Basically, the Judge in Delaware granted the Senior Note Holders 'Motion to Convert' today, Wednesday 4th March 2009. 19 employees are retained to Friday 20th March as caretakers. In due course I expect to get full details of the court 'action' which I will of course pass on.
Phil Friedman has already contacted me to say he is preparing a 'detailed proposal' for the current owners, which he will communicate in due course. I expect that any other bidders, including the 'owners group' will also be outlining their plans shortly.
It is in many ways, for many people, a very sad day. The end of a genuine attempt to change almost every aspect of how a small jet is designed, built, sold and maintained or a failed business plan that became a scam. Either way, I'm sure we'll be debating many aspects of EAC for a long time to come.
However, today I ask you to think of those affected, who've lost time, money and resources. Remember the suppliers, depositors and owners who've been through ups and downs which must have put great pressures on people over an extended period. And finally the staff, those who held on, hoping against hope that Roel would come good at the last minute.
The upside is that the new owners, whoever they are, have a totally clean sheet, unencumbered by debt or obligation. They will employ several hundred of those already familiar with this aircraft and, when times improve, may well be able to hire more people with "Eclipse Aviation Corporation" on their CV's.
Best wishes to all.
Shane
532 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 532 of 532"If I were flying light jets, I'd be worried about taking a bird on the windshield much more than the engine. About 1,000 times more worried."
Finally, something we agree on! ;-)
NZ said...Sub-$2 million dollar Mustangs are right around the corner.
They are probably here now. There are and will be a lot of VLJ/LJ owners that need to "dump" their jets. And I do mean dump as in fuel dump (big-ass valves). They will be roped by lease finance companies just like that Phoenix condo people bought 3 years ago.
We are seeing used asset deflation of 50%+ on business equipment. It is not unrealistic to expect even larger asset price deflation on discretionary items like GA planes.
I'd bet that if you flew up to the owner of the C510 advertised for $2.395M with a $1.995M cashier's check good for that day, you have a better than 50/50 chance of flying it home.
To me that is the mark-to-market price of an asset. It is the price you can buy one for with ready cash and no conditions.
Beedriver said...additional cost necessary to make the single engine airplane meet single engine requirements for stall speed etc.
Almost any newly designed SE plane, not to mention a SEJ, can get ELOS to have stall speeds way above 61KTS. Both the TBM and PC12, for example have that. So that takes care of the stall speed requirment.
What did you have in mindd for the "etc" part?
Baron,
It is the price you can buy one for with ready cash and no conditions.
Amen to that, brother!
The key to unlocking value right now is CASH. If any of the bidders can raise as little as $12 to (maybe) $14 million, the assets are theirs for the taking.
HOWEVER....
That is only the start of adventure. Whoever is 'lucky' enough to secure these valuable assets will need another few tens of millions to get anywhere near a viable plan, never mind a profit.
Shane
To quote my favorite blogger (Me, of course!! :)
March 6, 2009 - 5:11PM
"I am concerned that we've got a bunch of wishful thinkers lining up, without the truly deep pockets to succeed."
On SEJ, Flyger is right that if you limit the SEJ to FL250 like the SJ50 and DJet, the efficiency of the SEJ suffers compared to a FL410 twin-jet.
I have posted the SJ50 performance numbers vs the EA500. They both have the same MTOW, cabin space, etc. So it is as much of an apples to apples as you'll get. And the EA500 is substantially faster at better SFC.
However, I am of the opinion that:
1 - Perception is almost as important as reality and Cirrus and Diamond will successfully move their SR22 and DA50 customers to their jets if they ever get them in production.
2 - The FL250 is just an interim limitation for expediency of certification by keeping it below the pressurization and RSVM requirements. I think FL280, 300 and maybe 350 certification of these jets will be achieved over time. Maybe they'll let Piper do all the heavy lifting with the FAA to get FL350/SEJ, then come under it.
That is only the start of adventure. Whoever is 'lucky' enough to secure these valuable assets will need another few tens of millions to get anywhere near a viable plan, never mind a profit.
Or else it will be like Groundhog Day with Eclipse continually going to court to file BK. I'd say that I miss frothing-at-mouth Vern, but he seems like he'll be saying stuff regardless of his affiliation to whatever Eclipse is around.
"I'd bet that if you flew up to the owner of the C510 advertised for $2.395M with a $1.995M cashier's check good for that day,"
I'd go with two cashier's checks: one for $1.700mm and one for $1.995mm, and start with the smaller one. It seems to be that kind of market. New Bell 407 helicopters which had been fetching premiums of up to $1mm last summer are being listed with no premium, and will sell for less.
WhyTech,
I'd go with two cashier's checks: one for $1.700mm and one for $1.995mm, and start with the smaller one.
Any chance you'd 'lend' me whichever cheque is left over?
I reckon I'd be able to buy several hundred hectares of forestry with that. You'd just have to wait for a few decades to see a return on the 'loan'....
Shane
"You'd just have to wait for a few decades"
Sorry, but I'm at a point in life where instant gratification is more like my relevant time horizon.
Bird Strikes!
Come on, folks . . . if bird strikes were an issue, none of us would fly.
If you really want to get somewhere fast? . . . either soak your pants with gasoline, strike a match . . . or go commercial!
If you really want to go somewhere “whenever you choose” . . . make a fortune, buy a jet, and stop whining about the “farce” built in Albuquerque.
If you really want to enjoy flying? . . . for the pure joy of flying? . . . buy a “J3", or an old “Luscombe Silvaire”, or something else, that will “float forever” on a wisp of wind, and almost require a lead anchor to get it down to the ground.
It’s about time a whole lot of people faced reality . . . and get with the program.
Some of us have been in this here aerioplane construction business for longer than most of you have even been a wishful glint in your “Daddy’s” lustful eye. So’s, time to “get real”.
First, pitch the stupid excuses . . . even your wife doesn’t buy it . . . let alone your banker.
Second, it isn’t that big a deal to “rub elbows” with the great unwashed, while you settle into seat “2D”, and allow that an early “beverage” of your choice to the stewardess, would be most acceptable . . . and spend the next few minutes, avoiding “eye contact”, with all the “riff-raft” coming through the front door, on this ancient 737, or MD80. Take my word for it . . . you’ll survive. Doze off, if your wish . . . you’ve seen all the silly magazines before . . . yesterday, or the day before . . . who can remember! Oh, what a delight, to feel superior, to common mankind! (‘Just don’t let anyone know that you got that seat because of “flight points”, etc.)
Third . . . or maybe “first” . . . the real pleasure, or joy of flying isn’t way up at 25,000 . . . or 39,000 . . . or even up at 49,000 (once in my life, that was great . . . but I have a good memory, and the picture remains clear, and will not improve in time).
Once upon a time, I dove down about thirty feet, a football field distance away from my “sub”, looking down into the indigo blue-black darkness of the Pacific, and back toward the giant black thing that was “my home”, returned to the surface, and swam back . . . climbed onto the port diving fin . . .then up to the deck . . . looked back down at the “shark”, that I hadn’t before noticed, and realized that I had almost been a “snack” . . . all you folks would have right then and there, been cheated of my literary whit. But, you know sumthin’? . . . I’ll keep the memory, and not wish to repeat the experience.
The “fun” of flying is something else . . . closer to the ground (only don’t tell anyone). And it isn’t “distance” . . . even over 4,000 or 5,000 miles of open ocean, with four engines, and sixteen blades, chewing a hole through the atmosphere . . . that’s a great experience, once or twice . . . or three times . . . but after a time, even that get’s old.
Whatever you do, keep it “real” . . . and don’t spend your “real” assets on a chunk of aluminum . . . as in “life”, “time with your family” . . . “your spouse”, and simply “time” . . . that precious gift of your Creator, fiddling around with things that will, in a short time, be “scrap metal” or “toxic land-fill”.
Your kids don’t care “two hoots” about “quality time”. They don’t know about that! They only know about the common variety . . . “time”, and the eternal values related. Guaranteed, twenty years from now, they won’t care about your “cute little twin engine jet” . . . but they will care about the time you spent with them, and the values that you passed on to them, or failed to pass on to them.
gadfly
(What were you expecting from the “gadfly” . . . some great sermon? In a pig’s eye! What in the world does a pig behold? . . . well, I’m looking at the comments of the last day, so you decide, and frankly, I wonder.)
This morning . . . maybe since one of my “sons-in-law” is involved with search and rescue, and my nephew is a member of the volunteer fire department . . . we sometimes receive early news . . . and I haven’t been able to sort it all out just yet. But early this morning, with a world of white . . . snow rapidly covering the woods out back, we were told that a small single engine plane had crashed and burned, just north of here.
This has nothing to do with Eclipse. And, in a sense, there is nothing terribly unusual about some little aircraft crashing in the mountains of New Mexico. It happens all too often.
It appears that two individuals regularly commute from Edgewood to Los Alamos, their place of employment. Both died . . . and one was terribly burned. Neither survived impact. The aircraft was burned beyond immediate identification . . . and most information is “extrapolated” from general knowledge . . . but not yet confirmed.
This morning, we welcomed the snow . . . at 7,100 feet, we need the moisture . . . the world was white. The back yard . . . the “fish ponds”, the woods behind the house . . . it was peaceful. And a few minutes later, we learned that two individuals had paid with their lives, for the “privilege” of flying.
