still startlingly impressive, as is the PC12.
-----------------------------
I know it's still a paper-ish airplane, but ran the numbers on the Spectrum S33.
I guesstimated the volume at 196 cubic feet (used 10 feet of the 18 foot pressure vessel, and the 5.0 ft diameter- roominess seems to be it's main attraction) and 1750 nm range (1+4 pax), 425 knot cruise (seems fast, web site says they're using composites and the Honda engines), and $4M price. This results in a "value index" of 36.4.
Throw in some real-world fudge factors; decrease speed by 10%, range by 10%, increase price by 20%, and it comes out at 24.6, still pretty good. If it ever makes it to production- years away, if they ever make it. (I have to admit, when pondering such a tentative product, one IS struck by the fact Eclipse has a REAL factory).
Interestingly, the target price of $4M would seem to exploit the "niche" between the Mustang at $3M and the CJ1+ at $5M-ish. (The PC12 fits in there too, at $3.7M).
FWIW...
Spectrum S33 Spec Sheet
"Airsafetyman thinks a 30-year-old piston plane like the 421 is safer than an Eclipse. Having flown an old piston twin and trained mercilessly in a 421 simulator, I'm rolling over laughing at his idea. What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone like that?"
Well, Ken, the 421C was delivered, from Cessna complete, with all systems working. Parts and support are readily available from Cessna. Many 421C airplanes have been ugraded with quailty avionics that are far superior to the crap you find in the panel of your Eclipse. And when the owner/operator calls Cessna for parts he doesn't have to worry about getting a recording saying the phones have been disconnected.
Well,...
Nostalgia is fun,
but...
to those who "saw how sausage was made"
nostalgia is not all that much fun.
For convenience, parsing from Wikipedia...
--------------------------------
"The Cessna 411 was a new design that started life as the
Cessna 410 concept
(of which none were actually built). It has 340 hp/254 kW Continental Motors GTSIO-520-C engines. It had a crew of one or two and room for four to six passengers. The prototype
first flew on 18 July 1962.
During 1965 Cessna developed two generally similar and lower-cost versions, the Model 401 and Model 402. Production of the 411 finished in 1968.
"A pressurised version of the 411 was developed as the Cessna 421.
Whilst
the Cessna 411 has a
reputation for difficult handling
due to the rudder pedal pressure required during single engine operation, it out climbs most light piston twins on one engine. The 411 has been subject to rigerous re-testing
of its flight performance in the 1990's by Cessna and the FAA
due to a number of accidents.
"This testing confirmed that the aircraft meets all the design requirements for certification. Flown properly by suitable skilled flight crew it is a very safe aircraft. Today, vortex generators are able to be fitted the the aircraft, which make single engine handling exceptionally easy.
"Variants: Cessna 411 - Production version, 250 built.
"Cessna 411A - 411 with larger nose baggage capacity but the same overall length fuselage and optional tanks in engine nacelles, 50 built.
"The Cessna 411A had 200
improvements
over the Cessna 411 and is much more sought after in the market. This is evidenced by the resale value in excess of $200,000 vs the 411 at about $50,000.
"The 421 uses geared Continental Motors Continental GTSIO-520-D engines. The gearing means that rather than the drive shaft being directly connected to the propeller, it drives through a set of reduction gears.
"The geared engines operate at a similar speed to a typical direct drive engine however the gear-reduction drive slows the propeller RPM down. This lower prop speed of 1600-1900RPM in cruise greatly reduces cabin noise which is the greatest benefit of the gear reduction drive. These engines have proven to be extremely reliable although
they developed a poor reputation
due to an early gearbox design on the early 421A models.
"The 421 was first produced in 1968.
It was
redesigned in 1970
and marketed as the 421B.
"In
1976 the 421C appeared which featured wet wings and the absence of wing tip fuel tanks.
"In 1980 the 421C's
landing gear was changed from straight-leg to a trailing-link design.
"Production ended in 1985 due to product liability concerns, along with all other piston-powered Cessna aircraft.
"The aircraft remains a popular high-performance pressurized personal aircraft and commands high prices in the used aircraft market.
--------------------------------
The first flight of the prototype in 1962, to the trailing-link gear of 1980,
IS A LONG TIME !!
----------------------------
I really like what the 411/421 evolved into, and especially the further derivative 425, as others have mentioned:
"Cessna 425: It is derived from the Cessna 421 twin-piston-engine airplane. Cessna produced 236 425s from 1981-1986. Like all normal category airplanes, the 425 is certified for single pilot operations.
Don't get me wrong about the "heavey twins"- I think the 425 was a great product.
It's just that "Rome wasn't builit in a day".
(I'm not sure if it cost $2B though...:)
Figure, if Eclispe, or Eclipse-NG, or whatever, comes out with a "B" model, it will probably be close to spot-on, given the relatively good starting point the E500-Now will eventually be in (probably...).
Wytech said ... a 1.5 hour difference just doesnt mean much to me in a practical sense.
Wytech, perhaps if you fly alone and/or in a plane like the PC12 with an eclosed lavatory.
But for those of us who fly with wife/kids and without a lavatory on board, the difference between 2 hrs and 3.5 hrs is *HUGE*. Trust me on that.
So yes - there is a very practical consequence for lack of speed.
Wytech said... The gist was that Piper is working on the flight controls with an objective, ... avoid SAS...
There are two issues. One is avoiding SAS - I don't think they will be able to. If you look at the arm (tail to wing), you will know instantly that they don't have a lot to work with. Put in a forward CG, the flaps down/nose down, and full power go around and you better have hit the gym the night before to pull that nose up. Converselly, put the CG back, flaps up, gear up on take-off and lose the engine and it will be very hard not to stall. So that is issue 1.
