tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post180687701095911379..comments2023-09-17T04:46:20.879-07:00Comments on Eclipse Aviation Critic NG: The Fan Club get restiveShane Pricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07181451780244241883noreply@blogger.comBlogger282125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-20776480006961767362009-01-14T23:44:00.000-08:002009-01-14T23:44:00.000-08:00Does anyone else notice how the Eclipse PR machine...Does anyone else notice how the Eclipse PR machine takes what would be a 'yawner' for any other aircraft company and while delivering bad news makes it look as if they are achieving something dramatic?<BR/><A HREF="http://www.lciaviation.com/company/management/" REL="nofollow">aircraft and leasing</A>Petersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13171419260382674473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-5262416563875754072008-06-12T10:56:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:56:00.000-07:00Can you imagine if the guys that started Google or...Can you imagine if the guys that started Google or Amazon or AOL or Yahoo said. "Oh, we just want to create this little tiny portal thing, it won't change the world much, we only want to take $1M of your investment". <BR/><BR/>Really?<BR/><BR/>Google (nothing like Vern...NOTHING) http://www.google.com/<BR/>corporate/history.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yahoo - NOTHING LIKE VERN...NOTHING LIKE ECLIPSE<BR/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/<BR/>misc/history.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>AOL - nothing like VErn...nothing<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL<BR/><BR/><BR/>BUddy - you are very far off the mark on what makes for a great start up, or even what is required to keep momentum and grow a company.<BR/><BR/>REALITY is not sysnonymous with failure... unless you ARE failing - lofty goals are one thing, yet none of these companies started off the way you portray.<BR/><BR/>None claimed a revolution, and I do not think they recast milestone after milestone, recast history, specs and even their orders. I would think they were realistic about the developent timelines, and dealt with the reality as it presented.<BR/><BR/>These companies are nothing like Eclipse.airtaximanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12977944795556689805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-27992711061354969362008-06-12T10:07:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:07:00.000-07:00This is just too much:http://www.integrum.com/Arti...This is just too much:<BR/>http://www.integrum.com/ArticlesByCategoryPage.aspx?oid=541<BR/>I thought things couldn't get any crazier until I read this. Eclipse plans to build *50 units* in 2009, reach 800 units per year in 2010 and by 2013 be up to *1500 units per year*!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-49066791730200487012008-06-12T09:56:00.000-07:002008-06-12T09:56:00.000-07:00Well, major kudos to the pilot who got that aircra...Well, major kudos to the pilot who got that aircraft on the ground safely.<BR/><BR/>Too bad both tires had to blow, because that is obviously pilot error. Right?<BR/><BR/>;-)AvidPilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15144686246581465867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-71171583904587754262008-06-12T09:41:00.000-07:002008-06-12T09:41:00.000-07:00AvidPilot said... So this guy flying his Eclipse h...<I> AvidPilot said... <BR/>So this guy flying his Eclipse hits your typical windshear, reacts properly by advancing both power levers forward to full power, but then both engines lock on FULL POWER??<BR/><BR/>Then he has to do a shutdown of one engine, go-around and land on ONE ENGINE AT AT FULL POWER??<BR/><BR/>Then, to top it off, BOTH TIRES BLOW??<BR/><BR/>This is a joke, right??<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Yep. Pretty much. On the EA500 the TOGA FADEC detent is intended for just that you can take-off/go-around. It is not intended for you to be able to land after TOGA (particularly if you really jam it in there) ;) ;)<BR/><BR/>If I were DayJet, I'd only hire female pilots that are less than 110lbs and have a policy that they can't do any upper body weight training.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and they should all be good looking too - this is to screen out any dudes that want to pass as a dudette captain.<BR/><BR/>It is the perfect solution - frees up useful load on the EA500, solve the TOGA detent problem, looks good.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-19236681131065315232008-06-12T09:39:00.000-07:002008-06-12T09:39:00.000-07:00I found the EA 100 look at www.iconaircraft.com ...I found the EA 100 look at www.iconaircraft.com it is a two place rotax powered sport pilot airplane. Vern is the leader of the group of advisers and guess what? it has been shown and announced but it has not flown yet. sound familiar?AESTguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04689586324657257930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-27951361351611940552008-06-12T09:31:00.000-07:002008-06-12T09:31:00.000-07:00I found the EA 100 look at www.iconaircraft.com ...I found the EA 100 look at www.iconaircraft.com it is a two place rotax powered sport pilot airplane. Vern is the leader of the group of advisers and guess what? it has been shown and announced but it has not flown yet. sound familiar?Beedriverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16991006267212495097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-18322328705100932812008-06-12T09:23:00.000-07:002008-06-12T09:23:00.000-07:00So this guy flying his Eclipse hits your typical w...So this guy flying his Eclipse hits your typical windshear, reacts properly by advancing both power levers forward to full power, but then both engines lock on FULL POWER??