Bad news forecast for Eclipse

Same old story. Market innovator never lives to see the 2nd generation.
 
Frankly, I figured the Russkies were going to ship all the stuff home and build 'em there. I'm not sure if that isn't still going to be the case. The finances of Russian investment groups are, shall we say, opaque.
 
AdamZ said:
So from an MBAs perspective why is that Andrew?
Click to expand...

First mover makes all the mistakes, builds the market, others rush in to take advantage of the path forged. Look at computers for another example.

Eclipse more or less created the VLJ market through its evangelism. THe followers-on managed to avoid some of the pitfalls, like overpromising the price and underdelivering the price. They avoided that Williams engine fiasco too.
 
Where is Adam in all this? FIFO or LIFO?
flyersfan31 said:
First mover makes all the mistakes, builds the market, others rush in to take advantage of the path forged. Look at computers for another example.

Eclipse more or less created the VLJ market through its evangelism. THe followers-on managed to avoid some of the pitfalls, like overpromising the price and underdelivering the price. They avoided that Williams engine fiasco too.
Click to expand...
 
john smith said:
By that statement, do you mean that you believe Eclipse's story that Williams was to blame?
Click to expand...

plus Avidyne, other subcontractors and vendors. Even the FAA rollover-and-play-dead routine wasn't enough to save those clowns from themselves. What supply chain? You mean it's different with jets than laptops?
 
Last edited:
The Williams engine issue was what, eight years ago? I think to make that the blame is falling far short. They were in trouble then but didn't do much to curtail the later problems. As was said, it was too much promise but then followed by not enough forethought of what was needed to make it happen.

A top-heavy management didn't help their cause.
 
flyersfan31 said:
First mover makes all the mistakes, builds the market, others rush in to take advantage of the path forged. Look at computers for another example.

Eclipse more or less created the VLJ market through its evangelism. THe followers-on managed to avoid some of the pitfalls, like overpromising the price and underdelivering the price. They avoided that Williams engine fiasco too.
Click to expand...

So Andrew from a business perspective why the heck would anyone want to be a technology pioneer? And does this theory only apply to high tech stuff like computers and planes?
 
A lot of times if people can copy and/or improve ande modify a design they can be successul. Look at Bill Gates with Windows. Basically taking the Mac concept and applying it to PC's.

Sometimes it does all come together for the original inventor/innovator, but often the person who is good at creating is not the best marketer, manager etc. Its about establishing a team with the right mix of talent.
 
Anthony said:
A lot of times if people can copy and/or improve ande modify a design they can be successul. Look at Bill Gates with Windows. Basically taking the Mac concept and applying it to PC's.

Sometimes it does all come together for the original inventor/innovator, but often the person who is good at creating is not the best marketer, manager etc. Its about establishing a team with the right mix of talent.
Click to expand...

And Apple copied the GUI idea from Xerox PARC.
 
Ghery said:
And Apple copied the GUI idea from Xerox PARC.
Click to expand...
It was pretty much given to Apple because Xerox engineers had given up on the GUI concept. I still wonder how many executives were ready to cut some management throats over that happening.
 
The Denver area has been hit hard by the aviation downturn with both Adam and ATG. I never understood ATG and talked to some of their guys who told me they were going for the military trainer market. Never saw the Javelin as something a person would buy as the "personal" airplane they were touting.
 
Last edited:
Never mix up a bull market with genius. When times were good, one could make a lot of mistakes and still go on. Even if Eclipse had done everything right, the current economic environment could be very unforgiving. With all they did wrong, the situation certainly looks dire. Having a lot of debt right now is just not a good thing.

Two years ago, I recall folks on the Red Board talking about using home equity loans to buy airplanes because they offered the cheapest rate. I was the doubting Thomas and cautioned some folks that if the market turned, they could lose their house. One guy perfunctorily told me houses in California didn't go down, and who did I think I was anyway? The economic times do make a difference.

Best,

Dave
 
AdamZ said:
So Andrew from a business perspective why the heck would anyone want to be a technology pioneer? And does this theory only apply to high tech stuff like computers and planes?
Click to expand...