Issue 2 is that there is A TON of slack on the ailerons and ruder and the long cables. That will make for a horrible flight on AP in the flight levels and a horrible feeling of slack when hand flying. Plus the forces will be really changing a lot from 60KIAS to 250 KIAS. That is issue 2.
So they will be experimenting with push-pull tubes, better cabling, SAS, non SAS, canting of the engine, exhaust vectoring, etc.
Plain and simple, that is just too many variables, too much trial and error.
I don't think they'll be able to overcome these challenges with the parts-bin trial and error route. They started with a bad configurations, a bad wing planform and it is going downhil for them.
I'd love to be wrong. I wish them well. I jsut don't see it hapening.
ASM said ... Well, Ken, the 421C was delivered, from Cessna complete, with all systems working.
I beg to differ on that. The Cessna 400 series avionics NEVER worked well. The autopilot(s) was/(re) a joke. The engine NEVER worked correctly and was nightmare to keep in-temp if you "tried" to fly it high. The vacuum pumps fail routinely and usually do so whenever you start cycling the boots in IMC. If any one heavy handles the door, even once, that is it, it will never seal properly again.
Again. 421C = awesome plane. I love it. But lets not pretend the thing is trouble free. It is not and never ever was.
daily it becomes more apparent cliff clavine resides on this blog under two assumed names
Ken is an eye surgeon.... Shari was an administrator when he fell in love with her... and whoever said he was a dentist was wrong.
Now, I heard on this blog from Ken that he was buying his wife a jet.
We also heard (IIRC) that Ken had a deposit on an EA50 for her...
Recently, someone wrote that he received a refund, and prior to that someone pegged one of the planes for sale (on controller) as his brides plane.
That's the skinny on my intel.
I think he's an eye surgeon, he said he was buying a jet for his wife, and someone here said the position was for sale and subsequently, a refund was provide to Ken.
You ahve my sources...
OH yeah... the Eye Doctor love story with te administrator portion was reported by them o in their recount of the Mexico flight.
Which BTW, I'd love to know the weights on the plane.
Either Ken and his wife are both really really
really small, or they flew overweight...
BTW, Ken is your plane Fiki?
Baron, what you describe as a terrible way to do business is how Piper has remained in near constant production for more than 80 years including some significant firsts and truly impressive production numbers.
I am as big a fan of technology during development as anybody but there is simply nothing wrong with the Piper approach to the PiperJet, it makes great sense given the resources and capabalities there.
"The autopilot(s) was/(re) a joke. The engine NEVER worked correctly and was nightmare to keep in-temp if you "tried" to fly it high. The vacuum pumps fail routinely and usually do so whenever you start cycling the boots in IMC. If any one heavy handles the door, even once, that is it, it will never seal properly again."
Well, others have had different experiences. We had an autopilot altitude hold problem that was resolved by Bendix, gratis. Worked fine after that with no problems. We ran both engines 200 hours past TBO and changed a total of one cylinder on one engine during that time. Routinely flew in the low 20s for altitude. No problems at all with vacuum pumps or door seals. I never even heard of anyone having problems with vacuum pumps or door seals.
"I think he's an eye surgeon,"
Eye surgeon or dentist; he was played like a piano by Vern and Company. I believe he knows what kind of junk he had dumped on him and is very anxious to off-load both, probably, on a greater fool. Except there isn't one.
Look, somehow we got Ken's profession worng for a while on the blog... maybe it was a slap, someon thought it was cute to refer to an eye surgeon as a dentist...
Come to think of it, I guess we were not all that off the mark (so to speak) here, only a few inches away... mouth to eyes...
Better record than EAC.
If we're wrong about him selling off/asking for a refund on Mrs. Meyers's jet... I'd like to know.
Just fpr sh%tZ and G*GGl#S
"Issue 2 is that there is A TON of slack on the ailerons and ruder and the long cables. That will make for a horrible flight on AP in the flight levels and a horrible feeling of slack when hand flying."
The wing span is essentially the same as the PA-46 which handles wonderfully. I have flown the Meridian and there is no problem whatsoever.
The engine being in the back is not an issue; the only things being resolved are the pitch forces caused by the thrust line being above the center of mass of the airplane. That's why it was very prudent of Piper to build a "proof of concept" airplane. That is exactly what they are doing.
If Eclipse had done the same thing they would have realized they they needed larger engines from the start. That would have led to larger wings to hold more fuel, more robust landing gear, ect. Going that far they could have lengthened the cabin a bit and come up with a 125% scale Eclipse that really could have carried two pilots and four passengers and baggage, and actually been a useful airplane.
Julius keeps saying I'm a dentist. I am not a dentist.
Score one in favor Mr. Meyer - I suffer a pathological level of anxiety associated with "dudes with drills, sticking their hands in my mouth". Most of them have managed to retain use of all their fingers though, so maybe it's not as bad as I'm suggesting.
Is it safe?
DI
D.I.,
I heard 'back in the day', that Jackie-O (yeah, that far back...) walked out of that movie. When I saw it, I could understand why!
I think Dick Cheney could do justice to the part!
Drill, Baby, Drill!!
.)
-----------------------------
(Marathon Man, for our "younger" -ah, IOW, about everyone else- viewers).
And NO, before some of the "youngsters" ask (although they're probably already wondering),
"Jackie-O" was NOT a rap star.
.)
you guys are ridiculous. Nothing will ever be good enough for you critics. PS I am not Shari. I am however also involved in the medical field in addition to being an ATP. What can I say when I do things, I want to be the best.
"I want to be the best"
not reflected in your aircraft decision, unless yu chose to refund and or sell...
Do tell...
PS.someone already claims to have traced you to Ken Meyer... or Shari.. or someone using their computer, I guess..
Hmmm...
"I heard 'back in the day', that Jackie-O (yeah, that far back...) walked out of that movie. When I saw it, I could understand why!"
Dr. Meyer = Dr. Mengle? Things are becoming clearer. Ja!
