tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post2450182637402944879..comments2023-09-17T04:46:20.879-07:00Comments on Eclipse Aviation Critic NG: Hampsons, the FAA, the press and now this....Shane Pricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07181451780244241883noreply@blogger.comBlogger421125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-23449824551545758602008-08-29T16:33:00.000-07:002008-08-29T16:33:00.000-07:00In regards to the Hampson Aerospace layoff in Gran...In regards to the Hampson Aerospace layoff in Grand Prairie.. Employees were told to all meet for a Group Meeting that would be held on the shop floor. Employees were informed at that point that today would be there last day about 30 mintures prior to shift ending. It took managers about 20 minutes to inform 100 + employees that they would be with out a job as of this day. Hampson provided no notice and or onsite outreach assitance for the employees of over 100. It was a sad sight to see.mbeathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03310193492806472483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-79155639352663228822008-08-28T21:50:00.000-07:002008-08-28T21:50:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jim Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228368552972082442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-30119566412184351182008-08-26T12:35:00.000-07:002008-08-26T12:35:00.000-07:00FYI, someone else copied my screen name. This com...FYI, someone else copied my screen name. This comment and those that follow did not come from me. Talk about gems:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>20yrmechanic,<BR/><BR/>Whoever hires you is going to get a real gem. You've admitted that you don't care about your non-disclosure agreement, a legal contract that you willingly signed in exchange for employment. While in the employ of EAC, you cashed your paychecks while bad-mouthing them on this blog.<BR/><BR/>You claim to be concerned about the safety of those flying in the E500, yet you continued to participate in building what you considered an unsafe product.<BR/><BR/>You might want to research the meaning of the word "integrity", since it's apparently not in your vocabulary.<BR/><BR/>God help whoever hires you.</I>Formerly known as "Just zis guy, you know?"https://www.blogger.com/profile/11560627523886302864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-13678129366516844342008-08-25T18:52:00.000-07:002008-08-25T18:52:00.000-07:00Extending the premise that Vern-ier dispensed Kool...Extending the premise that Vern-ier dispensed Kool-Aid to a willing throng of quasi-competent yuppies (yup Vern, yup, yup) … and since folks are in a speculative mood, what is the prevailing wind on the following big paychecks at SunPort:<BR/><BR/>Peg Bilson – Can't Operate Officer and all around Yes Girl, Never met a schedule she didn’t like … or was that Never met a schedule, period?<BR/>No Mas says “retained for now, replaced by the new investors, or asked to tidy up the place after the repo man comes.”<BR/><BR/>Jack Harrington – Business Affairs – No one ever saw him around SP except on pay day, no one will miss him when gone.<BR/>No Mas says “Since the business is in the dumper, so is he”<BR/><BR/>Patrick Duffy – Product Development – Came in late, run away while you can.<BR/>No Mas says “He stays on, lives on his USAF retirement pay, flys the only airplane not AOG ... no real responsibility for the debacle. Previous Cheef Injuneer, now COO at Diamond, Ken Harness gets his well deserved smack down by the FAA, Congress, or the creditors.”<BR/><BR/>Don Burtis – Senior Veep and Senior Good Fella – Father of the Avio concept, responsible for brokering bad deals with Avidyne, IS&S, and Chelton.<BR/>No Mas says “Hate to see bad things happen to a nice guy, but how many bad deals can one guy make. Gone”<BR/><BR/>Oliver Masefield – also a Senior VP and Good Fella – Poor execution kills a great concept every time. The devil is in the details … unless he is in the CEO’s suite.<BR/>No Mas says “The only real asset Roel has. Asked to stay, but will likely walk away.”<BR/><BR/>Mike McConnell – VP Propaganda – Cant stand on convictions you don’t have. Did Vern’s bidding too often.<BR/>No Mas says “Stays a short while. Decides to leave 30 days after his telephone and email are cut-off. Still hangs around parking lot until new tenants call the police”<BR/><BR/>Rest of the crew … who cares?<BR/><BR/>What say the blog?No Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08931315946521646286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-44428992794402023902008-08-25T18:12:00.000-07:002008-08-25T18:12:00.000-07:00Sometimes known as "lifestyle" investing, where a ...<I>Sometimes known as "lifestyle" investing, where a larger proportion of the rewards are psychic rather than financial.