<BR/><BR/>Then he has to do a shutdown of one engine, go-around and land on ONE ENGINE AT AT FULL POWER??<BR/><BR/>Then, to top it off, BOTH TIRES BLOW??<BR/><BR/>This is a joke, right??AvidPilothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15144686246581465867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-21571325826810346642008-06-12T09:15:00.000-07:002008-06-12T09:15:00.000-07:00Dave said... Mentioning Boeing in regards to fraud...<I>Dave said... Mentioning Boeing in regards to fraud doesn't exactly advance your case. </I><BR/><BR/>And what case would that be?<BR/><BR/>If I were trying to make a case it would be both young and mature companies over promise and under deliver at times.<BR/><BR/>I am both proud/excited and disapointed with Boeing in the 787 program. It was a supper stretch for technology, production, industrial relations, and a leap forward in this industry. It faltered (and badly) and is now on the come back trail.<BR/><BR/>My observations of Eclipse run the oposite direction. I was embarassed/disapointed in the way they went about it and though they'd be long dead by now. But, the fact that they are still around, still pumping out planes (incomplete as they may be), still making incremental design improvements, still "planning" on follow-on models, follow-on assembly sites, etc, just completely surprises me.<BR/><BR/>I really had to start giving Eclipse the respect that they've earned as the ONLY surviving (not successful mind you, by surviving) start-up company to certify and produce over 100 jets since Lear did it 4 decades earlier.<BR/><BR/>With all their faults, they are the only start up survival in the VLJ arena. Going from nothing to 200 (yet-to-be-fully-completed) fan-jets and still standing is a remarkable accomplishment.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of what happens you can't take that away from Eclipse/Vern. As much as we may disagree on style or substance. They have done something quite remarkable that may come along every 4 decades or so.<BR/><BR/>So, if there were a case....<BR/><BR/>Boeing: 787 Excitement -> Disapointment -> Recovery -> Admiration (???)<BR/><BR/>Eclipse: Embarassment -> Surprise -> Some Respect -> TBD (???)<BR/><BR/>It is "possible" that by 2012 we will have some 500 EA500 with G1000-SVS and an 100 E400 certified to FL250 with G-1000 SVS flying around the world. Not likely, but possible. The fact that Vern/Eclipse/ETIRC are still standing and fighting to get there is admirable.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-48364760902214504862008-06-12T09:14:00.000-07:002008-06-12T09:14:00.000-07:00"I am sure you guys are familiar with stretch goal..."I am sure you guys are familiar with stretch goals, righ(t)?<BR/><BR/>yes , but we are talking about EAC ...<BR/><BR/>Not really a youthfull firm anymore (10 years +) <BR/><BR/>with a brilliant history of delays ...<BR/><BR/>the same for over-promise ...<BR/><BR/>the same for under-deliveries ...<BR/><BR/>the same for plunging a bit deeper into depositor's pockets over time ...<BR/><BR/>so when you state the plant has some chances to be "on" 2 years late ...<BR/><BR/>i would suggest = it is already the best possible case ...!<BR/><BR/>meanwhile Etirc would have to pay for US plant (to keep TC , etc...) AND Russian plant (while not making a cent out of it !!!fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-20064584622707685312008-06-12T09:02:00.000-07:002008-06-12T09:02:00.000-07:00Dave said... So why is Eclipse claiming the first ...<I> Dave said... So why is Eclipse claiming the first russian delivery will happen in 2009?</I><BR/><BR/>I thought they mentioned in a interview "expected first assembly". Don't recall they "claiming first delivery".<BR/><BR/>Either way - chuck it up to entrepenurial exuberance. If you only aim for 2011 that is the best you can achieve and most likely it will be 2012. If you aim for 2009, you have a tiny chance of achieving 2009, a small chance of achieving 2010, and an OK chance of doing it by 2011. I am sure you guys are familiar with stretch goals, righ?Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-73335368500334789112008-06-12T08:58:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:58:00.000-07:00Dave said ... However, we are talking about a year...<I>Dave said ... However, we are talking about a year from now, not three years down the road:<BR/>The first Russian-assembled very light jet is scheduled to roll off the production line in the middle of next year, and full production of around 800 aircraft annually is expected to be reached in 2011. <BR/> </I><BR/><BR/>Hi Dave, I said 2011 or whatever. First remember "youthful/entreperurial enthusiasm" then remember the world "expected" then remember the word "first assembly" then "full production in 2011".<BR/><BR/>Add it all up and what do we have?