What we have here is a failure to communicate....
'What's the point in trying to talk to a person like that..'
What I think is going on here is something I like to call 'test pilot syndrome'.
Symptoms include: pushing the performance limits of the a/c, flying in marginal weather for the a/c, flying overweight/out of CG (or not even bothering to calculate it), ignoring serious known product defects, over-estimating their ability to defy physics
-----------------
Heaven forbid, if someone is hurt in an accident in a FPJ, do you think these same people that are defending this a/c will not be using the exact same arguments we are stating on why they should be awarded a large sum of $$$ because of EAC problems?
Some people (pilots?) just think that their piloting skills will be able to save their arses when something fails, or they are too short-sighted to even think about the possibility. Remember, most a/c are designed to be recovered with one problem, it's the second or third one that gets you.
Heaven forbid, if someone is hurt in an accident in a FPJ, do you think these same people that are defending this a/c will not be using the exact same arguments we are stating on why they should be awarded a large sum of $$$ because of EAC problems?
Ordinarilly I'd say it wouldn't be wise to post something that could be used against you in court, but I don't think Eclipse will be around that long for it to matter. Eclipse has already showed they've tracked this board (plus they probably track the Fan Club too for statements that could subsequently be used against the owners in court) and they wouldn't have to subpoena Google, just I don't think Eclipse will be around long enough for them to have a chance to use these posts in court.
CW said ... there is simply nothing wrong with the Piper approach to the PiperJet
You know, of course, that Piper went out of business and liquidated, right? A new company bought the tooling, facilities, TCs, and the rights to use the piper name.
You are not one of those that think that Pan Am is still in continuous business just because someone bought the rights to use the brand, are you?
As for the way Piper is approaching the development of the Piper Jet, it is "a" approach, but I would not go so far as to say "there is nothing wrong with it". It is bound to lead to a inferior product with too long a gestation time - GA would have changed too much by the time they get it out the way they are going. They may luck out and the market may still be there, but they risk being irrelevant by the time the plane can be delivered.
Just like Concorde was made irrelevant and obsolete by the oil crisis before it EIS or the MD-11/A-340 being made irrelevant by the advent of large twin-turbfoans and ETOPs (a.k.a 777).
There are huge downsides to long gestation times and design by trial and error.
ASM said ... Well, others have had different experiences.
As I said - the 421C is a great plane. I will be the last one to put it down. I came this [] close to buying one.
I have read nothing from Ken that would indicate that he is not a well informed, properly trained and prudent pilot.
What the heck are you guys alledging here? He already provided the details on his flights.
The EA500 with Avio NG, simply has FIKI, and a few area navigation and autopilot limitations.
But it is certainly not primed to fall out of the sky in pieces.
For $1M it is still a bargain, even if it is not completed and supported for free going forward.
Yeah Baron, I only have almost two decades in industry on normal as well as bleeding edge aircraft covering experimental, Part 23 and Part 25 along with a handful of military programs - think I'll go with your experience, now how many OEM's, how many programs and how many years experience in Aerospace was that you have?
What could I possibly know about design, testing and certification - it has only been my bread and butter for almost 20 years.
I am very familiar with Piper's history thank you, and Cessna, and Beech, and Lear, and Maule, and Commander, and Boeing, and McD, and LockMart, and GD, and Gulfstream, and so on and so on - you get to know the history directly from the participants who actually made it when you have the benefit of working in industry.
As for Ken, I seem to recall he has essentially ADMITTED to doing things a prudent, well informed and well trained pilot would not do without a properly equipped, certified and functional aircraft (FIKI and RVSM come to mind, operating the boots without FIKI certification, as well as the suspected weights for the Mexico flight), take that as you may.
?!?
The recent election season seems to have been just a warm up for today's blogging!
.)
B95,
I think you are quite correct with regard to the challenges with the line-of-thrust arrangement on the Piperjet. (Maybe some sort of bleed air "elevator boost" (along the lines of "rudder boost" for a twin) would provide a "mechanical computer" and allow them to get by without an electronic brain (the electronics are easy to design, but hard to certify, so maybe that's why they are going to be playing with linkages).
CWMOR,
Wow- sounds like you've been around the block a time or two. I don't think B95 was doubting your impressive credentials, just making a mostly rhetorical point that our friends in Florida did go bust, but something everyone might not have been aware of.
(As I understand it, sketchily, there was a flood, and a union strike, and then the whammy of the 1980 product liability/interest rates/tax law changes, along with the higher taxes of PA, sounds like the 1980's were a horrible decade for Piper, worse than GA in general).
Ken,
I don't think it's our business what your profession is*, unless you want to share it, or what your IP address is, or your wife's. Good luck with your plane.
(*unless you're the professional idiot B95 mentions (I think NOT), in which case- I want to negotiate for my cut .)
Wake up people!
If it was easy to identify the IP addresses of bloggers, why would Vernius Minimus need to sue for th same info?
Yes it is possible, but about as likely as EAC paying their bills with interest.
Forget the swampland, I know someone who has an FPJ to sell you.
CWMOR-
Sounds like you can't keep a job, or you are really 100 year old twins.
PJet is a Malibu/Mirage derivative so they could use much of the same tooling to build prototype, and ostensibly the production units.
Derivative fuselage, repositioned derivative wing, high thrust line, higher CG, bigger tail, stronger CnBeta, etc.
Let us not forget the abysmal safety record for the M/M baseline. Not exacltly a solid foundation for a S&C challenge?
If you have been around as much as you assert, then you know better.
If it is ever produced, the PJet will be a substantial redesign, or a certification nightmare.
9Z,
"One wonders how many more shoes are left to drop.
"No training",
?Why would EAC not provide training- I thought this was the only thing that actually was profitable?
(?Maybe the sim's are going down for reconfiguration to the latest Avio version?)