<BR/><BR/>I have often been approached over the years by companies proposing to develop new aircraft who were seeking capital (including Cirrus). I have suggested this approach to all as the financial rewards from investing in new aircraft companies have been elusive to say the least.</I><BR/><BR/>"Aviation - Making small fortunes out of large ones, for 105 years ( and counting )"<BR/><BR/>Would you like the combo?<BR/>DIPawnShophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07091676046998796061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-78214649124381610592008-08-25T18:06:00.000-07:002008-08-25T18:06:00.000-07:00So Dave I., what investment over what time period ...<I>So Dave I., what investment over what time period will be required of new investors to get to the point of realizing a return comensurate with the risk they will be taking?</I><BR/><BR/>Hey, no fair! I thought I threw enough qualifiers in there that I'd never have to answer that question.<BR/>:-)<BR/><BR/>[ Since I'm talking about "qualifiers" here, I should probably mention "disqualifiers" too - I have NO experience in aircraft production, NO experience in financing a business with outside investment, and NO particular insight into the personal jet market ( being a candidate-in-waiting for an SR20 ). I'm just another idiot who reads the blog because the subject matter interests me. ]<BR/><BR/>That's a very good question. My WAG would be $150 to $250 million of "fortitude", with the expectation of not seeing any return above "debt service" for four years or so. I actually have a basis ( of sorts ) for those numbers and a sequence of events in mind, but would rather you consider me just another bloviating fool, than open my mouth and incontrovertibly prove it to you ( well, that, and I seem to be unable to describe my "plan" in under 5000 words ).<BR/><BR/>Would you like fries with that?<BR/>DIPawnShophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07091676046998796061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-55099256041225675122008-08-25T16:12:00.000-07:002008-08-25T16:12:00.000-07:00"Be very careful about the design that you find ex..."Be very careful about the design that you find exciting."<BR/><BR/>Gad,<BR/><BR/>Not sure why you think I find the EA400 exciting. I dont. It looks odd to me, and the flying qualities are said by the test pilot to be far from benign, likely requiring un-natual acts to make it suitable for the average pilot. My point was just that if it takes 6 years to bring it to market, it seems likely that the world will have passed it by.WhyTechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316462511388173480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-70127746523741647832008-08-25T16:10:00.000-07:002008-08-25T16:10:00.000-07:00New post up.Thanks to all who contributed to this ...New post up.<BR/><BR/>Thanks to all who contributed to this thread.<BR/><BR/>ShaneShane Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07181451780244241883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-58997986593026490622008-08-25T16:05:00.000-07:002008-08-25T16:05:00.000-07:00WhyTechBe very careful about the design that you f...WhyTech<BR/><BR/>Be very careful about the design that you find exciting. To others who may have some “feel” for aerodynamics, stability, and manufacturing, that “cute little bird” may be a nightmare in reality.<BR/><BR/>gadfly<BR/><BR/>(More later . . . if this bird factory survives more than a few weeks!)gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13191372920897029941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-39226767878816571082008-08-25T15:50:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:50:00.000-07:00"3- the E400 looks like a winner to me. At around ..."3- the E400 looks like a winner to me. At around the same price as the CirrusJet... it should sell a lot. They should promote it, and finish it, and bring it to market in mor e than 5 or 6 years"<BR/><BR/>IMO, in 6 years, it will be too little, too late unless the others on this path falter.WhyTechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316462511388173480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-73543410931810427842008-08-25T15:40:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:40:00.000-07:00"My supposition is that it won't be based solely o..."My supposition is that it won't be based solely on ROI, rather that the investor(s) want to be in the airplane business."<BR/><BR/>This can work, and is a more likely way to raise the capital than via professional financial inverstors, who are usually investing other peoples money and are obligated to attempt to produce "suitable" returns. Sometimes known as "lifestyle" investing, where a larger proportion of the rewards are psychic rather than financial.