<BR/><BR/>Best case, assembly of a test/certification article by year end 2009. 18 months from now. Use the assembly of that test article to debug tooling, training, documenting procedures for plant certification. Start plant going with one-by-one sign off throughout 2010, etc...<BR/><BR/>Worst case, lack of Russian/EASA certification will not be an issue unless they don't get it by mid-2010 (2 years from now).<BR/><BR/>Given that they will probably be way behind their enthusiastically optimistic time lines, don't lose sleep over lack Russian/EASA certification for a nother 2 and 1/2 to 3 years.<BR/><BR/>All your points are totally valid, if they are stated as "Eclipse/ETIRC will have a problem if they don't have EASA or Russian TC/PC by xx/yy/zz or by the time they are expected to have a running line in Russia". They certainly don't have a problem now. err - correction - they don't have THAT problem now - plenty of others.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-15979525511472750532008-06-12T08:55:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:55:00.000-07:00And please. Lets hold off on the comments that Boe...<I>And please. Lets hold off on the comments that Boeing was pepetrating a fraud on customers and the industry by saying they could go from roll out on 07-08-07 (a marketing stund date) to power on, first flight, 4 flying prototypes, 4 months of flight test and EIS in 10 months.</I><BR/><BR/>Mentioning Boeing in regards to fraud doesn't exactly advance your case. Boeing paid the largest fraud settlement (over half a billion dollars) in federal procurement fraud history. Boeing has also settled fraud charges with NASA.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-85576761630671577682008-06-12T08:47:00.001-07:002008-06-12T08:47:00.001-07:00airsafety ...if i would know you or if you would ...airsafety ...<BR/><BR/>if i would know you or if you would be in front of me ...<BR/><BR/>i would probably kiss you and say that i love you ....<BR/>(don't worry , only a joke !)<BR/><BR/>it's real funny for me to see someone making-up ANY argument to show he is right ...<BR/><BR/>the story isn't working , whatever is the way you take it ...!fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-48100468665319421362008-06-12T08:47:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:47:00.000-07:00Meanwhile, about one full year and at least $2B be...Meanwhile, about one full year and at least $2B behind schedule, and a month after it was supposed to be already flying in revenue service with ANA, Boeing on Everett building 40-26 is "finally (keep your fingers crossed)" starting power-on (the electrical kind) tests on ZA001 - Dreamliner 1.<BR/><BR/>Congratulations to Boeing on finally getting to this milestone and good wishes for a speedy route to first flight. I am dying to see this bird in the air.<BR/><BR/>And please. Lets hold off on the comments that Boeing was pepetrating a fraud on customers and the industry by saying they could go from roll out on 07-08-07 (a marketing stund date) to power on, first flight, 4 flying prototypes, 4 months of flight test and EIS in 10 months.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-21326381837517551232008-06-12T08:46:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:46:00.000-07:00"So why is Eclipse claiming the first russian deli..."So why is Eclipse claiming the first russian delivery will happen in 2009?"<BR/><BR/>Heaven knows. Apparently the Russians are trying to start up the AN-124 line again and/or start up a wide-body heavy maintenance facility that would have EASA and FAA certification. Those projects would use up all the existing space in Ulyanovsk. I think Eclipse (ETIRC) is trying to piggy-back on one or both of those proposals (and are being laughed out of town)airsafetymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923869957339462116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-67365677316592259812008-06-12T08:33:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:33:00.000-07:00Since the Vernster announced SIX months ago that t...<I>Since the Vernster announced SIX months ago that they were going to build a factory and NOTHING has happened since, the odds of delivering certified Russian-built airplanes in 36 more months is nill. In any event the basic design of the airplane isn't even finalized, never mind the ADs and retrofits coming down the road.</I><BR/><BR/>So why is Eclipse claiming the first russian delivery will happen in 2009?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-21370234134765846942008-06-12T08:25:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:25:00.000-07:00"Oh, OK. You are worried that 3 years from now in ..."Oh, OK. You are worried that 3 years from now in 2011 when the possible, eventual Russian assembly site that may assemble an E500, E400 or other then current Eclipse plane, that plane would not have Russian certification!!!!"