tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post4105009393222449360..comments2023-09-17T04:46:20.879-07:00Comments on Eclipse Aviation Critic NG: Light(s) at the end of the tunnel?Shane Pricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07181451780244241883noreply@blogger.comBlogger535125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-47292761405741359632009-03-04T12:05:00.000-08:002009-03-04T12:05:00.000-08:00BAron,a technology demo engine, is very different ...BAron,<BR/><BR/>a technology demo engine, is very different to a technology mauration program. There is NO program in modern GA aviaiton history (I said GA) or even commercial aviation as you refer to, that was based on just a technology demonstration.<BR/><BR/>NASA funded WI to demo this engine, and they did, sort of. Bottom line, no ratioanl OEM would BASED a program on a demo engine.<BR/><BR/>A better referene would be the tech demos going on at GD regarding the SSBJ, but, they did not full-throttle spend until the tech wa sufficienctly demonstrated and matured. Still some risk, but nothing like the NASA demo program for the FJX2...<BR/><BR/>no wayairtaximanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12977944795556689805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-88924110982190943822009-03-04T10:37:00.000-08:002009-03-04T10:37:00.000-08:00ATM said... do you think Peter was the mastermind ...<I>ATM said... do you think Peter was the mastermind behind letting the position-holders fund the development program, get bought in so to speak, and then jack them for more money all around?</I><BR/> <BR/>Peter was there when the 6-month progress payments were required as the cash reserve to keep the company running while Vern went looking for more money. I always questioned Peter's timing on his departure, and now looking back I suspect he and Vern had a disagreement on how to fund the future of Eclipse. Peter did what he thought best, and decided not to be part of the slaughter.Phil Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08036560969578399941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-46083684054397797722009-03-04T10:36:00.000-08:002009-03-04T10:36:00.000-08:00New Post upI can now, finally, declare that Eclips...<B>New Post up</B><BR/><BR/>I can now, finally, declare that Eclipse Aviation Corporation is bankrupt.<BR/><BR/>ShaneShane Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07181451780244241883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-34698564268688879262009-03-04T10:31:00.000-08:002009-03-04T10:31:00.000-08:00Williams spent years working on the FJ22 under con...<I>Williams spent years working on the FJ22 under contract and all they could produce was an engine that didn't even hold up together and claim it was ready to go on wing? Come on. Lots of people in the industry KNOW this is a black and white no-go.</I><BR/><BR/>Then why the dog-and-pony show with the Eclipse 500 test flight other than to get $25M+. Afterall, by the time of Eclipse 500 flight test, there had already been dozens of hours of flight tests on the Sabreliner.<BR/><BR/>Also answering other people's posts. The decision to create Avio (along with FSW) <A HREF="http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2002/07/30/152259/singular-vision.html" REL="nofollow">was done in 1999.</A> This was when Williams was supposedly making all the decisions and Vern was just a figurehead. It seems strange how on one hand we are hearing the problem was that Vern didn't have his employees in place while on the other hand Vern himself just the other day complains that he didn't fire employees he hired fast enough. I also don't see why Williams would be interested in Avio or FSW.<BR/><BR/>Also here's an article from right after the test flight where the Williams issue is specifically addressed with Vern basically saying <A HREF="http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/02nbaa/topsto06.htm" REL="nofollow">"Move along, nothing to see here"</A> in regards to questions about the Williams engine performance.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-40695761304243895582009-03-04T09:56:00.000-08:002009-03-04T09:56:00.000-08:00ATM said... Anybody here with development experien...ATM said... Anybody here with development experience, please correct me on this, if I am off base.<BR/><BR/>In this you are totally correct.<BR/><BR/>A new engine only goes on wing of the intended new airframe when it has already proven itself on ground and flying test beds.<BR/><BR/>Usually only things like nacelle aerodynamics and FADED tuning remain to be done when it goes on wing of the intend airframe.<BR/><BR/>The fact that Williams supplied a pair of engines to go on-wing and those engines could not hold together and (according to Vern's interview) the following 23 flight tests needed to be scrapped because the engines didn't work, should be PROOF CONCLUSIVE THAT THERE WAS NO CHANCE THAT ENGINE WOULD EVER WORK. PERIOD. No room for interpretation - yes, it is that black and white. Williams spent years working on the FJ22 under contract and all they could produce was an engine that didn't even hold up together and claim it was ready to go on wing? Come on. Lots of people in the industry KNOW this is a black and white no-go.