<BR/><BR/>I have often been approached over the years by companies proposing to develop new aircraft who were seeking capital (including Cirrus). I have suggested this approach to all as the financial rewards from investing in new aircraft companies have been elusive to say the least.WhyTechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316462511388173480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-71445639068789950402008-08-25T15:33:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:33:00.000-07:00TRUYes, we all know about Tesla . . . a genius to ...TRU<BR/><BR/>Yes, we all know about Tesla . . . a genius to be sure . . . but Tesla's contributions are of a short list, while much of modern life is, today, a result of Edison's genius.<BR/><BR/>gadfly<BR/><BR/>(And it is little understood, but with solid state electronics and electrical switching systems, the best transfer of high energy electricity is "DC", and not "AC". The problem up until recently has been how to "break" a circuit . . . and AC seemed to be the only answer, as it goes to "zero" 120 times per second in the US. DC has that nasty characteristic of continuing the arc, when the circuit is broken. But now we can "break the arc" using certain "Plasma" priority systems, already proven in the lab, (right here in ABQ, by the way) without creating a "Jacob's Ladder" effect . . . and soon may enjoy an overall efficiency increase of about 30% . . . "sine wave" RMS average compared to continuous DC . . . with the added benefit of less "AC" interference in radio signals. 'Maybe Edison was "thinking ahead" after all.)gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13191372920897029941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-58190904769379105102008-08-25T15:31:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:31:00.000-07:00Dave said:BTW, I'm interested in venture capital a...Dave said:<BR/>BTW, I'm interested in venture capital and I think it would be a field to get into it or participate in."<BR/><BR/>Smart man! Years ago I got some advice "Get into venture capital any way you can." Turned out to be the best advice I have ever received.WhyTechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316462511388173480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-35291576337447207352008-08-25T15:28:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:28:00.000-07:00Whytech:"So Dave I., what investment over what tim...Whytech:"<I>So Dave I., what investment over what time period will be required of new investors to get to the point of realizing a return comensurate with the risk they will be taking?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Dave gave an answer to this one, now I'll have a go.<BR/><BR/>My supposition is that it won't be based solely on ROI, rather that the investor(s) want to be in the airplane business. After all, that seems to be at least part of the motivation for a lot of Vern's backers (sorry, no specific source for this ... just seems to be a lot of rich guys he knew who thought it was a neat thing to be involved in).<BR/><BR/>The alternative answer is to look at the captive upgrade market and the development costs for fixing the a/c. I've already speculated waaaay too much about this already (sorry!) - but it seems to me that we can't rule out this approach being profitable, for the right owner.Cerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532529144940481480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-85200294137939560292008-08-25T15:25:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:25:00.000-07:003- the E400 looks like a winner to me. At around t...<I>3- the E400 looks like a winner to me. At around the same price as the CirrusJet... it should sell a lot. They should promote it, and finish it, and bring it to market in mor e than 5 or 6 years. Until then make and sell 10 E500s per month.</I><BR/><BR/>My feelings are the exact opposite - unless you take the Frankenjet to be a prototype and the ECJ to be a prototype of a prototype. I think whatever safety problems there are in the FPJ are magnified in the Frankenjet. Look no further than the hacking of Avio to think the PW615 is a PW610. If any Eclipse model was to survive as is, it would be the FPJ rather than the Frankenjet.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-9685423250327090412008-08-25T15:19:00.001-07:002008-08-25T15:19:00.001-07:00funny thing is, we need to gove EAC credit for som...funny thing is, we need to gove EAC credit for some things...<BR/><BR/>Anyone who spends 12 years and $2.X Billions (I think all in, its more than $2B, and I'm sticking to it!!!) must have done sme things RIGHT..so here goes.