<BR/><BR/>Well, yes. I thought it was a done deal! Roel wouldn't lie, would he?IF the airplane gets Russian certification the plant will also (still) need Russian certification. Russian certified airplanes will be in the same fix as US airplanes are now, they will not be able to be registered in western Europe without EASA certification. Then there is the question of wheither Russian built airplanes could be registered in the US since they would be built under a Russian Production Certificate that may not necessarily be accepted by the FAA. Also in the US a manufacturer may not perform maintenance, repair, and overhaul on the airplanes it manufactures unless it also has a FAA approved Repair Station Certificate. That means a US registered airplane tooling around the Volga would not be able to drop in on the Russkie factory for maintenance unless the factory also had a US repair station certificate. <BR/><BR/>Since the Vernster announced SIX months ago that they were going to build a factory and NOTHING has happened since, the odds of delivering certified Russian-built airplanes in 36 more months is nill. In any event the basic design of the airplane isn't even finalized, never mind the ADs and retrofits coming down the road.airsafetymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923869957339462116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-50633851869839514042008-06-12T08:24:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:24:00.000-07:00Since things are going so well at Eclipse, Vern ha...Since things are going so well at Eclipse, Vern has decided to find himself another distraction:<BR/>http://www.businessweek.com/print/innovate/content/jun2008/id20080611_595978.htm<BR/>Hopefully these guys wont operate like Eclipse even though Vern is on the board.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-82332343074029714002008-06-12T08:21:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:21:00.000-07:00baron wrote :"Thang (?) god for that - that is wh...baron wrote :<BR/><BR/>"Thang (?) god for that - that is what keeps the US economy as the innovative hot bed of new ideas and industries."<BR/><BR/>please put the pink goggles down ...!<BR/><BR/>what made USA what is it ? <BR/><BR/>Talented men with lots of charisma and lots of energy ...<BR/><BR/>helped in their research by a financial industry who has no aversion to risks ...!<BR/><BR/><BR/>what is good with Vern ? <BR/><BR/>Very good at raising funds (thru his friends and the wall-street network of thieves , ready to make money with dung , if it pays )<BR/><BR/> and <BR/><BR/>.... well let me think ....<BR/><BR/><BR/>please do not insult your fellow citizen by saying such guys as vern are making USA what it is ...<BR/><BR/>otherwise , you'll crash into the wall very soon ...!fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-50020525405895124862008-06-12T08:19:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:19:00.000-07:00$Billions were lost in the .com crash. But the res...<I>$Billions were lost in the .com crash. But the result is the Web and Web 2.0.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually *T*rillions were lost. The web existed way before the dot com bubble and web 2.0 came years after the dot com bubble. This hurt many families with many losing their jobs...and there were some who went to prison for orchestrating frauds.<BR/><BR/><I>Can you imagine if the guys that started Google or Amazon or AOL or Yahoo said. "Oh, we just want to create this little tiny portal thing, it won't change the world much, we only want to take $1M of your investment". No. They all set out to set the world on fire, take over markets, kill dinasours, bring in $Billions in private and public equity.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually their first investment was only $100K. In any event we're not talking about taxpayer's money with Google, but with Eclipse we are.<BR/><BR/><I>Say what you may. It takes a special individual and lots and lots of balls to try to put yourself out there and do something "revolutionary". And guess what? It rarelly is successful. And when it is successful, if rarelly work out as planned.</I><BR/><BR/>Being an entrepreneur doesn't excuse criminal activity as many of those who engaged in fraud have ended up in the federal pen. Someone who starts up a business cannot automatically be assumed to be above criminality unless you feel the underlying criminal laws are somehow wrong.<BR/><BR/><I>There is absolutely nothing wrong with Vern/Eclipse having tried and failed and trying again and failing and burning through $1B, $2B. Moving plants. Absolutely nothing wrong. And thank god people like Vern and Lear and Adam and Klapmeyer and Bede tried/are trying.</I><BR/><BR/>You automatically pre-suppose nothing criminal has taken place or is that you disagree with the white collar criminal laws? I'm saying Vern might or might not have broken the law but I'm leaning toward the latter.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-43861950347797510962008-06-12T08:14:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:14:00.000-07:00Re the CPC....Good luck trying to get the ex-airli...Re the CPC....<BR/><BR/>Good luck trying to get the ex-airline types hired by DayJet to go easy on the throtles on a go around - these guys are trained to jam a fistfull (2-4) throtles to the stop - particularly on a LLWS scenario. I would not be surprised if some of these guys can generate 200 lbs of force on those throtles.<BR/><BR/>Better beef them up and better change your control logic to accept engine control "back in range" as a valid input.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand - and not trying to spin this into a positive (there is none) - it sounds like we found a bit of info to a question posed, I believe, by an exchange between Flyger, myself, maybe others several months back. It has to do with the "means to shut down the engine on FADEC power failure".