We’ve yet to learn that they probably began a normal day . . . were on their way to work . . . found conditions beyond their control, turned back, too late, and . . . end of story.
We, who gather on this website, for the most part, love to fly. But we do not control the element in which we fly . . . no matter how hi-tech the aircraft. And each and every time, we run a risk of it being beyond our control. We, who choose to fly, are entering into a most complex and dangerous world. Therefore, we must have nothing but the greatest respect for this element, into which we choose to venture.
gadfly
(One plane . . . two people . . . big deal! Right? Yes, it’s a big deal . . . two people, two families . . . many folks in sorrow! Flying, designing, building aircraft is a very big deal . . . may we never forget it! . . . not for an instant. It is not just a financial thing.)
For whatever it's worth, this old man is going to call it quits, for the day, and go home . . .
baron95 said...
1 - Perception is almost as important as reality and Cirrus and Diamond will successfully move their SR22 and DA50 customers to their jets if they ever get them in production.
Dream on. Pilots with only fixed gear piston single experience aren't ready to fly in the high flight levels no matter how many engines it has.
2 - The FL250 is just an interim limitation for expediency of certification by keeping it below the pressurization and RSVM requirements. I think FL280, 300 and maybe 350 certification of these jets will be achieved over time.
Another fantasy. The airplanes are built with a pressurization limit based on FL250. You can't just up the pressure from 5 PSI to 7 PSI needed for FL350. Besides, the FAA isn't going to change these rules any time soon.
So, I guess you are saying buyers should buy an SEJ and then hope the rules and physics change so they can go higher, even though the manufacturers aren't even promising that.
Gee, it is hard enough to get what they promise, let alone something they don't.
Flyger, I don't mean the same plane.
I mean a SJ50-A being bumped to FL280 in 5 years or so, a SJ50-B being bumped to FL300 after another 5, etc.
Just like the Conquest II and some King Airs were bumped from FL300 to FL350.
And most planes get pumped up more over time. Even Aerostars got pumped from 4.25PSI to 5.0PSI. So did C414s, P-Barons, King Airs. Most of these did not require pressure vessel changes for the extra gas up. It was just test and doc.
As to what is a bigger step-up, from say Seneca to Eclipse at FL410 or DA50-P to DJet at FL250, I'll let the insurance companies decide. I'd say the latter is more insurable.
But the key will be to get these single engine jets into production.
I'd say the DJet has a 50/50 chance of entering volume production. The SJ50 a 1/3 chance and the PiperJet a 1 in 10.
I hope all three make it into volume (100/year) production in the next 5 years, but that is a tall order.
WhyTech said... I'd go with two cashier's checks: one for $1.700mm and one for $1.995mm, and start with the smaller one.
If I had two or three acceptable prospects to go after, I'd make a lower serial offer to all three, assuming no went for it, would get the three counter offers and spin them down.
Prob $2M is the C510 used price now with the distressed ones perhaps selling for less and the "time on their hands" ones selling for more.
I think Phenoms will depress the C510s prices further as they come in.
baron :
I hope all three make it into volume (100/year) production in the next 5 years, but that is a tall order.
could you please read what W.Buffet and Zoellick have to say on the matter ...
one is having enough to "not-have-to-please" any listeners ...
the other one not being a politically motivated one (his job doesn't depends on electors to be pleased or not) has no gain into make other believe in anything ...
5 years ?
we don't know where we will be in 5 years , no one can predict with more than 50% chances of success(as in "right or wrong" "good or bad" "better or worse")
only a few hints :
The G20 conference = London is probably one of the biggest problem into the mess , i would be tempted to say that if the problem is discussed in its epicenter , they will find scapegoat , very good excuses and that will be about all ...
Fiscal Heaven : funnily enough some seems to "Just" discover this kind of practices ...
the confusion meant between "tax fraud" (willingness to escape every or any tax) and "tax evasion" (willingness to go where you will be taxed the less) clearly indicate that it is not those places which are in the line of fire ...
BUT tax-payers in over-indebted countries !
since all policies of lowering tax has failed (which is perfectly normal : try to stop working while your wife and kids will spend twice more : you know the outcome !)
it clearly indicate that the way to go will be tax burden ...
we still have to see what the 60 Trillions of AIG will produce ...
nothing very good , i would suggest ...!
Did EAC own the simulators at Double Eagle? I'm inclined to think so since they own(ed) the building.
Opinicus is contesting this in court saying that they own them. Also as you point out with the city how the city owns things through the Industrial Revenue Bond. All this does complicate things as far as what actually is in the BK estate and what isn't.
My Meridian is sold- money in bank, plane in annual with new buyer picking up next week. Bought for $1M, sold for $860k, so the real, actual loss since last spring was 15% for a popular airframe. Clean, hangered current plane in a cash deal to two German pilots. The sale took 7 months and had many offers below $700k.
Not_turboprop_pilot_anymore
"so the real, actual loss since last spring was 15% for a popular airframe"
What a difference a year makes! Sold my PC-12 about a year ago in a week to the only prospect for 10% more than I paid new three years earlier. Time are changing!
OK...so how about the "proprietary flight control surface rigging boards"?
Those boards could have been (and looked like they were) made by the most illiterate "engineer" around. Only AFTER threats to have the FAA decide, did they serialize and validate them.
Gad,
I will be coming to ABQ in the next month or so to help my friend (former co-worker at EAC) make the move to Texas for a new job. If you will get with Shane and get my email, I'd enjoy having a cup of coffee with you (perhaps at The Frontier, where we'd go for hours to eat while waiting for parts)
baron95 said...
Flyger, I don't mean the same plane.
All the examples you gave were twins. That is, planes already equipped with redundant pressurization systems.
Diamond and Cirrus are honest that they can certify to FL250. Piper has never explained how they can go to FL350 (unless the plane is so ugly it is repulsed from the ground) so that's a crap shoot. The ConJet doesn't exist, thankfully.
If someone builds a 6,000 pound little four place aluminum jet with two PW610s and G1000, and can sell it for $2M, that will take the market by storm. The EA500 isn't cheap enough to build (too mickey mouse with machined frames and FSW seams). Eclipse did prove there is a market, they missed it by about $1M in production costs, and by miles in credibility. The composite and slow SEJs wouldn't stand a chance against this new twin.
Flyger
Your suggestion makes good sense . . . and is, indeed, doable.
With the correct approach in tooling and airframe design, there won’t be any more “miss-matches” and variations in parts and assemblies. And even tooling costs can be dramatically lowered, while providing great precision, while increasing production.
gadfly
(Been there/done that!)
Hi Baron,
"I'd say the DJet has a 50/50 chance of entering volume production. The SJ50 a 1/3 chance and the PiperJet a 1 in 10."
??
I thought the Piperjet is a done deal (probably with some kludgey pitch compensation system for go-arounds).
I like the Cirrus SEJ too- and given Cirrus is rumored to never have made a profit anyway, I'd say they will build it as a long term strategy move.
The Diamond airplane is so dang ugly it ought to be canned, regardless how it flies.
(The Piperjet is as ugly as a goat's rear end too, but it looks like a funcitonal airframe).
"The Piperjet is as ugly as a goat's rear end "
Not if one is a goat (as you should know better than most). Frankly, I find it the most visually appealing of all the current crop of GA SEJ's. The others have a "toy airplane" look to my eye.
FAR/CS 23.841 Pressurised cabins
(a) If certification for operation over 7620m (25 000 ft) is requested, the aeroplane must be able to maintain a cabin pressure altitude of not more than 4572m (15 000 ft) in event of any probable failure or malfunction in the pressurisation system.
Baron, this is not AMC or anything wishy washy. You have to be able to maintain at least 15000' cabin altitude after an engine failure.
AC23-17 (Page 146):
Amendment 23-14 and Subsequent
This amendment requires that cabin pressure altitude not exceed 15,000 feet in any probable failure for airplanes certificated to operate over 31,000 feet. It is not proper to use an emergency descent procedure to show compliance to this rule when compliance can be achieved through design. The Emergency Operations Section of the AFM should include an emergency descent procedure for use in a rapid decompression from any failure not withstanding the likelihood of its occurrence.
Looking at a standard atmosphere table, you have to maintain a 2.84 PSI pressure differential, and maintain the 23.831 required ventilation without bleed air. How do you do this?
The only way I can see to meet this requirement with a single is to pull strings in AIR-100 and congress to get the FAA cert team to not take this requirement too literally.
WT,
Well, I look myself in the mirror frequently, but I guess I'd have to use two mirrors to see my back end (maybe three to see the whole thing:)
The Piperjet has a useful, utilitarian look, where arse, er, as, the Cirrus looks purposeful (and I think, sleek, something the Piperjet will not be accused of). (I think when ful(ly) loaded, it would be considerably less purposeful than the Piper though.
Butt hey, looks are important! (The Cirrus wins in my book, hoofs down!)
--------------------------------
WT- it sounds like you might be considering the PJ? I think it will be the most practical of all the SEJ's, by far.
(Butt...Does one ruminate about a "practical" woman, or a sleek one? :)
...probably depends on how long you want the relationship to last, in both cases.
.)