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-61809442717195389012009-03-04T09:47:00.000-08:002009-03-04T09:47:00.000-08:00ATM said... Anyone who bases an aircraft program o...ATM said... Anyone who bases an aircraft program on a technology-demo engine, is just plain stupid.<BR/><BR/>Hummmm like Boeing betting the entire 777NG program (77W, 77L) on the exclusive deal with GE and GEs technology demonstrator to produce a turbofan in the 115Klbs class and incredible SFCs? That sure was stupid.<BR/><BR/>Fact is, throughout the history of aviation, from the Wright Bros onwards, airframes and engines invariably advanced together with one betting on the other.<BR/><BR/>What came first? The Wright Flyer or the Wright Engine? The ME262 or the BMW JetEngine? The 747 or the high-bypass turbofan?Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-47676402966861207822009-03-04T09:04:00.000-08:002009-03-04T09:04:00.000-08:00fjt,3 spools...AND iirc, 19 stages...19 stages...a...fjt,<BR/><BR/>3 spools...AND iirc, 19 stages...<BR/><BR/>19 stages...am I correct? 19 stages.<BR/><BR/>how do you spell durability?airtaximanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12977944795556689805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-61611822321766714362009-03-04T08:30:00.000-08:002009-03-04T08:30:00.000-08:00Look up the engines proposed for the 737R.Look up the engines proposed for the 737R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-11179570160703753922009-03-04T08:28:00.000-08:002009-03-04T08:28:00.000-08:00From my understanding, most of the future potentia...From my understanding, most of the future potential of aircraft lie within propulsion breakthroughs. Yes, it might have been risky to go with what Williams was proposing, but even companies such as GE, RR, and P&W can completely botch an engine they have swore up and down will work. (Anyone read the reasons why the 737R study was canceled?)<BR/><BR/>The fuel efficiency of the E500 was dependent on the Williams engine. Once that didn't perform up to spec, they were hosed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-79876974637289132782009-03-04T08:26:00.000-08:002009-03-04T08:26:00.000-08:00"If you think that there aren't engines very far a..."If you think that there aren't engines very far along in development that don't put out the same thrust/weight ratio "<BR/><BR/>You stated "in development." That means now, not 10 years ago. So, 10 years or more have passed since the Eclipse engine decisions, and nothing yet certified? Tells you something.WhyTechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316462511388173480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-81782743449163366642009-03-04T08:20:00.000-08:002009-03-04T08:20:00.000-08:00freedom ... yes , the kind of thrust does exist !i...freedom ...<BR/><BR/> yes , the kind of thrust does exist !<BR/>it is for drones and cruise missile !<BR/><BR/>why only for them ?<BR/><BR/>Same answer than for FSW :<BR/><BR/>they fly only once !fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-31201564935862481962009-03-04T08:15:00.001-08:002009-03-04T08:15:00.001-08:00yes ...and if depositors knew in writing that thei...yes ...<BR/><BR/>and if depositors knew in writing that their deposits were to be for Firm's Dev. ...<BR/><BR/>then who was going to pay for their birds ?<BR/><BR/>if the deposits were to be used for building the company , it only reinforce the IPO exit ... !<BR/><BR/>i can really agree with you , peter that we were not at the wheel in those times ...<BR/>but to me : it is VERY strange that depositors were sold the idea that they were paying to develop EAC ...<BR/><BR/>then IPO (did they know ?)...<BR/><BR/>and depositors left over to "hold the bag" ... only 10 years would have been spared in this scenario !<BR/><BR/>as it is the situation , now ! <BR/><BR/><BR/>i am really very glad to have "someone from inside" to tell a bit ...<BR/>but in 15 years + of finances/economic work it is the first time that i hear a "firm being developed for itself , with the full agreement and knowledge from investors " (if depositors taken as investors , which they were = a big chunk of the problem !)<BR/><BR/>what about product ? <BR/>what about ROI ? <BR/>(in that case the depositors were expecting a Fpj as ROI ? ) <BR/><BR/>i think i will need one of your pill , things starts to be confuse<BR/>...! ;-)fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-78880180979833679432009-03-04T08:15:00.000-08:002009-03-04T08:15:00.000-08:00ATM posts: "I wonder how Peter can address the Day...ATM posts: "I wonder how Peter can address the Dayjet thing."<BR/><BR/>I'd like to see him address the Nimbus debacle.<BR/><BR/>Peter, you claim your "moral compass" forced you to leave the company in late '06. where was that same moral compass in '02-'05?