<BR/><BR/>1- they redesigned and redesigned the plane, and I think its the best possible plane that it really could be, right now. I think if they could possibly finish it - it should remain as is. A wholesale change on one part will result in a wild spin, and not much more utility can be derived from this plane, if it is finished.<BR/><BR/>2-they spend so much time and money on sales and marketing, that I think they sold almost every one they could ever realistically hope to sell... plus a bunch of made up orders. So, I'd say, at most, ever, there are 2600 (they seem to love and need this number of orders, so why not?) is the total market for the E500... 10/month for 12 years...sounds like a winner to me.<BR/><BR/>3- the E400 looks like a winner to me. At around the same price as the CirrusJet... it should sell a lot. They should promote it, and finish it, and bring it to market in mor e than 5 or 6 years. Until then make and sell 10 E500s per month.<BR/><BR/>That's about it - I think everything else is scrap. Actually, the e500 is scrap, too, but its the best it can be - just the wrong plane for a large market - that simple. DOA.<BR/><BR/>PS. of course, the ability to raise money was "the best it could be".... AND if they get more, they deserve another trophy!airtaximanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12977944795556689805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-27379831519014090712008-08-25T15:19:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:19:00.000-07:00Think of Edison . . . a genius who early recognize...<I>Think of Edison . . . a genius who early recognized not only the need for “invention”, but that there must be support and room for growth. Think of the men who invested in Edison, allowed him to pursue his inventions, with co-workers of his own choosing . . . and think, “General Electric”.</I><BR/><BR/>Edison was as much a hard-nosed businessperson as a inventor - if not moreso. Edison did sometimes have a tin ear (literally) and held back his innovations, but overall he knew how to run a business.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-12828454787641881842008-08-25T15:16:00.001-07:002008-08-25T15:16:00.001-07:00Gadfly,Funny post! Of course, I hope you remember...Gadfly,<BR/><BR/>Funny post! Of course, I hope you remember that it was Tesla who was the real genius. Edison tried DC power distribution, which failed miserably, while Tesla invented AC distribution and had to fight with Edison about it. Edison tried to trash Tesla along the way. Edison invented the tungsten filament light bulb, now in disfavor for its inefficiency, while Tesla invented the fluorescent bulb, now the 'green' alternative.<BR/><BR/>Totally off topic, sorry for that.TBMs_R_Ushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05303719770613879982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-38577171063902603992008-08-25T15:16:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:16:00.000-07:00So Dave I., what investment over what time period ...<I>So Dave I., what investment over what time period will be required of new investors to get to the point of realizing a return comensurate with the risk they will be taking?</I><BR/><BR/>I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I believe we wont know the answer to that until after the FAA, Oberstar and others get done with Eclipse and the aircraft has more testing. Earlier it was posted on here (but not corroborated) that the airframe is only good for 3500 hrs due to poor construction rather than 10,000 hrs as it is rated. If the FPJ isn't fit for commercial service, DayJet would have to dump the fleet and go with props and/or other jets. I believe there is a niche business in [per seat] charter, but it might not be with the FPJ...depending on how the charter business is persued would determine what level of risk there is. Someone could have a pretty low risk mom-and-pop shop as an owner/operator or someone could try and have service nationwide which would be high risk...both could be sufficiently profitable for the level of risk involved as there isn't just one answer. BTW, I'm interested in venture capital and I think it would be a field to get into it or participate in.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-69386979440533990792008-08-25T15:12:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:12:00.000-07:00Flightcenter: "Ceri,So if I understand your recent...Flightcenter: <BR/><BR/>"<BR/>Ceri,<BR/><BR/>So if I understand your recent posts correctly, your position is that it is possible that: <BR/><BR/>1) Eclipse can be restructured as a profitable company, <BR/>2) A new Eclipse Aviation company will emerge after completing a series of design changes and that new company will deliver E500 aircraft that will meet all of the original specifications, <BR/>3) 30 days is enough time for the FAA to conduct an SCR, and<BR/>4) DayJet might in fact, a year from now or so, become a profitable company. "<BR/><BR/>Umm...