<BR/><BR/>It sounds to me like the Eng Control Failure checklist (in case both engines are on full power) calls for shutting down one engine and landing with full power on the other. [BTW, the PCC should make that explicit].<BR/><BR/>So we know that, at least in some conditions, it is possible to actually land an E500 with full power on one engine, one shut down, with damage limited to the blown tires.<BR/><BR/>Question: On full electric power failure, is there a maan (e.g. manual fuel shut off) to shut down one engine? If landing with one engine producing full power can be demonstrated as a safe manouver can this be the basis to address the EASA concern about "means to shut down power when FADEC/electric power fails"? I'd appreciate an opinion on those that know the E500 flight manual and the EASA rule interpretation.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-54000899923937656252008-06-12T08:09:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:09:00.000-07:00baron wrote :"see the difference ?" ah ? and suc...baron wrote :<BR/><BR/>"see the difference ?" <BR/><BR/>ah ? and such plant/building appears during the night ? (on a full moon ?)<BR/><BR/>2011 they start producing ...ok , BUT :<BR/><BR/>we are in mid 2008 , ok ?<BR/>mustang has been certified since 6 months , ok ?<BR/>still they will have to wait till 2010 (estimation) to get Russian Cert. , ok ?<BR/>so , one can naturally think E500/400/300 is going to be in the same process as of length , ok ?<BR/>what are the chances the Russian allow a plant to be built Before the product is authorized , ok?<BR/>if they do , they loose control over their own administration or will face some embarrassments with others foreign investments , ok ? <BR/>(believe me , that is the last thing they want !)<BR/><BR/>so how the whole thing is supposed to work ? <BR/><BR/>what ever is the angle you take the story , ALWAYS something going wrong ... this is not even "speculations " only LOGIC conclusions ....<BR/><BR/>believe me Russians are DEADLY LOGIC on business ...!!<BR/><BR/>See the difference?fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-39709239954373502192008-06-12T08:04:00.001-07:002008-06-12T08:04:00.001-07:00Nothing wrong with worrying about events three yea...<I>Nothing wrong with worrying about events three years down the road.<BR/>Just stated it correclty: "If by 2011 or whenever Eclipse/ETIRC wants to start production in Russian, they still don't have a Russian/EASA TC/PC, they will have a problem" don't be like Vern and overstate the problem "Eclipse/ETIRC's Russia assembly deal is doomed because TODAY (3 years before it is needed) they don't have a Russian/EASA TC/PC".<BR/>See the difference?</I><BR/><BR/>However, we are talking about a year from now, not three years down the road:<BR/><I>The Russian facility is expected to roll out its first aircraft in late 2009, he said.</I><BR/>http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2008/feb/22/eclipse-aviation-chief-says-russia-ripe-new-factor/<BR/>You are understating it by claiming Eclipse is planning their first delivery in 2011 instead of 2009. It's full production of 800 per year that's in 2011:<BR/><I>The first Russian-assembled very light jet is scheduled to roll off the production line in the middle of next year, and full production of around 800 aircraft annually is expected to be reached in 2011. </I><BR/>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/21/221743/video-eclipse-500-to-be-manufactured-in-russia.htmlDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-12624914322748881332008-06-12T08:04:00.000-07:002008-06-12T08:04:00.000-07:00AT Said ... Yes and given their history at forcas...<I>AT Said ... Yes and given their history at forcasting, they are either completely incompetent or thieves...</I><BR/><BR/>Or just have too much naive youthful (as a company), entrepenurial, startup entusiasm. Thang god for that - that is what keeps the US economy as the innovative hot bed of new ideas and industries.<BR/><BR/>Can you imagine if the guys that started Google or Amazon or AOL or Yahoo said. "Oh, we just want to create this little tiny portal thing, it won't change the world much, we only want to take $1M of your investment". No. They all set out to set the world on fire, take over markets, kill dinasours, bring in $Billions in private and public equity. So failed. Some failed then succeeded. Some may still fail. $Billions were lost in the .com crash. But the result is the Web and Web 2.0.<BR/><BR/>Say what you may. It takes a special individual and lots and lots of balls to try to put yourself out there and do something "revolutionary". And guess what? It rarelly is successful. And when it is successful, if rarelly work out as planned.<BR/><BR/>There is absolutely nothing wrong with Vern/Eclipse having tried and failed and trying again and failing and burning through $1B, $2B. Moving plants. Absolutely nothing wrong. And thank god people like Vern and Lear and Adam and Klapmeyer and Bede tried/are trying.<BR/><BR/>P.S. If it takes balls to start any company, in aviation it takes balls that can only be trasported by a C-5 Galax yor AN124.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.com