Two fold: incentive and attitude. Some guys just can't live in a world where they aren't running the show. Secondly, if you can start up a successful firm, you can win huge. More than you will ever win working as a corporate tool like me.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Anthony said:
Sometimes it does all come together for the original inventor/innovator, but often the person who is good at creating is not the best marketer, manager etc. Its about establishing a team with the right mix of talent.
Click to expand...
I think that too often you have a person out in front who is good at selling ice water to Eskimos but who doesn't have a grip on the reality of production.
 
Everskyward said:
I think that too often you have a person out in front who is good at selling ice water to Eskimos but who doesn't have a grip on the reality of production.
Click to expand...


I have seen that also. Some people are great leaders and good a growing companies, however while they can be great leaders, innovators, motivators they are poor managers and can not balance growth with capacity.
 
Leadership requires different skill-sets as the company evolves from it's start-up "against all odds nobody has done this before" mentality into an entity that in order to succeed has to crank out a reliable, salable product, create an acceptable margin and manage costs. The guy who started the company, along with a few (sometimes unlikely) people he recruited at the start, may be the right guy, but more often somebody else is better at what comes next.

The first guy may be better utilized as chief zealot and guardian of the corporate vision, if his ego will allow him to do so. I think that's what Vern (finally) tried to do, but too late. He had lost credibility with those who mattered, including the street, and became almost Quixotic near the end.


Also interesting to look back and see how many companies were down to their last dime during the startup phase, literally borrowing on their mother's life insurance policies, before the company took life. Intuit may be one of the classic examples.

Everskyward said:
I think that too often you have a person out in front who is good at selling ice water to Eskimos but who doesn't have a grip on the reality of production.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
The first guy may be better utilized as chief zealot and guardian of the corporate vision, if his ego will allow him to do so. I think that's what Vern (finally) tried to do, but too late.
Click to expand...
I think it's all about ego. You need a big one to be able to start and promote a new product like the Eclipse. However, your ego gets in the way of being able to turn over control to people who may know better than you about the practicalities of production and finance.
 
KennyFlys said:
It was pretty much given to Apple because Xerox engineers had given up on the GUI concept. I still wonder how many executives were ready to cut some management throats over that happening.
Click to expand...

The PARC lab manager refused to demo the GUI to Steve Jobs and called Xerox management, saying, "Order me to do it." They did. :crazy:

Hey, PARC also invented that useless thing called Ethernet.

And laser printers. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Some people walk around with a bucket with a big hole in the bottom: as long as a lot goes in the top, they're O.K. Others have a much smaller hole in the bottom; they can have less come in and still keep some.

When companies are first formed, the folks that start them many fit the first description--big margins, new ideas. As margins thin, the MBAs (like me), accountants, etc. focus on increasing efficiency as the market becomes more competitive. There are folks that can make that transition, but many do not.

I purchased land from a fella that entitled an entire new area of a city. I never could have lived in his environment:too many balls in the air and loose ends, but he made a lot of money when the market was good (and just went bankrupt in the down market). I just bit off a small piece, worked for a smaller margin, but kept more of what I got. So far, so good <g>

Best,

Dave
 
KennyFlys said:
The Williams engine issue was what, eight years ago? I think to make that the blame is falling far short.
Click to expand...

Eclipse's blame of Williams was a tarbaby.
The original design had Williams producing an engine with a given thrust to propel an airframe of a given weight.
The Eclipse had continued to gain weight while maintaining the same performance from the original spec engine.
Eclipse then pushed Williams to redesign the engine to produce more thrust. Williams told Eclipse that the redesigned engine would cost them more money. Eclipse refused to agree to a price increase for engines.
At that point, Eclipse blamed Williams for its problems and ended up purchasing from P&W at a higher price than it was willing to pay for the Williams engine.
 
john smith said:
Eclipse's blame of Williams was a tarbaby.
The original design had Williams producing an engine with a given thrust to propel an airframe of a given weight.
The Eclipse had continued to gain weight while maintaining the same performance from the original spec engine.
Eclipse then pushed Williams to redesign the engine to produce more thrust. Williams told Eclipse that the redesigned engine would cost them more money. Eclipse refused to agree to a price increase for engines.
At that point, Eclipse blamed Williams for its problems and ended up purchasing from P&W at a higher price than it was willing to pay for the Williams engine.
Click to expand...