<BR/><BR/>1. I don't know that it's not possible. I believe it to be pretty unlikely.<BR/>2. I don't know that it's not possible. I believe it to be pretty likely that the basic airframe will end up being sold with decent avionics and other upgrades. <BR/>3. I don't know that it's not possible. None of us (the blog), as far as I can tell, knows enough about the terms of reference to be able to answer this except by bootstrapping their existing prejudices.<BR/>4. I firmly believe Dayjet will never, ever be profitable and never, ever had any chance of being profitable. I don't believe I've written anything that contradicts that belief. <BR/><BR/>My position on 1,2,3 is that we (the blog) lack the knowledge to make definitive statements about them. The tendency for most people who post is to make assumptions about each of these, which I don't necessarily agree with.<BR/><BR/>At the risk of being revealed as an outright pedant, I'm trying to use the terms 'knowledge' and 'belief' appropriately, here. When someone says they 'knew' Dayjet would fail, that implies perfect knowledge of the future, and it's evidently a fallacious statement. What they mean is they had a very strong belief - backed by good instincts and market knowledge, perhaps - that Dayjet would fail. That is not the same as actually knowing Dayjet would fail.<BR/><BR/>Several posters also seem to have a serious confusion between equity and debt and how the two would influence the future of Eclipse.<BR/><BR/>I don't have a horse in this race - never had any involvement with Eclipse, or Vern, or Ed. I'm just a more-or-less disinterested observer.Cerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532529144940481480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-34782709307624083212008-08-25T15:10:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:10:00.000-07:00A few thoughts from the gadfly:Wise investors find...A few thoughts from the gadfly:<BR/><BR/>Wise investors find someone who is truly a “practical genius” in a certain field, hire him, and give him direction. Notice I said “practical genius” . . . there are many wild eyed inventors who have no concept of how to build their inventions, nor the practical considerations involved in taking their ideas to the final market place.<BR/><BR/>So, to begin, to take someone who may have great ideas about a “flying machine” may be a wrong choice from the start. That flying machine needs to be built . . . fly in a most safe and stable manner . . . be manufactured by people of average abilities . . . be able to “grow” in size, efficiency, speed . . . and all at low cost.<BR/><BR/>It is a rare “genius” who can meet those requirements, and it is rare to have an investor that recognizes those requirements . . . but history records such men, and investors.<BR/><BR/>Think of Edison . . . a genius who early recognized not only the need for “invention”, but that there must be support and room for growth. Think of the men who invested in Edison, allowed him to pursue his inventions, with co-workers of his own choosing . . . and think, “General Electric”.<BR/><BR/>This is not a promotion of “GE”, for of late they have somewhat lost their way. But others in the time of Edison failed to recognize the requirements of coupling “invention” with “practical application” and pro-active support to the customer . . . with a clear vision of the future.<BR/><BR/>Did Edison have it all together? . . . No! But he did get much of it right. ‘Just this morning, I turned on the lights in the bathroom . . . a loud “pop” indicated a burned out halogen flood lamp . . . and examined the genius of the “Mazda” screw-in base . . . over a hundred years old, anticipating the needs of a maximum contact area of the threads, and the soft-to-hard contact point at the end of the bulb.<BR/><BR/>One of his ex-employees is still remembered, also . . . “Tesla” . . . and that’s fine. But it was Edison that made it work . . . and some investors that understood how to go about building a company.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, Eclipse has violated virtually every rule that could be applied to building a good company. And at the moment seems to be intent on committing suicide by mistreatment of employees . . . ex-employees . . . ‘just the most recent in a long list of violations of ethical behavior.