"little to no production",
?What is the empennage situation- Hampsons gone, is EAC making it themselves?
(Maybe the current lull in production is to give them time to "tool up"?)
"no customer refunds",
(Probably trying to get the next round of financing lined up, or stall and negotiate some sort of price compromise to keep 'em on the hook).
"little to no hope of finding new financing for EAC".
Pretty tough sledding with the current economy. Maybe if oil prices rebound, ETIRC can pump some more dough in. (Oil will rebound, just not sure it will be in time for the 505).
Cute. You guys are great detectives. Someone suggested that you do an ip trace, and you geniuses assume that person did it. Well I can assure you I am in no way connected with ken other than having an E500. Just goes to show you how much you guys speculate and don't know the facts. By the way shane you should make a new post. That Tuesday or even Thursday is long gone.
eclipsepilotomsiv,
Cute. You guys are great detectives.
thanks for your praise! That's not necessary - we do/try our best.
You will understand this much better than anyone else. You know "try" does not mean "achieve"... I must not continue.
I hope you have some facts, that your plane will be finished (FIKI,,,).
I can imagine that you are tired of all these promises of EAC execs.
Perhaps - you allow - a simple question Ken couldn't answer:
Why is there a need to be able to fly the a/c better than normal IFR-standards?
(I read, the FPJ is easy to fly manually apart from a lot of trimming in case of configuration/thrust changes!).
Julius
I understand Baron95's frustration that the industry has not been able to provide an A/C younger than 25year old to fulfill his mission better than the Baron.
The 1000NM five seat, reliable, twin turbofan jet for under $2 Million is a perfect A/C for the private own pilot.
Shame that plane doesn't exist, and never will, because there are not enough owner-pilots to support a business plan of more than about 70-100 A/C/year.
GA as we knew it is dying and has been for decades.
Ken got really, really close to that magical plane. Only Reliable is missing (oops sorry Ken, I forgot you got the one perfect EA 500 which doesn't produce SDR's).
Lucky your plane needs no unscheduled maintenance and nothing fails, because support (which is reported to not be so great now) will be a really cow after the manufacturer takes the eternal dirt nap!
You guys are great detectives. Someone suggested that you do an ip trace, and you geniuses assume that person did it.
Cute. One person misapprehends that the blog is set up with a tracking widget ( it isn't - check the source code - though it was talked about briefly a couple months ago ), and EclipsePilotX paints us all with the same broad brush.
I can only think of four uses for tracking users of the blog:
1 - Maximizing advertising ( AdSense ) dollars. No ads here, so that one doesn't apply.
2 - Simple, innocent curiosity.
3 - Tracking vandals.
4 - Impairing the privacy of posters and readers.
My suspicion is that #2 was the real motivation for thinking about putting tracking code in, that #3 would be a fringe benefit ( of marginal value, since Shane can eradicate any vandalism as he sees fit ), and that #4 is why it hasn't been implemented.
Shane's a thoughtful dude that way ( all JMHO ).
"I'm Dave Ivedorne, and I approved this message"
Would you like McNapkins with your McPancake McBreakfast?
DI
ATM said:
"the plane was designed for Vern's needs... not a taxi markets, or even a family of 5normal size people."
That's actually quite accurate. And your argument about Cessna and EMB owning the small jet market is right; as for timing of purchase, agreed: who today would deposit on a E500 unless it really were sub-1MM and it had equivalent after-market support.
VR should have just set up his own small hobby hangar somewhere and built himself his own jet, with custom orders (like the custom bike shop, "Orange County Choppers") for 1-off orders for "enthusiasts" who could customize their own airplane.
Your message to Shane... to make a new post... becasue "That Tuesday or even Thursday is long gone."
Epilotmsiv..
that's the POINT... buddy... he could leave the post up there for a long time, and he would be just like EAC - that Tuesday is LONG gone!
Happy 233rd Birthday - US Marine Corps
And lest we forget to thank those who have served -all- of our nations in defense of principals and freedom ... Happy Armistice Day.
Now back to our regular scheduled programming >>
Concept to Ponder ... Cessna benefited significantly from the 12 year single engine production hiatus.
During that decade plus where all of their resources focused on refining their Citation line, and Textron acquired them from risk-averse General Dynamics, Cessna won the VLJ battle that was still nearly a decade away.
Following GARA when Cessna began producing SEP aircraft once again, Honda, Toyota, Embraer, and others paid attention to their reengineering, retooling, and rethinking… err, except Vern.
Cessna built the Citation Junior (aka Mustang) by employing “known risk” processes with a seasoned engineering and production team. They displayed a quiet confidence, and allowed the circus to blow through town without getting diverted from task.
Piper is attempting to build a jet as a derivative of their prop line. While they lack that decade of (significant) production experience, and have experienced more than their share of turmoil, they also successfully avoid the hubris that choked Eclipse into submission.
Eclipse was essentially DOA, because Vern touted GARA as the savior of GA and was blinded by dreams of Wichita’s historical production numbers.
Vern hired mostly talented but fundamentally disgruntled folks from around the IT and aviation industry, yet failed to see the professionals behind the curtain (at Cessna, Embraer, etc.). In the middle of the Internet Boom, Vern enticed investors just like Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Peg Wittman (EBay), and others … but even those wild-idea long shots turned a profit within a few years.
So, getting back to point … big winner of the piston hiatus = Cessna
The big losers = Eclipse investors, vendors, owners, employees, and anyone who took the decade off intellectually.
The BIGGEST Losers = VR, RP, MM, PB, and anyone still dispensing the Kool Aid … because even they will eventually have to live with themselves.
The Mexico Postulate
Hate to throw facts in the face of the "Ken Hate Me" diatribe, but if you actually look at the W&B numbers for Ken's press junket to Mexico ... they actually work out quite well.
