Ken Ibold
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,889
- Location
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
I managed to get my first 2 hours in an Eclipse last week. It was rather eye-opening.
Say what you want about the company and its financing and all the delays on the program, but the fact is the designers came up with a pretty neat little jet. Yes, it is small. Yes, it is payload constrained. But as a 2-person jet with the ability to occasionally squeeze in a couple more people, I think it just might have some legs.
The one I flew still had Avio, so it was just VOR navigation and no moving map whatsoever on board. It was a relatively early model (did have the aero mods) and so fit and finish was good (ie better than Piper) but not excellent (ie worse than BMW).
Now, this was just a test flight, not a type rating or anything, so I went into the Avio cold. It has more complexity than, say, a G1000, but it tells you EVERYTHING about the airplane. I was actually sort of impressed by that, despite the fact that I couldn't figure out how to navigate among the various submenus. Admittedly, I didn't really try that hard because I was out to FLY, not to punch buttons on a computer.
Startup is simpler than in a Skyhawk. Just turn the each engine switch to "on" and the FADEC takes care of the rest. We used a ground cart, so we didn't have to worry about transient voltages or the possibility of a hot start. I was flying out of Van Nuys -- took off on the storied 16R.
Acceleration was brisk but the takeoff run was relatively long. However, I should note the OAT was listed as 42 C (107 F) by ATIS and the local ground temp according to the aircraft's (and car's) thermometers was 117 F.
The heat caused some pressurization system issues that the demo pilot had never seen before and that were not addressed by any of the checklists, and so we stayed low for a while and contemplated returning to base, but while airborne the issue resolved itself, and on later investigation we discovered things operated just the way they were supposed to. The charts showed at our weight and the temps aloft the best cruise speed would be found at FL350, and in fact when we got there we saw TAS of just a touch over 370 knots. This was autopilot territory, and the original autopilot is a little weak, leading to a steady back and forth across the selected heading -- but only when flying north or south.
But straight and level is boring, if useful, and so after going through all of the performance checks we went down to VFR altitudes for some airwork. Steep turns, departure stalls, slo flight, the airplane was rock solid, and I do mean rock solid. At high speeds, the flight controls (unboosted) are rather heavy, but at mid speeds (200-250 knots) they lighten up a bit. The roll rate is pretty good, if still a bit heavy. I found it difficult to get the pitch trim dialed in just so, and we (ouch!) did get a couple of altitude excursions pointed out to us by ATC.
On landing, the airplane is slick, but it handles pretty nicely. I managed a decent if not spectacular landing (stopped in less than 3000 feet) with a crosswind component of 15 knots on my first (and only) landing. The 737 that landed behind me was crabbed significantly at touchdown and the Lear behind that did a go-around. So that felt good.
The little jet impressed me with its fuel economy (350 knots at 60 gph), but all is not wine and roses. I'm told the landing gear is a horrible weak spot, as I'd speculated publicly a year ago, with brakes and tires getting chewed up at a prodigous rate. It is extremely quiet in flight -- we abandoned the headsets for most of the flight.
I have been an Eclipse skeptic for a long time. But this flight dented that. If the company succeeds long term, this will eventually be a neat little item. It has some maturity issues, as do all new designs, and some significant shortcomings WRT space and payload, but for what it is it's actually a neat little product. However, I also think that at the new price of $2mil+, the competition is too significant to make the company's prospects all that rosy, given the limitations of the design.
All in all, I liked flying it. But would I like OWNING it? Well, that's another issue entirely. If I was in the market for this kind of airplane, I'd have to think long and hard, and I'm just not sure which way I'd go.
Say what you want about the company and its financing and all the delays on the program, but the fact is the designers came up with a pretty neat little jet. Yes, it is small. Yes, it is payload constrained. But as a 2-person jet with the ability to occasionally squeeze in a couple more people, I think it just might have some legs.
The one I flew still had Avio, so it was just VOR navigation and no moving map whatsoever on board. It was a relatively early model (did have the aero mods) and so fit and finish was good (ie better than Piper) but not excellent (ie worse than BMW).
Now, this was just a test flight, not a type rating or anything, so I went into the Avio cold. It has more complexity than, say, a G1000, but it tells you EVERYTHING about the airplane. I was actually sort of impressed by that, despite the fact that I couldn't figure out how to navigate among the various submenus. Admittedly, I didn't really try that hard because I was out to FLY, not to punch buttons on a computer.
Startup is simpler than in a Skyhawk. Just turn the each engine switch to "on" and the FADEC takes care of the rest. We used a ground cart, so we didn't have to worry about transient voltages or the possibility of a hot start. I was flying out of Van Nuys -- took off on the storied 16R.
Acceleration was brisk but the takeoff run was relatively long. However, I should note the OAT was listed as 42 C (107 F) by ATIS and the local ground temp according to the aircraft's (and car's) thermometers was 117 F.
The heat caused some pressurization system issues that the demo pilot had never seen before and that were not addressed by any of the checklists, and so we stayed low for a while and contemplated returning to base, but while airborne the issue resolved itself, and on later investigation we discovered things operated just the way they were supposed to. The charts showed at our weight and the temps aloft the best cruise speed would be found at FL350, and in fact when we got there we saw TAS of just a touch over 370 knots. This was autopilot territory, and the original autopilot is a little weak, leading to a steady back and forth across the selected heading -- but only when flying north or south.
But straight and level is boring, if useful, and so after going through all of the performance checks we went down to VFR altitudes for some airwork. Steep turns, departure stalls, slo flight, the airplane was rock solid, and I do mean rock solid. At high speeds, the flight controls (unboosted) are rather heavy, but at mid speeds (200-250 knots) they lighten up a bit. The roll rate is pretty good, if still a bit heavy. I found it difficult to get the pitch trim dialed in just so, and we (ouch!) did get a couple of altitude excursions pointed out to us by ATC.
On landing, the airplane is slick, but it handles pretty nicely. I managed a decent if not spectacular landing (stopped in less than 3000 feet) with a crosswind component of 15 knots on my first (and only) landing. The 737 that landed behind me was crabbed significantly at touchdown and the Lear behind that did a go-around. So that felt good.
The little jet impressed me with its fuel economy (350 knots at 60 gph), but all is not wine and roses. I'm told the landing gear is a horrible weak spot, as I'd speculated publicly a year ago, with brakes and tires getting chewed up at a prodigous rate. It is extremely quiet in flight -- we abandoned the headsets for most of the flight.
I have been an Eclipse skeptic for a long time. But this flight dented that. If the company succeeds long term, this will eventually be a neat little item. It has some maturity issues, as do all new designs, and some significant shortcomings WRT space and payload, but for what it is it's actually a neat little product. However, I also think that at the new price of $2mil+, the competition is too significant to make the company's prospects all that rosy, given the limitations of the design.
All in all, I liked flying it. But would I like OWNING it? Well, that's another issue entirely. If I was in the market for this kind of airplane, I'd have to think long and hard, and I'm just not sure which way I'd go.
Last edited:
