Eclipse demo flight today

Dave Siciliano

Dave Siciliano

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
6,434
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Siciliano
A group on the field here has an Eclipse and is trying to get some folks interested in ownership or block time. Told them I'd like to fly it a couple times and was probably on a track to purchase block time until some issues were resolved with Eclipse. Tomorrow, I take a demo ride to see if I like it. :D

Best,

Dave
 
I'm interested in your analysis. Have fun.
 
I, too, am interested in your analysis.

If you have the time, I'd appreciate an estimate of how many dog cages will fit in it. :)
 
...and lawyers...
 
oooo interesting dave. i could have some interest for them. i'd like the contact info if possible.
 
I was just reading about the Eclipse in Flying magazine. Sounds like a fun ride.
ApacheBob
 
Had a wonderful flight this afternoon. The plane is very quiet; almost didn't need headsets. We had to stay under Class B until we got out awhile, but then climbed at about 160 knots and 2,500 feet per minute up to 10,000 where we played.

Did a couple turns and just got a general feel for the plane. It's nice and I could get comfortable pretty quickly in it. From the P Baron, it would be a pretty easy transition. It was interesting to see the pilot do an approach; he came in slower than I do in the Baron. Evidently, folks were landing a bit fast in these and really wearing out brakes. It could be a bit difficult to slow while descending and keeping the engines at decent power in case one needs to go around. Speed management was very important. Came over the fence about 84 knots and touched down below 70 and let it roll out on the runway.

Afterward, we had a discussion about how things would work and they have backed away from offering block time. The plane is one of the late serial numbers and the factory has told them (according to the owners) that it can be upgraded and will cost a lot to get the final certifications: FIKI, cert to FL410, panel upgrade, etc. The owner wants to get some capital out rather than off set operating expenses. He really doesn't want folks flying the plane that aren't owners and won't care for it properly.

The current proposal is for folks to become a one-quarter owner by putting a 100,000 deposit in escrow until the plane is upgraded. When two folks sign up, he will bring it to the factory to be completed. If not done in 90 days, the escrow will be returned. There is also a monthly overhead expense for the hanger, insurance and management. They have $5MM in liability insurance and hull coverage. There is also an hourly reserve put aside.

I'll read through the contract, but am hesitant to get into a plane that I know has to be fixed for this much money. Once fixed, if that happens, Eclipse is still a bit iffy as to warranties and service.

Anyway, wonderful little plane. Would love to fly it, but am still not convinced it will be supported as well as some other choices.

Best,

Dave
 
It sounds like a fun airplane. Coincidentally I read an article about the Eclipse today in Flying magazine.
 
Dave, sounds like a fun plane, and good observations especially on the support.

One question: After flying my friend's Cheyenne, I'm rather turned off at turbines by their high fuel consumption at anything but cruise altitude. Even the owner said that he's not inclined to take it on short hops if he can avoid it, simply because the fuel burn is so high. Does the Eclipse have similar characteristics, and do you think it matters or is a non-issue? Thinking especially with departure procedures out of ADS.
 
Ted makes an excellent point. Dave, since they held you low under Class B and your playing was at 10,000' (still pretty low), you got a good look at such fuel flows. I am guessing that they kind of stunk. If one's missions are relatively short, the fuel consumption is a big negative.
 
Lance F said:
Ted makes an excellent point. Dave, since they held you low under Class B and your playing was at 10,000' (still pretty low), you got a good look at such fuel flows. I am guessing that they kind of stunk. If one's missions are relatively short, the fuel consumption is a big negative.
Click to expand...
Which is why one needs a FLEET of aircraft!!!!
 
Ken Ibold said:
Which is why one needs a FLEET of aircraft!!!!
Click to expand...

While I love the theory as much as you do, I can tell you that managing two aircraft means that you have two airplanes broken all the time instead of one, and double the headaches. Furthermore, once you have multiple aircraft that aren't identical, you tend to assign each one to a particular mission, and the desire to overlap decreases.

Sometimes, you outright can't overlap. For example, the speed of the 310 vs. the size of the Aztec means that if I can't take the 310, I might be able to take the Aztec (provided its slower speed won't impact my time constraints or sleep requirements), but if the Aztec is broken, most of the time I can't take the 310 because I can't fit the same load in it.
 
Lance F said:
Ted makes an excellent point. Dave, since they held you low under Class B and your playing was at 10,000' (still pretty low), you got a good look at such fuel flows. I am guessing that they kind of stunk. If one's missions are relatively short, the fuel consumption is a big negative.
Click to expand...

I think a somewhat even bigger concern is what your true range is, either on a bad IFR day or out of areas where the departures are rotten. The previous owner of my friend's Cheyenne said that coming out of New York, it was impossible to get to Florida without stopping because they took so long to get you off the ground, then took longer to get you up to the flight levels. Then if you have to go missed or it's a bad weather day, it gets worse still. You can easily burn 100 lbs of fuel before getting off the ground in that plane, and that's for a relatively normal startup, clearance, taxi, etc.

I've not had to do fuel planning on turbines and have limited experience with observing others. But from what I've seen, it is significantly more complicated than with a piston aircraft. Overall impression leaves me thinking that maybe GTSIO-520s and TIGO-541s aren't so bad after all. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
While I love the theory as much as you do, I can tell you that managing two aircraft means that you have two airplanes broken all the time instead of one, and double the headaches. Furthermore, once you have multiple aircraft that aren't identical, you tend to assign each one to a particular mission, and the desire to overlap decreases.