San Diego – Brown Field
Puerto Vallarta - Licenciado Gustavo Diaz Ordaz International (or nearby alternative)
950 nm
3+00
Mid 30’s
1250 pounds of gas at LRC with NBAA Reserves
Take a look at the REAL weather impacted numbers assuming a 100*F runway temp, and 98*F dew point, 0 wind,
Not sorry to burst bubbles.
http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp186/zed-lastletter/FPJ-MexicoPostulate.jpg
CPC No. 500-2008-015 Battery Depletion During Engine Starts November 7, 2008
There have been several instances of Systems Battery depletion prior to engine starting resulting in the
inability to utilize electrical control for engine shutdown following an engine start. This situation has been
determined to be caused by a failure to correctly assess low Systems Battery capacity caused by
improper battery maintenance and/or prolonged battery drain prior to start.
WHO LANDS WITH IFR FUEL RESERVE OF 225 LBS AT PRIMARY DESTINATION? YOU SURE THE BOW IS 3550 FOR THAT AIRCRAFT?
The Mexico Postulate
Hate to throw facts in the face of the "Ken Hate Me" diatribe, but if you actually look at the W&B numbers for Ken's press junket to Mexico ... they actually work out quite well.
San Diego – Brown Field
Puerto Vallarta - Licenciado Gustavo Diaz Ordaz International (or nearby alternative)
950 nm
3+00
Mid 30’s
1250 pounds of gas at LRC with NBAA Reserves
Take a look at the REAL weather impacted numbers assuming a 100*F runway temp, and 98*F dew point, 0 wind,
Not sorry to burst bubbles.
http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp186/zed-lastletter/FPJ-MexicoPostulate.jpg
Inability to shut engines down?
Not a problem. Just call the fire department and have them foam the engines.
That is just great... Another scenario where the pilot is unable to control a starting engine!!!
And notice that Eclipse doesn't tell you what to do if that happens. Are the pilots suposed to let the engine run until the airplane runs out of fuel? Remember there is no shutdown procedure without electrical power. Do you call fire/rescue and ask them to drown the engine?
What if the engine overtemps because with the batteries draining you can't maintain fan speed during start and the FADECs are out to lunch anyway?
What a freaking nightmare.
How is it that NOONE at Eclipse thought of this TRIVIAL failure mode? How is it that the FAA certified this thing? Even EASA, from 4000 miles away figured out that innability to control engines after electrical power failure was an issue.
This is an embarassment!!!! It NEEDS and AD - NOW!!!!
CW said ... What could I possibly know about design, testing and certification - it has only been my bread and butter for almost 20 years.
CW, I was noting Piper's history for the bennefit of the general blog audience - I clearly said that I was sure you knew it.
You must know by now, that the simple fact that I engage in substantive technical discussions with you (and ATM, ASM, TPpilot, Flyger, BEG, etc) is because I respect your apparent knowledge and value your opinion. Otherwise I would not bother.
My aeronautical first hand involvment/experience is more than you think and probably less than yours. I have no involvment with the Piper Jet program, therefore I am free to express my opinions on it and I'd love to continue to benefit from yours.
I have no idea why you thought I was minimizing your knowledge or opinions, but if I wrote anything that led you to believe that, I humbly apologize.
Cheers.
Oh, and it has been a long time since I said....
Did you know that Shane's "professional pilot" friend is an idiot?
Awhwwww - I feel better now ;)
And now it looks like it is the BRIC (emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, particularly China) that will have to save the economy's bacon.
Just this morning Circuit City filed for BK, AIG gets another $40B rescue Fanie posts a $29B loss, and the Chinese stimulus package is the ONLY thing holding the markets up.
Anyone wants to buy some C-bills?
And notice that Eclipse doesn't tell you what to do if that happens
Actually they do, just it isn't a very helpful answer. They say to call Eclipse Customer Service.
How is it that NOONE at Eclipse thought of this TRIVIAL failure mode?
This again relates to Midway and other such incidents with Eclipse's programming having this design feature (I call it a bug). Eclipse claimed this was intentional.
Why DayJet was so successful. These guys are just so enthusiastic!
But when EAC goes BK, that's what you're going to have. An airplane with no support, that you can't get recurring training in and therefore can't insure, can't get parts for, etc.
And while Eclipse is in business, they without fail always blame the owner/pilots first.
#That is just great... Another scenario where the pilot is unable to control a starting engine!!!#
+
#Not a problem. Just call the fire department and have them foam the engines.#
=
i thought EASA was around the corner ?
isn't it one of the numerous Special Conditions which HAVE TO BE FIXED before the Cert. can be discussed ?
#Even EASA, from 4000 miles away figured out that innability to control engines after electrical power failure was an issue.#
=
Oh , yes ! it says long about the level of FAA , just this would be enough in Euroland to have the who signed sent to a locker , lost in the middle of nowhere !
"What if the engine overtemps because with the batteries draining you can't maintain fan speed during start and the FADECs are out to lunch anyway?"
What am I missing here? It has been drilled into me to check the battery voltage and TOT/ITT before ever pressing the start button in all the P&W and RR training I have received. Great way to toast the engine (starting with low bat.) Hard to believe that there is no manual/mechanical fuel shutoff (condition lever on P&W, throttle on RR in helo).
Hard to believe that there is no manual/mechanical fuel shutoff (condition lever on P&W, throttle on RR in helo).
If I'm not mistaken that was what happened at Brandywine where the only way to shut off the engine was by firefighters using foam.
my dear Baron :
#the Chinese stimulus package is the ONLY thing holding the markets up.#
yes ...
that is one of the reasons why i was against the 700B given away , NOT to fix the situation , but to have the illusion holding on for a bit longer ...!
as soon as the Chinese 500B+$ will have evaporated , the problem will remain about the same ...
no , in fact it will be even worse ... think of a drug-addict or an alcoholic : if you tell him "Promise me tomorrow you'll stop , and tonight I give you your beloved stuff " what do you think gonna happen ? every night he will be making the same promise over and over , again and again ! Junkie's promise are not worth the breath they are made off ! the market is the same , in some respects exactly like EAC : the lie of yesterday is hidden by the lie of today , the one of today will be tomorrow by tomorrow lie ...