<BR/><BR/>gadfly<BR/><BR/>(Now don’t get your liver in a quiver . . . any fool can find fault with my “logic” . . . these just happen to be my observations . . . and notice I make no pretense at being anything other than the “gadfly”.)gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13191372920897029941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-31056487727533971172008-08-25T15:08:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:08:00.000-07:00Video of the local impact of Eclipse (the downsizi...Video of the local impact of Eclipse (the downsizing):<BR/>http://www.truveo.com/Eclipse-Layoffs-Create-Local-Impact/id/3539481973Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-2918671452382257352008-08-25T15:05:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:05:00.000-07:00"Dispense with all of the original trumped-up..."Dispense with all of the original trumped-up pretenses of what the FPJ or Dayjet were going to be, "unblacken" the skies of all those minijets, & fix the glaring flaws in the aircraft, and we're left with an airplane - one that happens to be a docile, fast personal aircraft that doesn't use a whole lot of fuel."<BR/><BR/>So Dave I., what investment over what time period will be required of new investors to get to the point of realizing a return comensurate with the risk they will be taking?WhyTechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316462511388173480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-38539594865479035552008-08-25T15:00:00.000-07:002008-08-25T15:00:00.000-07:00"All of the original specifications" is a dead end...<I>"All of the original specifications" is a dead end, and not required for an "Eclipse 501" to form the basis of a successful venture. If the glaring flaws of the FPJ are redesigned out of existence ( and assuming that stir-fry welding actually is a sound method of construction ), we're left with an aircraft that is very slightly smaller than a Mustang, but uses considerably less fuel for a given flight. I think that there's as much room for that in the market as there is for the Mustang.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not so sure about that. I think that Eclipse hit its numbers on the FPJ by cheating...namely not including proper safety equipment, which lightened the aircraft and gave it better fuel efficiency than it would have if it was as safe as a Mustang (and even the Mustang might be too reliant on the glass cockpit and itself needing more backup equipment). I believe if the FPJ was made safe that it would add a significant amount of weight, which would cut down on the range and fuel efficiency - if it could be done at all (lack of space).Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-2954974673358368492008-08-25T14:49:00.000-07:002008-08-25T14:49:00.000-07:00FlightCenter asked Ceri:So if I understand your re...FlightCenter asked Ceri:<BR/><I>So if I understand your recent posts correctly, your position is that it is possible that:</I><BR/><BR/>...followed by four suppositions.<BR/>I am not Ceri, but I <I>do</I> have opinions on the subject. So, one at a time:<BR/><BR/><I>1) Eclipse can be restructured as a profitable company,</I><BR/><BR/>IF previous investment in the company is treated as <I>lost</I>, as unrecoverable, and as unnecessary to recover, then YES it could be restructured to be profitable ( for "Investor D" ).<BR/><BR/><I>2) A new Eclipse Aviation company will emerge after completing a series of design changes and that new company will deliver E500 aircraft that will meet all of the original specifications,</I><BR/><BR/>"All of the original specifications" is a dead end, and not required for an "Eclipse 501" to form the basis of a successful venture. If the glaring flaws of the FPJ are redesigned out of existence ( and assuming that stir-fry welding actually <I>is</I> a sound method of construction ), we're left with an aircraft that is very slightly smaller than a Mustang, but uses considerably less fuel for a given flight. I think that there's as much room for that in the market as there is for the Mustang.<BR/><BR/><I>3) 30 days is enough time for the FAA to conduct an SCR,</I><BR/><BR/>30 days is enough time for the FAA to have answers ( good <I>or</I> bad ones ) for Congress' questions - and <I>not</I> enough time to 'build' a bulletproof cover story from whole cloth. The abbreviated time frame for the SCR was <I>imposed</I> ( and that's a <I>good</I> thing ), not chosen.<BR/><BR/><I>4) DayJet might in fact, a year from now or so, become a profitable company.</I><BR/><BR/>Have you heard the one about the flying pig? No, there's NO way that Dayjet even <I>might</I> become profitable a year, or two, or even three, from now.<BR/><BR/>Dispense with all of the original trumped-up pretenses of what the FPJ or Dayjet <I>were going to be</I>, "unblacken" the skies of all those minijets, & fix the glaring flaws in the aircraft, and we're left with an airplane - one that happens to be a docile, fast personal aircraft that doesn't use a whole lot of fuel.<BR/><BR/>YMMV,<BR/>DIPawnShophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07091676046998796061noreply@blogger.com