"Does one ruminate about a "practical" woman, or a sleek one? :)"
After nearly 40 years of marriage and more than 40 years of flying/owning acft, I would have to say that a measure of each quality is the most successful formula.
And, what is "practical" and "sleek" is very much in the eye of the beholder.
"The Piperjet has a useful, utilitarian look ....
it sounds like you might be considering the PJ? "
Yes - not exactly "beautiful."
Yes - but only after there have been at least 100 flying for five or more years.
WT,
I hope you continue to enjoy the best of both worlds.
(And okay, the Piperjet is -almost- sleek. :)
"And okay, the Piperjet is -almost- sleek. :)"
As with women, "appeal" may not strictly correlate with beauty.
I see that EAA is beginning a search for a new President as Tom P. moves up to Chairman and Paul P. steps down from this position. Any bets as to whether Wedgie will surface here? Some might assert that he has already bought himself the job with the money the Eclipse has thrown at EAA.
Maybe Wedgie already had "FAA Administrator" name tags printed up, and figures it's easy to modify the F into an E.
(Make Lemonade when life gives you lemons...)
Personally, I'd say the "F" is more fitting.
(? I don't know if there is a lemon flavor of Kool Aid or not).
A parking lot report near KABQ:
Headquarters - 10 cars
SP2/3 - 1 car (rent-a-cop)
SP9 - 9 cars
SP10/11 - 1 car (another rent-a-cop)
No document shredder trucks noted.
I didn't make the trek out to Double Eagle airport.
WhyTech,
we are better off, if the Wedge is with EAA (hopefully, he will not annoy Gunner for a second time).
He had some crazy ideas about engagement in aviation industies (geared fan), nuclear business...
Is the wedge still engaged in econoomic commmisions in ABQ/ NM?
He said he would like to stay in some commisions to support start-ups!
Julius
Freedomjam said ... Baron, this is not AMC or anything wishy washy. You have to be able to maintain at least 15000' cabin altitude after an engine failure.
No you do not. The FAA has never interpreted the engine to be part of the pressurization system, and likely will not interpret it as such in the PiperJet.
I have no idea how Piper will demonstrate compliance, but, I'm pretty sure that by now they have an MOU in place with the FAA on that.
Kids, it is called "special conditions" when a mfr shows compliance in a way other than the strict letter of the regulations.
The daily meeting of the EAC SEJ ad hoc certification working group is now convened.
FAR 25.841(a)(3)
"Fuselage structure, engine and system failures are to be considered in evaluating the cabin decompression".
Dang it Jim, I'm an engineer, I am not a lawyer. (IAE-IANAL)
(Sounds like FJT, and Baron, and Shadow all have some experience avoiding light-headedness, I will defer to their collective disagreement .)
Wedge showed the way:
The only way I can see to meet this requirement with a single is to pull strings in AIR-100 and congress to get the FAA cert team to not take this requirement too literally.
FJT,
I agree-
(Maybe add some extra/redundant warning system or some such).
How much does a "SMALL, light weight" APU weigh and could some of its bleed be used to augment cabin pressurization in the event of SEJ (Piper Jet)turbine failure, and how much would one of these units cost.
There are many advantages to this;
1. No battery required for emergency decent.
2. Glide could be extended as long as possible till suitable emergency landing location can be determined.
3. A well sealed pressure vessel would be important, pressurization with FRESH air could be maintained till decent reaches a safe altitude.
If "off the shelf" is not available, then how about development of a universal light weight unit for ALL SEJ?
600 Watt unit would be plenty for emergency use so it does NOT need to be very big. I estimate unit to weigh less than 50 lbs. There are some small turbines and turbo shaft used in the model jet industry that would be VERY suitable for development for this need and they have FDAC already made for them. These little turbines weigh just a few pounds also.
Any of you engineering nerds got any ideas?
NOTE: I said small light weight unit...
Maybe they could install a RAT A ram air turbine like the big jets have that can be deployed in an emergency to provide pressurization and perhaps electricity. I think on big jets it primarily provides hydraulic power. It would be cheap and simple. As far as I know any APU that is flight certified is very expensive and costs a lot to install.
I can't download Order 8110.4B (where I believe the following is detailed in your system).
In the EASA System:
Certification Review Items (CRI)
Means a document recording Deviations, Special Conditions, new Means of Compliance or any other certification issue which requires clarification and interpretation, or represents a major technical or administrative issue.
Special condition is defined in our 21A.16B as special detailed technical spec if the applicable airworthiness code is not adequate(Like Common rail diesels , or Gas turbines for gliders).
For pressurisation, the certification specification FAR 23.841(a) is adequate. It specifically addresses the required standard to be met above FL 250. The AC gives specific guidance concerning an MOC which will not be accepted (emergency descent).
In my opinion, going above FL250 with a single is not going to require a special condition, it would require a Deviation.
Deviation - Means any deviation from the applicable Certification Specification (CS).
Obviously you can address the requirement directly with some form of back up PX system, in theory. Once you start looking at the relative leak rates of small Px vessels, six people in a tiny cabin volume breathing out CO2, and thus needing ventilation, the differculty of really sealing a cabin (not just one time, but for the life of the design), and the weigh and power issues surrounding a battery or rat driven compressor, I do not think certification for a single above FL250 will be persued. I think the compromises (weight, maintenance, cost, complexity) to solve this problem exceed the realistic risk budget of such an A/C.
Will be interesting to see if a manufacturer gets to an approved work around for this.
If Eclipse wanted FL410 I would think - The have not read/understood the requirements.
If Piper says the can do FL410, it is quite possible that they also have no clue. I don't remember when Piper last certified a new A/C type (rather than a derivative) and imagine that they have lost almost all their design staff through the BK, New piper restart etc.
Or they have a plan, and maybe even an initial positive response from the FAA (which I doubt).
The whole idea smells like marketing driven design.
Bee,
How about if it ran full time above 25K only, spins a clutch engaged SMALL roots type compressor for low pressure high volume use.
OR
A pop out wind fan that does all this? 'member, the pressure vessel is small and power requirements are low too...
FBM, it is easy to imagine a model engine doing something like this, but don't forget that APU's require TSO, which drives the cost.
Have you considered how hard it is going to be to start a mini gas turbine above FL250? Cartridge starter?
Teal Group: Eclipse Not Dead Yet (But Probably Will Be)
from the podcast...
Aboulafia likens the 260 EA50 owners to Delorean owners...
Basically, Aboulafia provides a summary of the crtics' opinions from this blog... even describes the planes as "delivered premature" - from CWMRs "preemie jets".
interestingly, he refers to the plan to sell 100 a year and real support costs numbers, "fishing with real bait"... he describes Verns 10 years as fishing with some toxic radio active bait... pretty colorful.
Lastsly, he says that people would be har-pressed to buy an EA50 (all things considered) at $2.5M... when there are real alternatives such as jets made and supported by Cessna and Embraer, for example... and the huge inventory of affordable used plane.
I think he doubts that anyone would LIKE the EA50 so much, they would gamble on it... especially IF you were someone who already got burned by EAC and lost deposit money...
I guess he needs to meet Ken?
freedom,
nobody built and integtated such an unit.
If a "quicker" descend with 3000ft/min is accepted, then the unit must work for 8 or 9 min (descend of max. 25000 ft to reach 15000 ft).
Is this a real issue, if it is included in the concept?
If ram air can be used the complexity might be reduced.
Julius
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the link to the Teal site.
------------------------------------
VLJ pressurization,
seems like a small electrically powered compressor is the most practical solution- short duty (10 minutes or so). I like the idea of the small r/c turbine though- I think it might be used as a compressor, rather than a roots-style (interlocking rotors)- I think a bit more efficent (?I think).
baron95 said...
The FAA has never interpreted the engine to be part of the pressurization system, and likely will not interpret it as such in the PiperJet.
How do you know what the FAA thinks? This comes as news to many I know. The thing that makes "pressure" is definitely part of the pressurization system.
I have no idea how Piper will demonstrate compliance, but, I'm pretty sure that by now they have an MOU in place with the FAA on that.
And I am pretty sure you are wrong about that. Piper may have discussed an SC or ELOS but that isn't issued until the TC is, and there is no MOU.
All this pie in the sky thinking, isn't that how we got here?
Re single emergency pressurization.
I like simplicity. I think the Battery powered pressurization is a good idea. It is probably the simplest and all it really will require is more batteries. they add weight but it is simple and reliable. It will not require an APU to start and will not require a RAT to pop out with the added drag of of the RAT. The weight of the added batteries will not probably be any more than the added weight for a RAT or APU.
in an engine out situation in a single the most important thing is the range available
I learned that important fact when I ate a valve and lost the engine in my Seabee. You need time to talk and find an emergency field. I did not quite make it to the hay field and landed in a corn field. Corn is amazingly effective at being an arresting fence.
It slows down ERcoupes pretty well too.
...although most of the time, they don't need much slowing down...
It seems the simpliest solution is to put 2 PW 610s into the SEJ, attaining redundancy, elimination of engine out trouble, pressurization, stall speed issues. You could stick them in a single pod if you really wanted to make it look like a single and save the extra costs of two pylons.