EAC is a very GOOD fact of times :
Short time profits (aka fast-buck) Versus long and medium term investments ...
while i was at sea to participate in the Launch of "Vendée Globe" , KennyBoy wrote " ...to have a discussion ..."
Kenny , the problem is not the discussion ...
the problem is that some come here with an habit of talking to the wall in front of them ...
as you imagine , it is worthless ...!
as far as i (sorry I) am concerned , i understood well your problem with your 2 houses , one plane , car that you cannot drive for more than a very few hours in daylight , etc...
i am sorry if you thought that i was not reading you ...
but you should refrain to post anything to show that you are right ...
everybody makes mistakes , may be because i am European , i don't have this habit of "me right always , master!"
it takes more guts to say "sorry , i have been wrong !" than to make-up any stupidity to hide blunders ...
as for EA500 , if European market is the way to save your baby , sorry to inform you that European Union and USA are extremely different ...
our land is much smaller ...
our road/highways network is very dense and in a (very?) good shape
...
so when you state that your wife did a 550 miles trip that translated for you in a "almost double by road" ...
i would tell you that in Euroland , the transportation network (road+highways+public trans.) is made in a way that a trip by air and a trip by road have "about" the same mileage ...!
(regulations are much tougher in E.U. , so i believe that what could be more less free in USA would be very much regulated here ! like around Paris there is 2 zones of exclusion for air-traffic , so anyone has to go around ... )
what differ is the speed you can reach with a jet , that's something personal ...
i can do 800+Miles in a day without problems ...
it would be faster with a jet ...
is that worth 1M$ or 2.15M$ ?
just NO WAY !
as far as i (sorry I) am concerned , i understood well your problem with your 2 houses , one plane , car that you cannot drive for more than a very few hours in daylight , etc...
I'm still trying to understand why Ken had to drive in the first place if the Eclipse 500 was going to be used. Here's a novel idea, why not both fly in the aircraft to the destination? I don't see why you'd spend over a million dollars for a jet and then end up driving almost 1000 miles in your car.
Wytech said ... What am I missing here? It has been drilled into me to check the battery voltage and TOT/ITT before ever pressing the start button in all the P&W and RR training I have received.
And so have the EA500 pilots, I'm sure. But even so, overtemps and drained bateries on start do happen (sometimes it is a slight wind up the pipe, sometime is high temps, sometimes it is too much avionics drain during start up). On any other plane I know of, you can cut the fuel and save the day. Not on the Eclipse aparently. Lose the bats and you thrust levers and fuel controls become useless.
Add in the special conditions that apply to the Eclipse: long down times on the ramps waiting for fixes, small batteries, the fact that you need to have Avio full up to start the engines, etc.
Oh, and have you heard of any other plane where you can't connect external power when voltage drops below 18V?
Oh, and did I mention that Avio needs to be all lit up for a bit before you can start the engines?
Oh, and did I mention that if your voltage fluctuates below 18V Avio, the Fedecs and all hope of engine control is lost - apparently until you run out of fuel or they drown the engine?
Of course there must be a quick fuel line mechanical disconnect somewhere in the naceles. Just get your tool out open it up with the fan whining at full speed, put a bucket under it and disconnect the line.
If the whole thing lights up, just run. At most you will get your arm hair and eybrowns waxed for free at about 1200 degrees. No biggie.
And so have the EA500 pilots, I'm sure. But even so, overtemps and drained bateries on start do happen (sometimes it is a slight wind up the pipe, sometime is high temps, sometimes it is too much avionics drain during start up). On any other plane I know of, you can cut the fuel and save the day.
It's a matter of having tolerances. The FPJ is more and more having to be treated like you're walking on eggshells. Any small mistake can become a big mistake where you get flat tires, get your engine locked, get carbon build-up, etc over things that shouldn't even be issues.
"Things that make you go hmmm?"
I have been whining about the world needing a 2/3 scale Caravan for quite a while now (it gets louder when whined in conjunction with "and I'm out of beer again").
Perusing the web for the latest casualties in GA-dom, I checked out Epic- I haven't heard much about them lately. (Given the overall business climate, that isn't necessarily a bad thing!)
It looks like their "alive and doing fine".
(okay, I'll stop now).
I don't know why I hadn't looked harder at the Epic LT's numbers, (I think our pal Gunner has been!), but when I used FC's "value" equation:
(Cabin_volume x Range x Speed) / (1,000,000 x Price) = "Value" index
where
Cabin_Volume is cubic feet
Range is nm
Speed is KTAS
Price is in $M
(Cabin Volume is a little tough to pin down)
For the Epic LT, I came up with these numbers/Guestimates:
cabin_volume = 200 cubic ft
Range = 1500 nm
Speed = 330 knots
Price = $1.5M
These are fairly conservative numbers, I think, it might be a couple $100k less expensive, and a little faster yet.
As a reminder, the "runners up" in this numbers game (and actually, I think pretty useful statistics):
TBM850 - 15.3
Eclipse 16.6
Mustang 17.8 (using $2.8M)
CJ1+ 20.0 (using $4.75M for the cj1+)
Phenom_100 29.0 (using a 15% price increase)
PC12 34.0
Okay now.
For something TRULY disruptive...
Epic LT = 66.7
Yikes !!!
------------------------------
I'll readily concede there are some very pressing intangilbes in some cases (dealer support, time at the factory, among some significant ones), but still- wow!