<BR/><BR/>I realize that all companies try to report their status in a positive light, but knowingly falsifying an order book should have pegged your BS meter and at least made that needle on that compass swing a few degrees. <BR/><BR/>I applaud your courage to post here on the blog, but strongly question your ethics and motives.sparkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09990841637949248506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-1392836531082609232009-03-04T08:14:00.000-08:002009-03-04T08:14:00.000-08:00Okay Cybit. Please point us to a project "well alo...Okay Cybit. Please point us to a project "well along" for an 85 Lb engine producing 770 Lb of thrust (or thereabouts), which will offer civil industry standard reliablity?<BR/><BR/>The Thrust to weight is not the killer in itself (the GE90-115B is at around 7:1 power to weight), but getting this sort of performance out of a sub 1000 lb thrust three spool turbofan for thousands of hours on end. Pure fantasy!FreedomsJamtartshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18240818544017409683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-41646271328495259312009-03-04T08:10:00.000-08:002009-03-04T08:10:00.000-08:00some things just get me scratching my head...usual...some things just get me scratching my head...usually simple statements, that become curiouser as yu think about them...<BR/><BR/>"Sam Williams ran everything, and Vern was just the salesman making the presenttion" or something to this effect...<BR/><BR/>OK.<BR/><BR/>Why did Sam Williams decide to do AVIO? This is a really crazy thing for an engine guy to be concerned with. Airframes are really just hanging brackets for turbine engines, according to every engine maker, really... I would be surprised if Sam Williams cared one lick about AVIO.airtaximanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12977944795556689805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-55370388629191803292009-03-04T08:06:00.000-08:002009-03-04T08:06:00.000-08:00If you think that there aren't engines very far al...If you think that there aren't engines very far along in development that don't put out the same thrust/weight ratio as what Williams proposed, y'all are pretty far behind on tech.<BR/><BR/>The conversation is going to get interesting, mostly because what have been a lot of assumptions/surmising on the part of many of the critics might either a) get validated or b) get pointed out for being incredibly stupid. <BR/><BR/>Anyone else want popcorn?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-19991869595776235762009-03-04T08:04:00.000-08:002009-03-04T08:04:00.000-08:00There is, of necessity, an element of program risk...There is, of necessity, an element of program risk inherent in driving innovation.<BR/><BR/>When GE or Pratt develops a new engine, they make clear decisions of the allowable innovation driven program risk up front. For something like the 787 engines, the probably had a risk budget of around 7% for technologies which were not available/ proven at the time of program launch, which would need to developed by the time engines deliver to customers.<BR/><BR/>In practice, this might be a decision to design around a cycle which requires a TIT 6° higher than the state of the art, which might get divided into a technology project to produce a material process to increase allowable heat by 2°, with 4° going to tech project to improve the insulation of the cooling film.<BR/><BR/>For a Military program like the F22 that risk budget may have been something like 25%. Something like using a stater less counterrotating turbine.<BR/><BR/>You can bet your arse that these aspect of such a program gets special management attention, and conservative plan B's are in place for the inevitable disappointments, to ensure the overall program stays on track.<BR/><BR/>When I compare this industry standard with you discriptions of Sam Williams "plan", I can see urquelle of the fountain of Koolaid!FreedomsJamtartshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18240818544017409683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-31180681707388506012009-03-04T07:59:00.000-08:002009-03-04T07:59:00.000-08:00I have never heard of anyone designing an airframe...I have never heard of anyone designing an airframe without having a clue as to what the detailed specifications of the engines would be. You intended to develop and certify and engine while developing and certifying the airframe, which itself was to be integrated to the nth degree with respect to the avionics. As it turned out it would have taken three of the Williams engines to power the airframe you developed. Are you really shocked it blew up in your face?airsafetymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923869957339462116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-49024395951045267272009-03-04T07:53:00.000-08:002009-03-04T07:53:00.000-08:00Folks, doesn't anyone remember that it was Sam Wil...