Explaining why it is a sorta SEL (SSEJ) should be easy for Vern or a similar marketer.
ex_Turbporop_pilot
FAR Part 23.841 for Normal and Utility airplanes addresses pressurization but does not specifically mention the engines as part of the pressurization syatem. FAR Part 25.841 for Transport Category aircraft does specifically mention the engines as part of the pressurization system. The single engine Piper turboprop, certified under Part 23, is certified to 30,000 feet.
The "Deviation" could be based on the aircraft MUST descend because of massive engine failure. If proof could be shown that supplementary oxygen and pressure vessel leak and power can be maintained at minimum sink rate, a "deviation" in the FAR's may be allowed.
FJ,
Of course this does NOT cover pressure vessel failure in general. Are there any FAR's governing pressure vessel failure above 25K and size of test opening in pressure vessel in GA aircraft? Or is this jus' a moot point?
Turbine, roots, whatever is the most efficient for low pressure high volume, jus' enough to maintain usable FMS power and decent pressurization.
On the mini turbines….Keep in mind they are finished and operating now…development time for TSO would have to done. The basics of reliability and operation are completed. How to implement is the final job.
Hydrogen power cells ARE HERE but hydrogen leaks in the confined space of an aircraft fuselage is exceedingly dangerous...
Would be great for electric driven air pump and power system though.....
It would behoove a manufacturer to develop a MINI/MICRO universal auxiliary or emergency APU(irregardless of type of power) with pressurization option for ALL SEJ and patent it and sell to ALL manufactures. Great idea for safety and being a "universal installation" across the board for SMALL jets, development cost could be kept to a minimum.
I would like to request that any depositors, those who had made 10% or larger deposits/progress payments contact me: ColdWetMack@gmail.com
There are some developments in the works with alternate airframes that might recognize a portion of your deposit on an Eclipse towards their project - we would like to explore who is open to this offer.
FJ,
Mini turbines all ready have built in electric starters and the ram air at the glide speeds would be more than sufficient to do an air start even if the electric starter failed. Remember, they are already built with FDAC's to make sure fuel air mixture ratio is rite. Ram air from the slipstream would be the most efficient way to start these engines. They MAY require an oxidized liquid starting fuel at higher altitudes that then switches over to the onboard fuel. OR just automatically mixes with onboard fuel flow to the mini turbine during automated starting process.
These little turbines are already in the 100 lb. thrust class and they are developing bigger ones.
For a funny thought:
14 of them under the wing would have flown the ORIGINAL EA500 more reliably than the Williams!
There are some developments in the works with alternate airframes that might recognize a portion of your deposit on an Eclipse towards their project - we would like to explore who is open to this offer.
Along those same lines why not have a trade-in offer for the current 226 (taking out DayJet)? Per UT Financing's filing it sounds like some depositors might have a dollar value in deposit that is worth more than current aircraft. DayJet's aircraft are worth "substantially less" than $1.25M and I believe some depositors have around $1M in if I'm not mistaken. Current owners can say no to a trade-in and aren't forced into it. Depending on the terms, owners might consider trading in better than the alternative.
Hey!
Cool Idea!
When the EA500's go AOG, convert to "experimental" with a bunch of little itty bitty turbines in ring around the tail..
;DDDD
Dave, this is for different airframes alltogether, i.e., not EA-500's, but which provide similar performance and for which a substantial portion of the original deposit might be recognized.
Dave, this is for different airframes alltogether, i.e., not EA-500's, but which provide similar performance and for which a substantial portion of the original deposit might be recognized.
Yes I know and I'm saying why limit it to just depositors.
Got it Dave.
You propose an interesting idea that actually dovetails into the comprehensive approach that is beginning to gel.
There are of course limits to what any sustainable business can do to try and redress the situation many depositors and owners find themselves in, but an interesting idea, consider it stolen.
Ok,
Enough funny/stupid stuff, Time to smoke a good cigar and dream about the
Aspen displays we're gonna put in the Aerostar...
It is hard enough to get a cold soaked GTCP131 started at altitude.
Let us know how the Aspen retrofit goes. Looks like a tasty upgrade for the lighter GA A/C.
Turboprop_pilot said...
It seems the simpliest solution is to put 2 PW 610s into the SEJ, attaining redundancy, elimination of engine out trouble, pressurization, stall speed issues.
Bingo.
When the final balance sheet is done for SEJ versus TEJ, the benefits of the SEJ simply aren't compelling or don't exist altogether. The penalties that exist for pistons and turboprops simply don't exist for jets.
Just look at the *SIZE* of the jet engines in the SEJs. How come they are so big? That's because they have to be basically twice as big as each engine in a twin jet, and they have to overcome the much less efficient engine location placement in an SEJ versus a TEJ.
Add to that increased liability, some complex backup pressurization system, altitude limits, backup electrical power, etc, and it starts to get ugly fast. It is far simpler to just stick two half sized engines in the efficient nacelles on each side of the tail. Viola, all problems solved plus the airplane is safer and better than an SEJ.
Note that not a single established jet maker is proposing an SEJ.
Note that there has never been a certified SEJ. It *is* possible, it just never has been done, so expect to be a pioneer with arrows in your backs.
Note than an SEJ was proposed in the 1980s but was canceled (Gulfstream Peregrine). The rules were even easier back then.
Again, the only people who are for SEJs are those who think piston economics applies to jets.
Flyger,
The safety argument, as well as insurance, can be argued both ways re: single or multi-turbine.
It all has to do with deliberate choice of the design point (e.g., FL250 or 310, single or multi-engine, technically advanced or not, etc.) and then engineering for THAT point and ONLY for that point.
Consider the Meridian, TBM 700, and PC-12 all are certified to FL300 - it is obvious that the altitude and pressurization issues CAN be addressed for a single engine aircraft.
FYI - the PiperJet is targetting FL350, while D-Jet and SJ-50 are aiming lower at FL250.
In the experimental realm, the Epic Victory and Excel Jet SportJet are aiming at FL250-280, and the CompAir Jet is targetting 29,900'.
The question becomes one of the true value and cost of the higher altitude in terms of operational efficiency, insurance and training requirements, etc. For many operators able to honestly evaluate their needs and capabilities, flying lower and the fuel costs associated with that are more than offset by insurance and training savings, as well as reduced maintenance costs due to simpler installed systems.
With the current state of the art for ultra-high end experimental turbine aircraft, the choices are much better than say 5 or 10 years, but there are a couple companies have histories stratching back that far that were offering truly innovatice and high-performance aircraft (e.g., Maverick Twinjet).
The stigma that used to exist between experimental and certified aircraft has been, in large part, overcome by the quality, business sense and innovation exhibited by experimental companies like Cirrus, Lancair, Epic, Excel Jet, Comp Air, Turbine Legend, ViperJet and others.
The real question that needs to be answered is what are you buying? Transportation? Club Membership? An identity?
Based on that answer, it can then be determined which plane(s) best meets those needs.
CWM,
FYI, the TBM is certified to 31000 feet. I don't know how any of the SE turboprops managed to get certified to those altitudes. However, it's interesting that now the FAA rules disallow emergency descent as the MOC for the 15000 foot cabin rule. For the TBM this is exactly what is called for in the case of loss of pressurization, and that is in the AFM, so it's part of the TC. A TBM can descend at well over 6000 fpm without exceeding its Vmo of 266 knots, and this is standard training. I suspect that the rules changed since the TBM was certified to disallow emergency descent as the MOC. Incidentally, a Meridian has a much lower Vmo (or Vne?).
This one slipped beneath the radar:
NATCA announced their Archie Award winners last week. One award went to Robert Zeman, who was in the tower at KMDW during the N612KB throttle quadrant incident.
“Everything seemed normal until he was about 10 feet above the runway surface”
The award announcement,
audio recording, and transcript.
Cool customers all around.
Would you like the equipment?
DI
The AC reads "It is not proper to use an emergency descent procedure to show compliance to this rule when compliance can be achieved through design. The Emergency Operations Section of the AFM should include an emergency descent procedure for use in a rapid decompression from any failure not withstanding the likelihood of its occurrence."
If you convince FAA design is not appropriate (or possible), emergency descent is just fine, besides, the procedure has to exist in the AFM whether or not it used for showing compliance to the guidance of the AC and the reg's.
Typical leak rates and the need for fresh air ventilation would be difficult to overcome it seems for FL350, but it is ludicrous to suggest that Piper or any of the other SEJ OEM's seeking operation above FL250 are simply unaware of the requirements or proceeding without a good idea about how to tackle this issue.
CWMOR,
If I may paraphrase,
"The stigma that used to exist between experimental and certified aircraft has been (narrowed)..."
Eclipse has helped narrow that distinction, I would say!
.)
CWMOR,
It sounds like there is some possibility we may soon be calling you Cold Wet CEO Of Reality.
With you in charge, I'd have no problem buying an EA500.
Best of luck!
Wow, thanks alot 9Z, you have touched my feeling. ;^)
Just trying to see some value come from all this drama - it looks possible under the right circumstances.
The challenge is being able to provide a comprehensive solution that gets to the mythic 80% solution for the vast majority of owners - I think we are just about there and I have been contacted by a wide variety of former Eclipser's, former and potential vendors, and even airframer's interested in trying to help dig out of this.
I am working to get some time with the Owner's Group to present a comprehensive proposal, and believe there are alternatives for the depositor group as well.