While there is (for now) "some assembly required" (that's part of the reason I included an extra $200k or so in the price), some will point out that, after all, the same statement applies to "the other brand E" as well !.)
Epic LT sn 20 completed earlier this year:
Epic LT sn 20
Epic LT
At 1200 hp, and a 7300 lb MTOW, this thing has GOT to scoot!
Looks like they've even got their own Al Mann:
Vijay_Mallya
who Wiki lists as a "strategic partner".
-------------------------------
I don't know if Gunner's "still in the hunt" for one, but it looks like it would be a great trophy to bag!!
-------------------------------
Reading about Epic, how they have been steadily migrating from boutique to formidable competitor, makes me a little sad for Eclipse, to think what might have been.
And, maybe, it still will be, but I don't think with the same "spirit" and pride. Quiet pride and satisfaction were sacrificed for a lot of noise- "amusing" (ahem!) at first, then a little...tiring. Then a little sad, and annoying. Then, finally, gruesomely intriguing.
Tsk! tsk! Such dark thinking. I hope things go will for the lads and lad-ettes in ABQ.
-------------------------------
Maybe Rich will update us with a "report from the field" if he's still got an LT in his sights??
Thanks!
There is so much going on, here, that no-one can keep score . . . even with a “program”. The original intent was to evaluate the little jet, etc.
Of late the discussion has even included the “intent” of taking a trip by car, while the spouse or partner goes by private jet.
So, for your consideration, consider the following:
Partners in business . . . or partners in marriage . . . especially, those partners that have much at stake, whether in business, or with more than a few children or grand-children, may consider the consequences, should both partners go down in that unforeseen/unexpected aircraft accident.
This sort of thing happens all too often. A few years back, such an accident happened in a corporate jet . . . with family members aboard, and a professional flight-crew, of the “In-N-Out” corporation . . . coming down in Orange County, California. As I recall, the pilot had the good judgement of coming down in the lot of a car dealership . . . a worthy target.
My #2 son, and partner, and I, have an agreement that the two of us will not travel on the same plane . . . to us, it is simple prudent judgement. Between the two of us, too many others depend on our “staying alive”.
Ken and his spouse may also have some sort of personal motives . . . I certainly don’t know, nor is it my business to even speculate. But if one flies, and the other drives, there may be considerations beyond the scope of this discussion. And so, let it be!
Concerning the little bird at ABQ, for the moment there seems to be a “lull” in news coming from the west end of the runway. That’s OK . . . when a patient dies, there is no harm in allowing for a time of silence . . . and who knows . . . someone may bemoan the passing of the little jet . . . anything is possible.
There is a worthy consideration . . . “Hospice” for aircraft companies going through the final difficult days of failure . . . when enemies enjoy the final demise, and friends are in no state of mind to offer the slightest hope . . . expressed in hard dollars.
All too soon, the wonderful attributes (of the fallen sparrow) will be extolled in the evening paper . . . normally in the “obituaries” . . . in this case, probably in the business section. The final cause of death is rarely given . . . but I’m sure that there will be much speculation, but (in this case) probably no one will be found guilty of murder . . . neglect, maybe . . . and some innocuous reason might be given . . . maybe the “economy”, or something. Those who assisted in the final demise, will go on the “greater things”, looking (perhaps) to positions in the new administration in DC, or elsewhere. (Maybe that’s why the “fat one” shaved, and got a haircut . . . but who can tell . . . politics are off limits these days . . . but to ignore reality is a “stretch”.)
gadfly
(It is most difficult, to walk into the “Nursing Station” at midnight, to sign the papers that essentially state, “No Heroic Efforts” to keep the patient alive . . . and know that the next few hours are all you have. The little jet is now in that state . . . nothing can help, except maybe a few more hours with artificial injections of money . . . and much activity among the staff. It’s time, my friends, to say your “good byes” . . . it’s been “real” . . . and now, we’ve got other fish to fry . . . and hopefully not another flounder . . . and not just for the halibut, but for a porpoise! “See you some time in the ‘obit!’ . . . or on a tombstone, somewhere!”)
Ken and his spouse may also have some sort of personal motives . . . I certainly don’t know, nor is it my business to even speculate. But if one flies, and the other drives, there may be considerations beyond the scope of this discussion. And so, let it be!
In general I agree with you, but if someone brings it up, then they open themselves up to it. You can't have it both ways with someone publicly saying something and then saying no questions should be asked about it because it is private. If something is private, then it shouldn't be publicly brought up in the first place.
Dave
When you argue with a fool, on their level, you of necessity bring yourself to that level. Now, that may be moving up . . . or down . . . you be the judge. But in the end, you will meet them “eyeball to eyeball” . . . and that says much about both antagonists.
‘Better to watch from a distance, and allow others to take the various parts.
gadfly
(‘Interesting thing about observation . . . be patient, and simply listen, or observe . . . eventually, all is revealed!)
BEG said ... Reading about Epic, how they have been steadily migrating from boutique to formidable competitor, makes me a little sad for Eclipse, to think what might have been.
I wish them well. The LT is a great looking plane with some impressive stats.
But, in the end, all that Epic has managed to do was get 20 kit planes in the air and announce a bunch of new projects, including some "to be certified".
Like Lancair before it, who had gotten hundreds of kits in the air, they may find that certifying and producing factory built planes is a bit harder.
Zis said... If the battery voltage is below 20 volts on the King Air 200 series, you cannot connect external power. Doing so can fry your avionics -- even with the avionics master switch in the "OFF" position!
Thanks for the info Zis. In retrospect, anything below 20V is a pretty dead/discharged battery, that should be removed and properly charged.
A follow up for you... Is the issue on the BE200 due to the AC inverters? Just curious if you know the answer to that.
I'd be surprised if there is really any risk of frying anything on a straight DC 28V plane. A battery is a powerful regulator, even discharged.