Sometimes, you outright can't overlap. For example, the speed of the 310 vs. the size of the Aztec means that if I can't take the 310, I might be able to take the Aztec (provided its slower speed won't impact my time constraints or sleep requirements), but if the Aztec is broken, most of the time I can't take the 310 because I can't fit the same load in it.
Click to expand...
But the Aztec and 310 are pretty close in mission capability. I was really referring to what I'll call the Harrison Ford Effect:

Gulfstream, Bonanza, helicopter, Beaver on floats, maybe throw in an Extra 300 ...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Furthermore, once you have multiple aircraft that aren't identical, you tend to assign each one to a particular mission, and the desire to overlap decreases.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the point with two different types of personal aircraft? Having multiple aircraft of the same type is sometimes good for a business because they can substitute for each other but with personal flying I think the point is to have variety.

Ted DuPuis said:
I've not had to do fuel planning on turbines and have limited experience with observing others. But from what I've seen, it is significantly more complicated than with a piston aircraft.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it's more complicated. You are just working with bigger numbers. However it's true that turbines are more sensitive to altitude as far as fuel burn is concerned.
 
No doubt Ted! The turbines can be set to have optimal performance at different altitudes. Of course, drag will be less higher. Staying low is not where the Eclipse is effective.

D/FW isn't nearly as bad about keeping one low as some other places but still certainly does it, especially for slower aircraft on DPs and STARs. Several folks commented that Lears are being brought down or not getting altitudes they want in the NE and So Cal region. Maybe Lance will comment.

I think the Eclipse would work well out of here for most of my missions, but tomorrow, I'm flying to HPB and they are certainly known for bringing one low early and changing one's routing more than once. If one flight plans using Eclipse's web site, it looks great. If one factors in steps ups leaving and step downs arriving, it make add a stop for fuel enroute.

Right at the end of my range in the 58P; so, I'm planning on pulling up half way in the Lexington area.

Best,

Dave
 
Ken Ibold said:
But the Aztec and 310 are pretty close in mission capability. I was really referring to what I'll call the Harrison Ford Effect:

Gulfstream, Bonanza, helicopter, Beaver on floats, maybe throw in an Extra 300 ...
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. I was thinking more as Dave pointed out that the P-Baron and the Eclipse both fit his mission pretty well, which ends up being a bit closer to the 310/Aztec comparison than the G-V/Beaver comparison.

Everskyward said:
Isn't that the point with two different types of personal aircraft? Having multiple aircraft of the same type is sometimes good for a business because they can substitute for each other but with personal flying I think the point is to have variety.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I look at it a bit more from a business/mission view because I use planes as business tools and personal tools to get where I'm going. If I have two planes and one of them breaking means I can't complete the trip, that defeats part of the purpose of two planes.

Everskyward said:
I wouldn't say it's more complicated. You are just working with bigger numbers. However it's true that turbines are more sensitive to altitude as far as fuel burn is concerned.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm wondering, and as I said, I've never had to do it. On the surface it strikes me as complicated, but then again, on the surface a Twin Cessna fuel system struck me as complicated, and I don't think that way now.

Dave Siciliano said:
No doubt Ted! The turbines can be set to have optimal performance at different altitudes. Of course, drag will be less higher. Staying low is not where the Eclipse is effective.

D/FW isn't nearly as bad about keeping one low as some other places but still certainly does it, especially for slower aircraft on DPs and STARs. Several folks commented that Lears are being brought down or not getting altitudes they want in the NE and So Cal region. Maybe Lance will comment.

I think the Eclipse would work well out of here for most of my missions, but tomorrow, I'm flying to HPB and they are certainly known for bringing one low early and changing one's routing more than once. If one flight plans using Eclipse's web site, it looks great. If one factors in steps ups leaving and step downs arriving, it make add a stop for fuel enroute.

Right at the end of my range in the 58P; so, I'm planning on pulling up half way in the Lexington area.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

As always, Dave, good info and a great discussion. Enjoy your flight tomorrow!
 
The Lear 20's with their old straight jet (no fans) GE engines are a fuel disaster down low. Fuel flow at idle on the ground is greater than thrust levers to the firewall at
FL450. You must get going right away and get high quickly or you're not going very far.
 
Thanks for the write up, Dave. I will just have to take the $100,000 out of my petty cash drawer!:wink2:
ApacheBob
 
Lance F said:
The Lear 20's with their old straight jet (no fans) GE engines are a fuel disaster down low. Fuel flow at idle on the ground is greater than thrust levers to the firewall at
FL450. You must get going right away and get high quickly or you're not going very far.
Click to expand...

That's what I've heard. For the majority of my flights, this would probably not be a problem. But what would concern me more would be getting descended a lot earlier than I wanted to. The Lear 20s I've seen flying around tend to go from 41,000 ft to sea level in 10 minutes on descent, and a lot of places won't allow that.
 
That kind of descent is what you want. The spoilers and pressurization system work very well, and a 6,000fpm descent is a piece of cake. However, going into the larger terminal areas, you can't get that from ATC. Legacy Lear drivers spend a lot of time checking the fuel gauge.
 
Not surprising. We were doing that in the Cheyenne.
 
The LOA's that govern ATC procedures aren't friendly to high-performance turbine-powered airplanes that require high altitudes for efficiency.


Ted DuPuis said:
That's what I've heard. For the majority of my flights, this would probably not be a problem. But what would concern me more would be getting descended a lot earlier than I wanted to. The Lear 20s I've seen flying around tend to go from 41,000 ft to sea level in 10 minutes on descent, and a lot of places won't allow that.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top