It is a very complex set of problems with competing interests and that makes for a very interesting puzzle to be solved, I believe with recent developments aided in the past few days by some of the owners themselves there is a reasonable, practical and achievable way-forward in sight.
A moment ago, I removed a comment about the transcript of the near-disaster at "Midway". I was thinking about living in the final approach to "04" at ORD (the incident at Midway was on "22"), and the many times big jets seemed to almost touch our roof, in Bensenville, in a direct line to "04" at ORD . . . and we could literally look up into the wheel wells of DC8's, and Boeing 720's. The sound of a jet, a few hundred feet overhead, in the dead cold sub-zero air of winter, get's your attention.
Well, between ORD and Midway . . . then and now, there are miles and years seperating . . . but either way, we're glad that that we no longer need to be concerned about the little bird coming down and causing disaster and heartache.
Now, we return to the discussion about how to bring this fiasco back to life. But, some of us can rest assured that all efforts will come to naught. There is far more to this thing than just making a hunk of aluminum get airborne.
gadfly
CWCEOoR,
All I can say is,
HolEEEEEEE Cow, Batman!
Truth IS stranger than fiction!!
I had long thought there were enough brains here to run the company way better than Wedge.
(Of course, I thought the same thing of a third-grader's school room too. Even on days when every student was out sick, and there was just a broom in a closet).
CWMOR,
We're staying "tuned in" for details- Congrats, and best of luck!
(You'll be getting lots of free advice- ha ha).
----------------------------------
By the way, can I sell my Wedge doll/stick pin kits through the gift shop? I'll give you a good cut!
ColdWetMackarelofReality said...
Consider the Meridian, TBM 700, and PC-12 all are certified to FL300 - it is obvious that the altitude and pressurization issues CAN be addressed for a single engine aircraft.
All designs that were created under the old rules of 23.841 that used to say FL310. The rule got changed to FL250, the designs got grandfathered.
the CompAir Jet is targetting 29,900'.
How stupid is that, nobody will do RVSM for 1,900ft more altitude.
For many operators able to honestly evaluate their needs and capabilities, flying lower and the fuel costs associated with that are more than offset by insurance and training savings, as well as reduced maintenance costs due to simpler installed systems.
Piston think.
Training will be full type rating, to high standards. It won't in fact, be much different than twin jet training. Engine out in a twin jet just isn't a big deal.
Insurance will be higher per hull value. Engine out is a potential hull loss plus liability. In a twin, not so. Plus the pilot population will be people who either can't or won't get an ME rating, weaker pilots.
Maintenance costs are not reduced *per mile*. The extra fuel costs at FL250 *dominate* any extra maintenance costs for a second engine. Also, whatever backup pressurization thingy you need will add complexity, as will backup power systems because you only have one engine.
The stigma that used to exist between experimental and certified aircraft has been, in large part, overcome
Not for things like FIKI and RVSM. Experimentals are toys when it comes to reliable business transportation.
The real question that needs to be answered is what are you buying? Transportation? Club Membership? An identity?
If you want transportation, buy a TEJ. If you want that other stuff, there are better alpha male toys than an emasculated SEJ.
Not piston think Flyger, smart think from a guy with almost 20 years in industry, all turbine programs, with MTOWS from 6000 to 70000 lbs. I can agree to disagree based on OPINION, and suggest you do the same.
I do not consider the Excel SportJet II or the offerings from Epic or CompAir to be toys - I find them to be every bit as advanced and useful as their certified brethren. They offer considerably better performance per dollar, they are insurable, they have training, and they are either available right now or in the very near future.
Dismissing aircraft with 1200-2000 mile range, integrated glass cockpits, turbine reliability and speeds approaching 500 mph in some case as toys is the stinking thinking my friend - it is based on old school thinking and arrogant assumption about what does and does not occur in a certification program.
If Eclipse has not demonstrated the issues that can be accepted in a certified plane, nothing will.
These are not modest planes built in some guys garage (an honorable undertaking BTW), these are planes offering the same or better performance than their certified brethren, using the same systems, and providing significantly better value, built on real tooling with the assistance of trainined personnel, all with the blessing of FAA.
Are they different than certified? Yes, according to the paperwork - but when you have experienced these machines in person, seen the tooling, reviewed the engineering, talked to the principals of the companies you will find the difference is no where near what it once was, IMO.
ColdWet, the proposal being offered by the owners group to the current owners is truly a leap of faith. There are way more questions than answers and before I would put up the required $150K being requested I would need a hell of a lot of more information. I would love to know if David has spoken or made contact with the Twin Commander, LLC group to discuss their operation because they have been sucessful in supporting their fleet. That would have been my first stop. They have 22 service centers around the world and do a great job of funneling info to the owners at a great price. They do it with a very small staff. I see this thing going through at least 2 more Chapter 11's or 7's in the future before it either folds or someone gets it right. Kind of like owning a Mall. The third guy usually starts to make money.
drilling, drop me a line at ColdWetMack@gmail.com, I am not involved in any of the existing offers - what I have to offer is a comprehensive approach based on mutual benefit to the various sub-groups within the owner community without bidding on the CH-7 assets and certainly without a need for a $150K ante, that may be unreasonable IMO.
If you want more info let me know.
"All designs that were created under the old rules of 23.841 that used to say FL310. The rule got changed to FL250, the designs got grandfathered."
I don't think that is the case at all. The recip versions of the PA-46 are certified to 25,000 while the turboprop version is certified to 30,000. I think it is more a question of aircraft performance and service ceiling. FAR 23.841 just mandates the bells and whistles required if you want to go above 25,000 feet. To state the obvious, if you have an engine failure at 41,000 feet in a single, you are not going to be staying at 410 very long. Then it becomes a question of the leak rate of the pressure vessel in a descending airplane. Single engine military aircraft have been flying for decades and decades at high altitudes. I can't recall any accident attributed to a single engine jet having engine failure and the pressurization system then causing an accident.
CW,
I would make a limited time limited quantity offer, say 150 MAX - offer to take their planes, provide $500,000 credit towards an epic... or something else. And sell the planes as parts to the lucky 100 EA50 owners who wanted to keep their eclipse's or the company that ends up trying to support the EA50 fleet.
CWMOR,
"without bidding on the CH-7 assets"
RATS, oh, fiddle.
Dreams of my World Wide Wedge gift shop franchise, DENIED.
Best of luck anyway. Sounds like there won't be much luck involved though. Folks wanting a high performance experimental airplane (well, somewhat more experimental than Eclipse) ought to get hooked up with you.
I fear depositors hoping on getting some satisfaction from the FFKAE (Factory Formerly Known As Eclipse) ought to buy a week in Fred's Eiffel Tower Time Share Condo project.
(Current operators though, might get some product support- I think that is doable on a "shoestring" budget- sounds like that's where it's headed. I think that's not a bad outcome, given what Drillingahead notes:
"I see this thing going through at least 2 more Chapter 11's or 7's in the future before it either folds or someone gets it right. Kind of like owning a Mall. The third guy usually starts to make money."
Unless someone with deep pockets steps up, any production line restart is probably going to follow that same business model.
(Maybe even IF someone with deep pockets shows up...)
ColdWetMackarelofReality said...
I do not consider the Excel SportJet II or the offerings from Epic or CompAir to be toys - I find them to be every bit as advanced and useful as their certified brethren.
Not if they lack FIKI and RVSM that the certified jets have.
Until such time as they do, they are toys. Very fast, very expensive, very exciting, even very well built, but not reliable transportation due to weather. You must be able to go high and in ice to use an airplane for business. On my flying, I am topping weather, or punching through icing, or both, on about 50% of my flights. If I didn't have FIKI and RVSM, the plane would be nearly useless as a reliable business tool. Not everyone enjoys the dry southwest weather, right?
So you can be all excited about the self made airplanes, but business is business and it won't be done in experimental airplanes. The only way they become real tools is if the experimental phase is just a step towards certification. I'm all for it, call me when certified, FIKI, and RVSM approved. Until then, I'll wait.
We've been over this pressurization discussion multiple times.
The rules change at FL250 (used to be 310) and again at FL350. And for transport aircraft they are different and have additional requirements above FL400.
For GA, light aircraft with 6 seats or less, the engine was never considered part of the pressurization system for fault analysis by the FAA.
Emergency descent IS acceptable from 35,000 ft to 15,000 ft, unless it is possible to "not need" it in the design.
At 5,000 ft/min the Piper Jet would take 4 min to go from FL350 to 15Kft. They MAY have to demonstrate that the cabin, with max leak rates, won't exceed 15Kft in the descent.
In addition, they MAY choose to use electrically driven pressurization like the early King Airs and the 787, in which case, standard battery power would easily achieve the 4 min pressure differential needed.
Point being, it is an issue, but not a show stopper.
If I were in charge of certifying a SEJ, I'd get MOUs with the FAA for FL350. Then I'd certify for FL250, then FL280, then FL350 or something below that based on the MOU.
It is not a show stopper. Everyone is making a *huge* deal of just another certification issue.
Yes, FL410, is much harder than 350, which is harder than 280 which is harder than 250. But none is impossible.
And if the market demands SEJs, they will happen.
I have been hinting at this for a couple days so here we go.