I don't doubt that some DC-only planes are placarded against that, but perhabs that is due to an abundance of caution. In any event, If I had an engine spinning out of control on the ramp with no other means to shut it off, I think pluging in 28V DC from an external source (cart with engine/generator off) is probably excusable against the tiny risk of Avionics transient damage. But my understanding is the in the EA500 that would still not work.
And Deutsche Bank just put a target price on GM shares of..... drum roll.... $ZERO as in nada.
Roel may be able to pick them up cheap - as in free. Then he can save money and reach excelence by stoping production. Given that GM is opening some plants in Russia, Puttin will likely be a willing partner.
Baron--many planes require minimum battery voltage before the external power connector will work. My 340 was among them. If you ran the battery down, you could connect a brand-new 28 volt GPU and it would do absolutely nothing for you until you recharged the onboard battery. That's because ONLY the onboard battery can energize the EPC relay in a twin Cessna. That's working as designed, and it is in no way unique to the Eclipse.
As for the starting voltages, in the Eclipse, the checklist specifies minimum battery voltage for both the start and systems batteries. There are specific points in the checklist routine where the pilot reads and assesses those voltages. The pilot is expected to read, understand, and follow the checklist--he has to stop and read the voltages at the appropriate point in the checklist. If he elects to start an engine with the voltages dramatically below those required by the checklist, any number of unfortunate and expensive problems can ensue. The inability to shut off the engine, if you're even able to get it going, is just one of them. The Eclipse is no different in this regard than any other turbine aircraft.
Like other turbine equipment (heck, like other aircraft in general!), you really are expected to follow the checklist with this airplane.
Ken
(back to sleep now)
airjet,
Don't get distracted by the landing fuel target.
The discussion has been that Ken/Shari violated W&B on their Puerta Vallarta flight. The performance example shows their flight could be done legally, even with a high PA. Takeoff to 50 Feet at MTOW would require 46% of available runway, no wind.
Plus, the target fuel at a VMC destination (before NBAA alternate profile and reserves) of 80+ gallons is clearly sufficient.
Ken said ... As for the starting voltages, in the Eclipse, the checklist specifies minimum battery voltage for both the start and systems batteries.
Thanks Ken. I agree - checklists are there for a reason and must be followed. What is the typical spool-up time to start the PWC610s?
It is still a bit disconcerting to me not being able to shut down an engine on electrical power failure.
I understand the reasons, such as not wanting to have fuel lines (with shut-off valves) running through the cabin, etc. These are all valid goals. But a separate FADEC backup power source could have been provided.
I don't have the Eclipse flight manual, but your comments lead me to believe that there is a separate start battery that can be drained by the spool up process and a separate "system" battery that powers the engine controls (FADEC, avionics, etc). Is this correct? If so, it is a more ballanced design.
Mallya is no longer in the mix at Epic if I recall correctly but I expect great things from those guys.
The LT is a truly impressive aircraft and the engineering staff at Epic is first rate - they do a lot with a small, dedicated team.
They have managed to deliver 20 fully functional extremely high performance and incredibly useful turbine aircraft with glass panels - which is more than Eclipse has managed to accomplish after a decade and approaching $2B US. That is not hyperbole, not hate, just the facts.
Gunner will have to provide an update as far as what he is doing but he has previously posted about deciding to build one, and I think it should be done in the Spring if memory serves.
Baron, I accept your explanation - the Pan-AM and Piper comments just really struck a nerve - let's say no harm no foul and move on.
Yep, Baron, that's exactly right--how it works is that you do all your setups, get your ATIS and clearance on the systems battery. Then after you turn on the start battery and initiate the start, the electrical system reconfigures such that the start battery is only running the aft busses (principally the starter/generators and a few other items). The systems battery is running most everything else including the avionics. The electrical system is split into two totally isolated halves during the start to prevent the avionics from seeing the voltage drop of an engine start.
That is why the checklist calls for you to check the systems battery voltage before you commit to the start sequence. There has to be adequate voltage to run everything for the 18-35 seconds it takes before the first generator comes online. If, during that period of time, the systems battery goes below minimum voltage, you will lose the computers, and without them, most everything else will be difficult to control.
Mind you, that will not occur unless you are well below specified voltage at the point in the checklist where you look at the systems battery voltage. Well below. Like 21 volts or something like that. Way too low to be doing a start. Right now the system won't prevent you from doing a start if the voltage is low. Who knows, maybe it will in the future--it wouldn't be that hard to lock out the start sequence for low voltage, but for now they rely on the pilot to read the voltage before turning the knob.
Ken
Dave wrote
If I'm not mistaken that was what happened at Brandywine where the only way to shut off the engine was by firefighters using foam.
That is not fair Dave. There are numerous non electrical ways to shut down the engine other than foam.
1/ The hose, with nozzle.
2/ A nice thick tree branch
3/ Drive the truck into it
:)
oh , yes , Kenny ...
check-list have to be followed word by word ...
the same with most regulations ...
just a shame EAC couldn't stick to this attitude when asking EASA ...
if they would have kept this in line , they would have had much less problems ...
unfortunately , EASA is NOT FAA ...
Buddies and fat-cats aren't enough , regulations are to be followed by everyone ...regardless of who they think they are !
Obvious almost all A/C have a minimum battery limitation for start.
Some are irrelevant if ignored (you just can't start).
Some are expensive if ignored (you fry the avionics).
But this one has a potentially unsafe condition (You can not control or shut down the engine).
Pretty disruptive.
Checklists are a poor substitute for adhering to Stanislaw's axiom in the first place.
Stanislaw's Axiom:
For essential or flight critical systems, it is less important to design how they work than to engineer how they fail.
It seems a pity to close off such an active thread, but Tempus Fugit.
New post up. Thanks to all who participated in this one.
Shane
Post a Comment