<I>Folks, doesn't anyone remember that it was Sam Williams who came up with the business plan for Pronto Aircraft (which later became Eclipse)? In fact, under the original business plan Williams was going to develop the whole enchilada – engines, airframes, etc.<BR/>Also, Sam Williams is the one who basically raised all the funds in the first round from his friends, including Al Mann.<BR/>So all this talk about why didn’t Eclipse do its due diligence is rubbish.</I><BR/><BR/>Then don't you think it's time you start reigning in your ex-boss for saying that Vern/Eclipse were the "visionaries" as now you are saying that Williams was the visionary and that Vern was just the sales guy? Vern as recently as a couple of days ago on the podcast was claiming credit for this.<BR/><BR/><I>A few facts go a long way toward an intelligent conversation.</I><BR/><BR/>That's just it. You on one hand say that Williams controlled everything, yet on the other hand Eclipse can and did fire Williams. If Eclipse had the power to fire Williams, Eclipse had the power to do due diligence.<BR/><BR/>If I take it as red that due diligence wasn't allowed that itself would be a reason to not do business with Williams. It doesn't matter what industry you talk about, you have to do due diligence. It's like what happens with people seeking funding for perpetual motion machines where they claim they're the only ones that have it, but wont let there be due diligence - it means stay away.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-18423293856941873792009-03-04T07:52:00.000-08:002009-03-04T07:52:00.000-08:00Peter Reed said, As some of you know, we old peopl...Peter Reed said, <BR/><I>As some of you know, we old people sometimes wake up in the middle of the night with thoughts racing through our minds.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for your input Mr. Reed. Hopefully one night you can indulge my request for more background when the racing thoughts run thru your mind. Personally, I just hate insomnia.<BR/><BR/>I was a new grunt in Eclipse in March 2006 and eventually I got moved upstairs in the HQ building not far from your cube and Vern's; I can admit a few (unintentional) overheard conversations were rather shocking... about who would want to buy EAC for our systems integration abilities. Sadly, that didn't happen...<BR/><BR/>I was a glorified spreadsheet churner for QA and Glenn Pressley. I replaced one of the retired engineer buddies Glenn brought in from Bell Helicopter, a guy who was making like $800/DAY. <BR/><BR/>I am fascinated with the number of "graybeards" that came into the company - necessary experts to help deal with one issue or another. I later got the feeling that Glenn was one such person, but as a new/green person into the aviation biz, I mainly noticed the issues where <B>I perceived</B> corners were cut. The sheer magnatude of PAPER that Quality had to deal with was insane, and it was stupid for me and my QA counterparts to have to dig thru paper build records in order to determine IF an essential part was installed on a flight test bird. Can you tell me if Vern really understood the seriousness of that issue? Can you come up with some real answers why Glenn Pressley was 'thrown under the bus" in December 2006? <BR/><BR/>When Glenn left, all the (good) people from Bell took off also, including my manager at the time, Larry Davis. And then QA was stuck with Saul Pacheco as our VP, a guy from Medtronics and Motorola. Jesus Christ, I just couldn't believe that Vern would emasculate QA in such a fashion. Is that something that you can explain? Why on earth would Vern not get - AND KEEP - at least one QA executive with real aviation experience????? I am truly dying to know Vern's thought process, if any. Fast forward to 2008, my pinhead manager at the time (from Raytheon, no less) would never say no to Todd Fierro ...promising that **I** could do all sorts of things for Mfg tools. Glenn might have had issues, but at least I witnessed his abilities to throw shit back at people when they were trying to dump issues on QA to solve...<BR/><BR/>In October 2006 (Friday the 13th, to be exact) I was 'promoted' to run the tool calibration for Eclipse. And over time, I kept bashing my head against a brick wall to get FU**ING barcodes and RFID tags so I could track all the damn tools properly. Yeah, I even had a $4500 Barfield unit for SP11 go missing one day, but no way to track its location. It didn't turn up until 6+ months later, but my VP ignored my email at the time asking if I should file a bloody police report in case APD finds it (via the serial number) in someone's car one day. Can you explain why Vern - a guy from a technology company - would not give the grunts the technology resources needed? Why do something like that, and then screw over Glenn for some extraneous reason about QA records for AC 1-10 when he didn't really have control over what systems were deployed? LOL... even when Jason Lundstrom took over QA, I was STILL asking for barcodes!!! And NONE of the a/c parts in SP10 had barcodes QA could use in SAP; Lou Piper had already left the company. <BR/><BR/>Truth be told, Vern PUSHED OUT all the good people in the company... because they wouldn't do things his way. The idea that EAC failed because of "gross mismanagement" of assets is a serious understatement. The PEOPLE we had were assets too, grossly mismanaged. Vern will never understand that.