There is now an experienced team with backgrounds in airframe design, manufacturing, systems integration, and support who are interested in speaking with the current owners as well as depositors about a comprehensive series of options intended to provide realistic, achievable and sustainable support for the existing fleet while providing those who want 'out' or those who want an alternative airframe with several avenues.
We believe that many if not all of the current plans for support are focused on restarting production on the backs of the long suffering owners, or are asking for significant up-front ante's without enough supporting detail.
We suspect that the owners are likely divided into several camps with competing interests:
- Those who just want ‘out’
- Those who want to continue operating the plane
- Those who want to see the plane re-enter production
- Those who want/need safe effective transportation but are not dedicated to a specific airframe/form factor
We believe the owners have questions and that you deserve answers from experienced professionals with what we believe to be a workable concept that provides needed parts, support for continued airworthiness, real transparency, and perhaps most importantly breathing room to avoid the possibility of getting buffaloed.
We are planning to setup several telecon opportunities for the owners in the very near future where we will go over our qualifications and proposal and then open the floor to no-holds barred Q&A. Softcopies of the briefing will be provided to all participants and questions can be sent in advance or asked during the call.
Every question will be answered, if more data is required we will seek it out to provide a follow-up answer. No topic will be off limits.
We want to keep participation on each call limited to maybe 20 owners so that everyone has the opportunity to evaluate the proposal and have their questions answered.
Yogi Bera once quipped that a particular experience 'was like Deja Vu all over again' - if you have the same feeling please feel free to drop me a line: ColdWetMack@gmail.com.
I will work with Shane to perhaps get a headline post up once we have set times and call details.
I see this thing going through at least 2 more Chapter 11's or 7's in the future before it either folds or someone gets it right.
I will miss Roel and his claims that there are all these countries that are just waiting to have an Eclipse-based air network to connect their citizenry. The rumor is that Roel was about to announce these countries of being in desperate need of Eclipse to fill the pent up demand for this:
Vatican City
Monaco
San Marino
Liechtenstein
Malta
Grenada
Barbados
Andorra
Flyger,
The Epic's and SportJet feature ice protection equipment, as do some Lancair IV's and other high-performance experimentals - there is no FIKI approval per-se for experimentals but they are properly equipped.
If the design point does not get into RVSM airspace, it is not required but it is certainly possible for an experimental to achieve RVSM group certification if the plane is designed to operate in RVSM airspace. All it takes is money - same as a certified plane.
FWIW, FL250 gets you over a significant portion of weather, and most people consider the King Air series to be serious business tools.
I can understand that some folks are still hung up on the old-school difference between certified and experimental, but I just don't go there anymore having flown and evaluated these planes and looked at the operations that made them in comparison to the certified OEM's that I have worked for over the past 20 years.
Your mileage may vary of course.
Vatican City
Monaco
San Marino
Liechtenstein
Malta
Grenada
Barbados
Andorra
RiP is actually on to something here. Eclipse already has a viable solution to their transportation needs.
DI
Coldwet,
Funny how you are now so eager to help people fly an airplane which you said was of suspicious design and build quality.
Could your change of heart have come about because you smell blood in the water?
Don't worry about the owners. I will make sure my fellow owners, especially those on the Ad Hoc committee, know just who it is that wants to "help" them. And good luck dealing through Shane Price. His name is well-known as a "friend" to owners as well. ("My advice is to charge them like a wounded elephant.")
Perhaps you should change the blog name to Eclipse Aviation HypoCritics. NG.
Have ya'll seen this on AviationWeek???
e.d.t.
Intellectual Property Is Eclipse 500 Goal
Mar 11, 2009
Fred George
Tuesday evening, David Green, president of the Eclipse 500 Owners Club, initiated a conference call to as many as 150 Eclipse jet owners during which he and a core group of supporters proposed formation of "NewCo", a non-profit cooperative venture that would bid on the intellectual property of Eclipse Aviation at the upcoming Chapter 7 auction sale of the company's assets.
Green's group believes it would be impossible to support the aircraft without rights to the aircraft Type Certificate, computer software and other proprietary data. By acquiring such intellectual property, NewCo would be able to provide ongoing support for the aircraft at the lowest possible cost, Green's group claims. If a for-profit company were to acquire the intellectual property, it could charge "exorbitant fees for access to service and upgrades." Such fees would decrease the resale of the aircraft dollar for dollar, Green claims.
If NewCo were to succeed in buying Eclipse's intellectual property, it would partner with an outside aviation firm to perform work on the aircraft, charging labor at going market rates, but providing parts at cost. Green's group believes it must raise $10- to $20-million to be a viable bidder, requiring an initial investment of $150,000 per airplane on the part of each owner who choses to participate in the cooperative. In addition, another $12- to $14-million would be required to support the organization's engineering activities during the first year, if an MRO partner cannot be found. The total first year investment could be in the range of $35-million.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/INTEL031109.xml&headline=Intellectual%20Property%20Is%20Eclipse%20500%20Goal&channel=busav
Ron, there are opportunities that stem from failure.
My criticism BTW has focused on execution, vendor selection, the overly integrated avionics, and poor support - I have been reasonably kind to the basic design as I think it is a fine airframe.
Isn't it interesting that one of the most consistent critics of the shortcomings of the plane and the company is interested in providing options to the owners community?
I am not the one asking for $150-300K as entry cost.
I expect some resistance or hesitation given my history as a long time critic, but I also expect that at some point the owners will move past questions of ego and look for practical solutions to the challenges they are facing right now.
In the end, the choice will be whether to be in control of your own destiny or not.
I'll leave it up to the individual owners to decide which proposal is the most practical, is offered by the most experienced team, and serves the majority of interests of a majority of the owners.
We have been down this SEJ>25K road before. If someone knows how to search prior comments and link to my previous summary it would very appreciated.
Read the public TCDS for the Meridian. No grandfathering required. Latest amendment.
1) For a part 23 SEJ "probable" has a numerical definition for which engine failure does not qualify.
2) The engine is not part of the pressurization system.
3) A bleed air system that can maintain a 15k cabin with probable failures present is trivial when the lack of a bleed air source is improbable.
Piper cleared the way for >25k and Pilatus cleared the way for >61 knots. It is only a matter of time before single pilot owner/operators fly as high and as fast as the market will support.
As for the type rating requirements. I had an opportunity to discuss this with the correct people from Flight Standards. The answer was not promising. They see things getting more restrictive not less. SE turboprops may have slipped through a crack that needs to be filled. Baron, the first single pilot type rating is intimidating, but you will come out a sharper pilot with a great since of accomplishment.
I think whoever buys the TC also gets the liability of all the delivered airplanes at no extra charge!
Whoever tries to sort this mess out needs to bring in people curently working on other business jets and turboprops. Maybe an FBO chain like Duncan Aviation, who has recently had to lay off people, would be interested. The idea that the Eclipse train wreck can be worked out by ex-Eclipsers talking with other ex-Eclipsers and with owners of a widget factory in Wichita is a non-starter. In any event good luck to cold fish!
Coldwet,
There are indeed opportunities that stem from failure. In fact, I see this often on the Discovery Channel. The difference is that they call the participants by their proper names, jackals and hyenas, rather than "Consultants".
I think your true character has come out in your exchanges with Ken Meyer. Ken has acted like an ass, but he's not the one asking owners to do business with him, is he?
When I read your recent posts, for some reason the phrase "sleazy opportunism" keeps coming to mind.
Re an owners group buying the assets.
In principal this is a good idea,
however in practice it is a disaster. any organization I have see that is operated by a group of owners has a very difficult time making decisions etc. I have seen it is small companies, I have seen it in any condo association that did not have a very dominate agreement made beforhand.
the only way it would work is if the owners group hired an experienced guy(or gal) to run the operation with adequate resources and truly let him/her run the show. they need to get someone like Cold Wet to run it (this is not an endorsement of Cold Wet as I do not know him personally although I like his posts)
Frankly the best way to make it work is what has happened with Aerostar and Twincommander group, is that someone buys the rights and makes the determination that his future depends on the successful support of the airplane type. competitive pressures from other airplanes, Mustang etc will keep him honest. there are very interesting problems with the EA500 (much bigger than with the Aerostar or Twincommander) centered around the AVIO system that are going to take decisive and inspired action. This will be very hard for a group of owners to decide to spend the $ to do the right thing and hire the right people to solve the problems.
Making good control systems reliable and effective requires a special talent and I have found that those people with the unique talent that can do it are not politically correct types that work well with a group.
as much as I think in my liberal heart that the owners as a group should own the rights, in my experience my practical side says "If I was an owner I would support an individual purchasing it". I might want to have a minority interest in the operation, but the key driver must be the majority owner and be able to do what needs to be done without 100 or 260 people always second guessing him.
There are indeed opportunities that stem from failure. In fact, I see this often on the Discovery Channel. The difference is that they call the participants by their proper names, jackals and hyenas, rather than "Consultants".
This is very strange. For years one of the main criticisms of Eclipse was that it didn't have a profitable business model and now you want to be sure that it stays that way. It doesn't seem like Eclipse will have a long-term future if the owners feel it is their right to a massively subsidized aircraft and then object to anyone coming along and making a profit. Since you object to "sleazy opportunists," why don't you send the Eclipse estate $1M or whatever amount you paid below cost for the aircraft?