Was that it? I thought that the prototype engine Williams produced would last exactly one flight before melting due to lubrication issues.

I know that Burt Rutan was really miffed that Eclipse got exclusive rights to Williams' "100 pound, 700 pounds of thrust engine, you can tuck under your arm" that he thought would be a huge boon for homebuilt jet...the development for which BTW, was funded by a NASA AGATE grant.

Did the Williams engine meet that spec?
 
It was interesting reading. Sam never (publicly) said anything about it, just let it go and kept working on other projects. I always wondered if he had decided Vern and his antics were better left behind and just wanted out.

john smith said:
Eclipse's blame of Williams was a tarbaby.
The original design had Williams producing an engine with a given thrust to propel an airframe of a given weight.
The Eclipse had continued to gain weight while maintaining the same performance from the original spec engine.
Eclipse then pushed Williams to redesign the engine to produce more thrust. Williams told Eclipse that the redesigned engine would cost them more money. Eclipse refused to agree to a price increase for engines.
At that point, Eclipse blamed Williams for its problems and ended up purchasing from P&W at a higher price than it was willing to pay for the Williams engine.
Click to expand...
 
mikea said:
Was that it? I thought that the prototype engine Williams produced would last exactly one flight before melting due to lubrication issues.

I know that Burt Rutan was really miffed that Eclipse got exclusive rights to Williams' "100 pound, 700 pounds of thrust engine, you can tuck under your arm" that he thought would be a huge boon for homebuilt jet...the development for which BTW, was funded by a NASA AGATE grant.

Did the Williams engine meet that spec?
Click to expand...
The original Williams was an 85 pound engine they wanted to get 700 lbs of thrust out of and with fuel specifics unheard of in the industry. So the engine design was aggressive from the get-go. And yes, they used "air bearings" -- basically running on a cushion of air instead of bearings. But the problems were far more than that with the engine. There was a big problem with the fuel control system, and that was causing surging that would tank the engine. Clearly the Williams engine was not ready to be put on a jet when that first Eclipse flight happened.

That said, it's also true the Eclipse weighed more than planned, and Vern was pushing for a higher thrust engine. Weight gain cascades -- heavier airframe needs more powerful engine which increases fuel burn which makes a heavier airframe.

I don't think you can pin the Eclipse problem solely on Williams or Avidyne or even Vern. The issue is that it was a very aggressive design that, well, didn't work out so well in practice.
 
john smith said:
By that statement, do you mean that you believe Eclipse's story that Williams was to blame?
Click to expand...


I really don't know anything about it other than for whatever reason engine issues pushed a/c development back quite a bit.
 
Ken Ibold said:
The original Williams was an 85 pound engine they wanted to get 700 lbs of thrust out of and with fuel specifics unheard of in the industry. So the engine design was aggressive from the get-go. And yes, they used "air bearings" -- basically running on a cushion of air instead of bearings. But the problems were far more than that with the engine. There was a big problem with the fuel control system, and that was causing surging that would tank the engine. Clearly the Williams engine was not ready to be put on a jet when that first Eclipse flight happened.

That said, it's also true the Eclipse weighed more than planned, and Vern was pushing for a higher thrust engine. Weight gain cascades -- heavier airframe needs more powerful engine which increases fuel burn which makes a heavier airframe.

I don't think you can pin the Eclipse problem solely on Williams or Avidyne or even Vern. The issue is that it was a very aggressive design that, well, didn't work out so well in practice.
Click to expand...
Ken, if you do the physics (remember those?) to get that sort of efficiency you would need a Carnot cycle temperature of 1100 at the interturbine stage.

What's the hottest one in production? Nowhere close. Crystal formed single piece fan? Uh.........maybe!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top