<BR/><BR/>e.d.t.eclipse_deep_throathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15890350992420639885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-19067445097925318962009-03-04T07:45:00.000-08:002009-03-04T07:45:00.000-08:00Peter,see how much fun this is?Do you have an aero...Peter,<BR/><BR/>see how much fun this is?<BR/><BR/>Do you have an aerospace/aviation development background?<BR/><BR/>This is a very specialized field, and the statement that systems have issues in development is true, so one will not (except military) bet a development program on a technology demo engine. Ever. This is risk upon risk. BIG risk... the I just belew everything risk.<BR/><BR/>How about the Dayjet issue?<BR/><BR/>How about asking for 500 progress payments?<BR/><BR/>I like the sleeping pills comment, it could be taken 2 ways, so pls don't take too many<BR/>;)airtaximanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12977944795556689805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-40866069124948088842009-03-04T07:37:00.000-08:002009-03-04T07:37:00.000-08:00Actually you didn't need 20/20 hindsight to see th...Actually you didn't need 20/20 hindsight to see that there was no chance of a 770 Lb thrust reliably civil engine weighing 85 Lb to power the EA500. Anyone with a half-arsed knowledge of GTE theory could see that the technology was/is still not even close to being developed.<BR/><BR/>All you needed was for grown up management to lay off the Koolaid.FreedomsJamtartshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18240818544017409683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-62484167907721762009-03-04T07:34:00.000-08:002009-03-04T07:34:00.000-08:00Folks, doesn't anyone remember that it was Sam Wil...Folks, doesn't anyone remember that it was Sam Williams who came up with the business plan for Pronto Aircraft (which later became Eclipse)? In fact, under the original business plan Williams was going to develop the whole enchilada – engines, airframes, etc.<BR/><BR/>Also, Sam Williams is the one who basically raised all the funds in the first round from his friends, including Al Mann.<BR/><BR/>So all this talk about why didn’t Eclipse do its due diligence is rubbish. There was no due diligence on Sam’s engine and Sam made it clear there would be none. And the initial investors said fine as they had the utmost confidence in him. Also, Sam Williams controlled “everything” for the first couple of years. Vern Raburn was basically the sales person giving all the presentations to potential investors. Slowly, over time Vern assembled his team and later took over the airframe program and moved it to Albuquerque (that’s also another book).<BR/><BR/>A few facts go a long way toward an intelligent conversation.<BR/><BR/>And, by the way, tell me any major system that does not have issues during development? As I said, we knew the engines had some big issues, but the decision to pull the plug was long after the first flight. <BR/><BR/>And, for some more facts, the depositors clearly knew in writing that their initial deposits would be used to fund the company’s development and were not to fund the production of their particular aircraft.<BR/><BR/>I’ll take sleeping pills tonight!!! :-)Peter Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10117378161988301330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-48889723646575389862009-03-04T07:32:00.000-08:002009-03-04T07:32:00.000-08:00Mr. Read, a couple of comments;Your description of...Mr. Read, a couple of comments;<BR/><BR/>Your description of the events surrounding the Williams demise are inconsistent with Vern's podcast on the other station..Now I know that Vern might have selective memory recall...<BR/><BR/>When Eclipse position holders were asked to pony up 60% of the contract amount, they were told by Vern that this money was going to purchase equipment for their aircraft. Were you the CFO at this time? I think so. Where is the money? As you were the CFO and had a fiduciary responsibility to be the caretaker of these funds, where is this money? <BR/><BR/>I appreciate you coming to the blog, it is brave, are maybe stupid, but now you have arrived, inquiring minds would like to know.Bambazonkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08429337800360808014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-44454372211214890522009-03-04T07:24:00.000-08:002009-03-04T07:24:00.000-08:00Just a hunch. Would it have been $2.x millions? ye...<I>Just a hunch. Would it have been $2.x millions? </I><BR/><BR/><BR/>yes , but then all the marketing would have gone into smoke ...<BR/><BR/>and marketing was 50% of plot !!<BR/><BR/>there is too many things "bit weird" into the story ...fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.com