Ken has acted like an ass, but he's not the one asking owners to do business with him, is he?
This is news to me. Last I heard the EOG (with Ken as one of the five listed) was considering just that. I'm glad that you've confirmed that those rumors are untrue and that Ken will have no part in bidding on the Chapter 7 assets, will not ask owners to participate financially in anything he's involved in and wont be taking part in running an Eclipse business based on bidding on that bid.
When I read your recent posts, for some reason the phrase "sleazy opportunism" keeps coming to mind.
So should this term apply to all the owners who knowingly and willfully got an aircraft for below cost (and at the taxpayer's expense) or are you selective in your use of that label? Are you going to advocate the owners compensate the Eclipse estate for their subsidy or is it OK for owners to be opportunists at the expense of others?
engPilotDER,
People like you take all the fun out of our noisy discussions !!
;)
Thanks for the reference to your previous posting
The WayBack machine retrieved this from Shane's headline post,
Close to a Total Eclipse?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
(hmmm- this cat has nine lives !!)
UPDATED Wednesday 20th August 12.50 (GMT)
"Lawmakers Set Hearing Over Eclipse 500 Jet Type Certificate"
19-Aug-2008
By Karen Di Piazza
(Well, this didn't accomplish what I hoped for- but it made people squirm, and raised the bar to prevent similar behavior, I hope).
---------------------------------
August 20, 2008 7:02 PM
engPilotDER said...
"Long time reader, but not a blogger due to NDA. It is good entertainment and a simple way to keep up with EAC.
"The SEJ>25K discussion has reached a crescendo once again, so I ask you to consider the following with respect to 14 CFR Part 23.841 Amdt. 23-49 (latest).
"1) Definition of “probable" for a Part 23 Class II/Class III aircraft. Engine failure is not probable. (AC 23.1309-1C; note reference to “each aircraft”, minor, and 10^-3)
"2) Definition of "pressurization system." It has been proven acceptable to exclude the Part 33 certified engine bleed air source in the system definition.
"If the above two items do not provide at least the possibility that some of the statements on the blog are incorrect, then consider the fact that the FAA has already found compliance to 14 CFR Part 23.841 Amdt. 23-49 with respect to a single engine aircraft. The precedence has been set, but the blog overlooked it.
"Time will tell, but I expect SEJs to become a vibrant new market segment in the same way that single engine turboprops have."
---------------------------------
Thanks (again) engPilotDER !!
Single engine military aircraft have been flying for decades and decades at high altitudes. I can't recall any accident attributed to a single engine jet having engine failure and the pressurization system then causing an accident.
Here is a test...
Take a fit trained fighter pilot breathing on a oxygen mask he is already wearing, and your grandmother both up to FL410, and switch off engine bleed to a tiny pressure vessel A/C with a few thousand cycles on the airframe.
See if Grandma lives long enough to get the oxygen mask out of the box beneath her seat, work out how to put it on and get it plugged it, and if her lungs still work well enough to get oxygen into her blood stream at low ambient pressure.
Fighters are designed low pressure differentials, and require constant Oxy mask wearing at altitude, so that the explosive depressurisation of combat damage does not cause further structural damage, or burst eardrums etc.
Interesting article for anyone who missed it:
Owners, businesses hope to acquire Eclipse assets By Heather Clark, Associated Press
quotes:
"Eclipse Owners Group, called New Eclipse's and the unnamed party's plans "predatory" because they would charge owners too much money to upgrade the jets."
""The idea in both of these plans is to exploit the captive market that the Eclipse customers represent," said Randall Sanada, of Jet Alliance, Inc. of Westlake Village, Calif., and a member of the Ad Hoc Customer Committee's steering committee."
Avio is a closed source environment.
It seems to me that the eclipse presents a much more difficult airplane to work with than other designs as a major part of the design is closed. AVIO is a closed system "only the owner of the design has the data to do anything with it". this will cause major problems as the normal way an airplane gets upgrades and fixes is through some outside group saying that "I know how to put better avionics on it or better engines."
this is a major reason that the Aerostar and Twin commander are still viable airplanes because they are "open" to improvement and change from the outside. a good example is what is happening to the early citations. A smart company in Texas, among others,is upgrading them so that they are very competitive with new aircraft. this is happening with King air 90's and other aircraft.
As the AVIO system closes an outsider's ability to make things better, making the necessary upgrades to AVIO will be very expensive
as it will take new eclipse co a lot of resources to finish the airplane and keep it up with the competition. much more resources will be required than can be economically supplied by the existing owners.
the result will be that the existing owners will give up up on it, cut their losses and buy a TBM, Citation or Mustang
even Apple has had to become an open source system so other companies can put its applications on it and part of the success of microsoft is that they encouraged people to write applications that worked with windows.
The number of eclipse airplanes produced is too small a group to ever economically support the airplane without outside help.
My thought is that the only way an owner owned EA500 system could work is for the new Eclipse co group to open up all the design and software information and allow anyone that wants to to come in make up grades and improvements and sell them to the existing owners with the owners proprietary information. Perhaps New Eclipse co can charge a small royalty in order to recoup their original investment sometime.
Then the system is open to competition and people will come forward to provide the solutions and upgrades the airplane owners need at competitive prices. The necessary changes will be made then with OPM which is much more plentiful than what the owners can afford do provide.
FWIW, I appreciate both the support and the suspicion re: my interest in helping the owners.
Hopefully, the owners will be exposed to all the alternatives, and will ultimately be in a position to choose the option that is right for them as individuals.
What we are putting together is a comprehensive set of alternatives that overlap to serve the needs of the competing interest groups without subsidizing one group at the expense of others.
If you are an owner ask yourself what you and your fellow owners will have if you bid on and win the assets? What does that $15-20M actually buy you?
Will AOG planes begin flying immediately?
Will parts be instantly available?
Will there be support for continued airworthiness?
No, after that first $15-20M comes a $2M deep dive, then the re-establishment of vendor relationships or creation of new ones.
Without strong and experienced leadership, the newco will not be in a position to provide any assistance to the fleet until late Summer or Fall at the earliest - what of the guys currently AOG? What of upcoming inspections? What of means of compliance to the existing or future SB's?
I can understand where our new friend Ron is coming from, I really can - I recommend the owners be suspicious of all the proposals.
I also recommend they make it a priority to evaluate all the proposals, and most importantly to ask the technical questions to put each of them in a position to make an informed decision.
i've signed 8110-3s for pressurization systems. engpilotDER got it right.... too busy to provide a lengthly response / tutorial on certifying pressurization systems, but as long as the FHA/SSA shows the system failure rate meets the required threshold spelled out by the regs, you're there.
read the ACs covering FAR 2x.1309 for a better understanding of the issue
Dave,
funny how most of the persnal remarks are really apparently reflection on those who make them....
I sincerely think the only way forward is for subsidies to continue, or for reality to set in and that means there's a really small market, and corresponding high costs.
Subsidies means someone else is getting hosed
Reality based pricing is , the owners will be thinking they are getting hosed
(Just like the accuse CWMR of nastiness...while he's trying to provide a win-win... its perceived as something other than what it is)
IMHO
My thought is that the only way an owner owned EA500 system could work is for the new Eclipse co group to open up all the design and software information and allow anyone that wants to to come in make up grades and improvements and sell them to the existing owners with the owners proprietary information. Perhaps New Eclipse co can charge a small royalty in order to recoup their original investment sometime.
This may not be the only way, but it may be the best thing for the owners to do if they do acquire the IP.
The idea of giving away IP does seem counter-intuitive, but then again ten years ago the smart MBAs all said Google was doomed unless they filled their search page up with flashing animations from sponsors, because thats what everyone else was doing.
This idea that opening up the IP for Avio would solve the closed system problem makes no sense at all. Avio software is certified. How in the world would anyone certify an open-source piece of software? Who would be responsible for testing? Who would be liable? Open source works great for many application areas, but aviation just isn't one of them.
Avio is the one aspect of an EA-500 that dooms the aircraft to either its current state, or at best upgraded to version 1.5. The base is too small to support the investment required to remove Avio and replace it with G1000 or whatever. The observation that other orphaned aircraft had COTS systems which could be upgraded is very much on point, and it's unfortunate that this isn't true for the EA-500. The owners are going to have to face up to this aspect of what they purchased. Potentially, AVIO is what could totally ground the fleet if an AD is issued that requires significant changes to the code base. AFAIK, no other GA aircraft has this problem.
The concern with a 'not-for-profit' cooperative is very much the same as if you are in a partnership on a lemon - sure, you 'own' a plane but there is a constant need for infusions from the owner community to try and keep the thing flying.
A reasonable profit margin (most airframers net 6-8%) and strong financial oversight from the owner community MIGHT work to create a going concern that very, VERY slowly provides a modest ROI on the original investment but in truth buying the assets simply must be thought of as lost money - it is nothing more than a mortgage on the future of Avio (assuming Newco is able to attract the needed talent to 'complete' Avio).
Still does nothing for the guys currently AOG, does nothing to get parts available, does nothing for continued airworthiness, does nothing for AD compliance, does nothing to extend the life beyond the 10 year calendar limit, does nothing to complete owed options, does nothing to complete promised upgrades.
To be clear, it is a $150K ante into a game that is being played at $500K table. By the time needed upgrades are factored in, and assuming like most projects it takes more than originally estimated, even later planes are looking at probably $500K before burning an ounce of fuel, before any maintenance, before any presently unforeseen AD's and SB's. And they will still have a plane that has to stop flying in the next 7-10 years.
It is paying $15-20M for the privelege of spending another $10-15M, and then still having to pay to operate the plane at $300-700/hr plus fuel or having to pay for parts and labor.
The owners pool will shrink, and so the portion per owner when the next cash call comes in will accelerate geometrically.
These are the risks with a co-op approach from the oustide. Admittedly, there might be better vision into the future but everyone needs to be sure that the previously used rose colored Ray-Ban aviators have been relegated to the trash.
It might work, but it requires outstanding execution to have a chance, and it still won't help the guys suffering today IMO.
TBM, for the same money that it would take to possibly buy the assets from CH-7, it could be argued that money would be better spent with P&WC to get a new, independent FADEC, and then get an enterprising shop like Duncan or Sierra to develop a G1000 STC.
This of course assumes P&WC is interested in ongoing support for the PW610 which I think has to be admitted as an 'IF' at this point.
Avionics upgrades would likely be maybe $200-250K installed. The ultimate irony would be to STC the Aspen Avionics Pro suite - surely less expensive than even the G1000, provides tons of performance, and leaves plenty of panel room for radios, GPS and other goodies.
Still doesn't address the life limit issue but removes the real achilles heel of the design. Yes someone has to design simple, conventional controls for the gear, flaps and throttles but this is doable, and the fleet size would justify this work IMO.
ColdWet,
Part of the problem with swapping out Avio is that the owner base will shrink, as you point out. An awful lot of work would be done that does not yield a more functional aircraft. All it does is yield an aircraft that yet more money can be spent on. Why would an owner want to replace Avio as long as Avio is working? There go your numbers right there. So someone is going to have to spend many millions to develop and then certify a totally new avionics system to replace Avio, without the participation of all owners. Gets to be mighty expensive! Just how much money are owners going to throw into this loser before they stop?
What that idea would yield is a plane that can then be supported on a group or individual basis in a purely conventional way, limited only by the willingness of the owner to spend money on it.
I am not saying it is the right way to go, just saying that there are alternatives.
Why do people buy an old 501SP then spend $600-800K with Sierra?
Because it makes sense to them and when it is done they have a safe, useful plane that meets either their ego requirements or their mission definition.
What is needed here IMO are options and alternatives, which seem to have been sorely lacking from the discussion.
RonRoe said...Perhaps you should change the blog name to Eclipse Aviation HypoCritics. NG.
Now, THAT, was funny. ;)
engPilotDER said ... As for the type rating requirements. I had an opportunity to discuss this with the correct people from Flight Standards. The answer was not promising. They see things getting more restrictive not less.
Thanks for your post. I was getting tired of repeating the same things over and over every few months.
Regarding the type rating for sub 6,000 lbs jets, I'm glad that the conversations are happening, and I thank you for taking the initiative.
For the record, I'm not opposed to the type ratings. I am opposing to things that don't make ANY sense at all, like requiring a type rating for a DiamondJet and not requiring one for the BE200.
That is all. If things are consistent and make sense, I'm generally sportive of more pilot training as the greatest single thing we can do for aviation safety.
But when the federal government singles out a class of planes solely on the basis of propulsion, to require extra training, then they distort the market. They disadvantage the fan-jets and advantage the props.
Make the regulations based on MTOW, altitude, speed, complexity, anything that makes sense, but not exclusively on the method of propulsion.
Why do people buy an old 501SP then spend $600-800K with Sierra?
Because,
(a) They are starting with a proven reliable design with very well known operating costs, maintenance procedures, in-place service centers, hundreds of pilots with type ratings, available initial and recurrent training, etc.
(b) The money gets them new engines, upgraded avionics, and a kick-ass aircraft.
Unfortunately, spending that kind of money on an Eclipse will only be the entrance fee to get what the owner already has, but with different avionics. There's no new engine, no in-place business infrastructure to support the aircraft, no in-business manufacturer supplying parts, etc.
That's just throwing good money after bad. Better to go pick up the 501SP and put the money into it.
Agree completely on the kick-ass element - Sierra's re-engined 500's and 501's are very impressive, as are their other mod programs.
There was a move afoot to do a similar thing for the older Lear's as well but I lost track of who/where that is. I recall seeing a 24DXR with FJ44's I think at NBAA back in '02-'04 timeframe.
At this point what I believe needs to happen is to get all the options on the table and see if there is a way to manage the various possibilities such that the majority of owners get the majority of their needs met - whether that is continued operation fo the EA-500 (with or without Avio), entry into another airframe, a graceful exit, or whatever.
There COULD be a renaissance of sorts for the EA-500 if somebody can manage all the moving parts that provides mutually beneficial solutions to competing problems.
Won't be cheap but almost all of the various proposals are going to cost, some more than others - which one provides maximum flexibility for the best overall value with best overall chance at success is the $64,000 question.
There's a reasonable 501SP on Controller for $669K, "willing to negotiate". Given that no one is buying anything these days, that aircraft would probably sell for $600K in a heartbeat, perhaps less.
That effectively puts a cap on the value of an EA-500. One can put money into the 501SP and get a great aircraft. At this point that is not true for the EA-500, and may never be true.
tbm,
did I tell you about the fuel burn on th ea50?
Nice!!
Figure $1200/hr all-up plus crew or get the type rating yourself.
Fly 200-300 hrs, then go to Sierra for the upgrade.
In 2 years, assuming there is an eventual economic recovery, you'd have damn near made money while turning kerosene into contrails.
Fact: EA50 owners are cheap and self rightous and feel they were brilliant for buying their jet for $1 million. The subsidies from investors, governments, vendors and depositors were their DUE for their brilliance.
Therefore: They will HATE anyone making a profit and will not participate in any undertaking that makes enough money to survive.
There are many owner/doctors (remember this is a jet Baron) and doctors are a juicy target for shady financiers and are well known to be very poor businessmen (I'm married to one). They always know more than anyone in the room.
Convolve this with a low volume, troubled, incomplete airframe burdened by the unsupportable Avio NfG....
CWMR- I'd quit trying to help owners and RUN AWAY. This is a herd of cats with no way out. Remember the old large fortune/small fortune joke.
exTurboprop_pilot
exTP,
I think you're forgetting that the whole Eclipse Aviation adventure actually created some millionaires. Sadly, they started out as billionaires.
That's funny Ron, in a sad way.
New post up.
A bit longer than normal, but then I didn't write it.
The 'Owners Group' did...
Enjoy!
Shane
TP said ... poor businessmen (I'm married to one)
Are you married to a businessMAN? ;)
Shocker of the blog. ;)
Kidding aside, I agree totally with what you said.
Once someone is promised something too good to be true, and gets a piece (as incomplete as it may be) of that something in their hands, it is very, very, hard for them to adjust to the realities of ther here, now, etc.
I find it inconceivable that owners are seriously considering putting up $150K-$300K to just buy IP. Is that insane or what?
Let someone else buy it. Keep that $300K in your pocket. Cash is king. If some one that buys the assets wants to charge you $500K for an upgrade, tell them to get lost, and offer them $50K.
Be in control of your destiny. I.e. Cash in the bank, let them come to you and sell you their deal. Let them squirm to get your money.
If you need tires. Buy tires. If you need a TSO component, buy a TSO component. If you need a part from a vendor, ask the vendor to get a PMA and buy that part.
Need a SW upgrade for Avio? Well go to whomever bought the IP and negotiate - with cash on your side, doing the loud talking.
It is insane to part with $300K and still have nothing. Still be on the mercy of more vendors and more fixes.
You bought a plane, remember? Not an aircraft MRO business.
Let the more sanguine owners like Ken and David Green, who drank the full cool aid dosage and may or may not have an affinity to running an EA500 MRO business, buy it.
Everyone else, sit on the sidelines with your cash in the bank.
The liquidation value of an EA500, if you had to sell it today is probably less than $300K.
Forget about what it was once worth or sold for. The value today is $300K give or take.
ALL of your investments should be relative to that value.
Once/IF someone else's MRO operation is up and running, then your plane increases in value to maybe $750K. Then you can justify $150K-$300K which is 20-40% of the value to get it up to spec.
Not now. This minute you do not part with $300K with no guarantees to improve a jet that itself is worth only $300K.
Crazy talk.
RonRoe said...Perhaps you should change the blog name to Eclipse Aviation HypoCritics. NG.
Now, THAT, was funny. ;)
The sad part is that the writing on the wall was over a year ago. That is why I left on my terms. When the meeting of the so-called minds came around every day and good ol Todd Fiero would join, thats when things went wrong. This is the idiot that wanted to get rid of scales and trust vendors and the tooling. Whoever has aircraft 100 be careful. You would be amazed to see what holds the wings on. When integrity is questioned, get out. Non aviation folks who were in charge, you should have listened to your people and stop kissing the backside of idiots like Neffi and his kind. Dont complain about loosing your jobs, you helped the cause with your ignorance. Its a sad deal all around. I feel bad for the people who thought this would work...CNM people. Take care people...
"Crazy talk."
Absolutely, positively! Beautifully stated!
Post a Comment