Im rich, and I'm buying an Eclipse

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Display name:
Ben
OK, so let's say I'm rich. (Go ahead and laugh, those of you who know me and know what I do for a living!)

I want new; I don't want to discuss anything over 1 day old.

I want a jet.

What do you think about the Eclipse?

I get this from reading the latest Flying Magazine. I know, I know--they're not building new ones, at this point. But from what I see, it looks as easy to fly as it could be, for something that requires a type rating (which, as most of you know, also requires one to perform to ATP standards).

To play devil's advocate to myself: as I read this article, I kept thinking, Citation Mustang, people! They got it right, right away; and the price was realistic.
 
If you're rich, why are you thinking low-end?
Think big!
2iurtb4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
If you're rich, why are you thinking low-end?
Think big!
Click to expand...

OK, OK, you're right! I should have said, "I'm rich, but I have only an average or slightly above average ability and intelligence!"

I know--for me, "slightly above average" is pushing it! :dunno:
 
I'd hold out for the FoxJet - it should arrive about the same time as our billions from some previously unknown relative.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
ah, throw in a little training and you could do it!
Click to expand...

Good God, Dave! That's a beautiful picture!

Wow. But for that, I'd have to be mega-rich! But yes, I would love the G650 and would sell almost anything up to my soul for it! It has a -bedroom-. I mean, come on!
 
Meh, if I'm rich, I'm opting for the PC-12NG.

Do anything, go anywhere, with a potty.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Meh, if I'm rich, I'm opting for the PC-12NG.

Do anything, go anywhere, with a potty.
Click to expand...

I wonder, do you think the Pilatus is simpler to fly than the Eclipse or the Mustang? I really don't know--the most advanced aircraft I've ever flown was the Twin Commander.
 
spiderweb said:
I wonder, do you think the Pilatus is simpler to fly than the Eclipse or the Mustang? I really don't know--the most advanced aircraft I've ever flown was the Twin Commander.
Click to expand...

I haven't flown one, I merely lust for one, but I do like the idea of being able to flatten those blades and plummet like a falcon when ATC forgets to descend you in time. That, and I like the idea of dropping into 2000ft unimproved strips with an aircraft equipped with an airstair, a hydraulic cargo door, full leather interior, beverage center, and potty.
 
spiderweb said:
I wonder, do you think the Pilatus is simpler to fly than the Eclipse or the Mustang? I really don't know--the most advanced aircraft I've ever flown was the Twin Commander.
Click to expand...
Probably any of those three are easier than the Twin Commander.
 
Everskyward said:
Probably any of those three are easier than the Twin Commander.
Click to expand...

Oh! The Twin Commander is a pussycat on one engine! That was my intro to single engine flying in a twin, and my instructor sat there and laughed when I said, "what's all the hype about?"
 
spiderweb said:
Oh! The Twin Commander is a pussycat on one engine! That was my intro to single engine flying in a twin, and my instructor sat there and laughed when I said, "what's all the hype about?"
Click to expand...
That was my first experience in a twin too, only I wasn't having a formal lesson. The pilot said, "Want to feel what it's like with an engine out?" You're right it wasn't hard to control but my leg got tired after awhile because I didn't have the presence of mind to use the rudder trim. Then there's the time he was going to let me land it and one engine quit on short final. I wasn't even sure what had happened except that I heard lots of out of sync noise. He said, "I think I'd better land it this time..." All this happened when I had less than about 150 hours and hadn't thought much, or at all, about twins.

That said, all the other airplanes are a modern design. I think the industry has made a lot of progress in making their products user-friendly. As far as engine out goes the two jets would be easier to manage than the Twin Commander, after all, there are no props to feather.
 
An instructor told me that the Eclipse type rating was the most difficult that he had obtained.
 
Graueradler said:
An instructor told me that the Eclipse type rating was the most difficult that he had obtained.
Click to expand...
Do you think that's because of the airplane or because of the training. I know for a while their training was not well-organized, or so I heard. I don't know if it is yet.
 
Everskyward said:
Do you think that's because of the airplane or because of the training. I know for a while their training was not well-organized, or so I heard. I don't know if it is yet.
Click to expand...

Maybe because people had problems flying VORs in a VLJ, with the only magenta line coming from a 496....:ihih::ihih:
 
embraer phenoms will eat Cessna mustangs.....just wait
 
I'd go for that Swearingen made in San Antonio. They gave us a tour during production a few years ago.
 
spiderweb said:
OK, so let's say I'm rich. (Go ahead and laugh, those of you who know me and know what I do for a living!)

I want new; I don't want to discuss anything over 1 day old.

I want a jet.

What do you think about the Eclipse?
Click to expand...

Haven't flown one, but haven't heard much good about 'em from those who have. Word is the Citation Mustang is a WAY nicer airplane... And certainly has much better chances of support in the long term.

But, here's what you really want:

attachment.php

attachment.php


Hawker 200, formerly known as the Beech Premier II. The Premier is the "largest" (everything's relative), fastest single-pilot bizjet. And really, who wants to have to call someone else (and pay them) every time you want to fly somewhere? Plus, it's all about speed. :D

Alternatively, the HondaJet.
 

Attachments

  • 1804962.jpg
    1804962.jpg
    410.7 KB · Views: 175
  • hawker-200-Large1.JPG
    hawker-200-Large1.JPG
    67.5 KB · Views: 176
Let'sgoflying! said:
If you're rich, why are you thinking low-end?
Think big!
Click to expand...
A Gulfstream is not thinking big. Larry Brin bought himself a 767 for a personal bizjet. That may qualify for "big".

Eclipse has its enthusiasts. It is said that Jeff Pino, CEO of Sikorsky, arranged the purchase of Eclipse Aircraft because he liked his own example so much.

-- Pete
 
flyersfan31 said:
I haven't flown one, I merely lust for one, but I do like the idea of being able to flatten those blades and plummet like a falcon when ATC forgets to descend you in time. That, and I like the idea of dropping into 2000ft unimproved strips with an aircraft equipped with an airstair, a hydraulic cargo door, full leather interior, beverage center, and potty.
Click to expand...
Amen!
If I was truly rich, I'd probably just get a PC12 and have a tailwheel conversion done on it. :cornut:
 
You people... You're super rich and you get yourself some vulgar bizjet? Maybe you can lease it out to pop stars when you're not using it. How incredibly lame.
Rich guy rolls up in a bizjet= prick, like the dude in the "Smooth Operator" music video.
Rich guy rolls up in a Paris jet= Eccentric/cool, like a real-life Maverick but taller and with more money. No one thinks you rent a pilot to fly it for you.
With garden variety bizjets, the "richness" of the owner is emphasized. Paris Jets, on the other hand, are sort of like P51s in that everyone sort of understands on some level that they must be expensive, but they aren't a symbol of expensive things. They're just cool and quirky things.

1313784.jpg
 
I was the first press guy to fly the Eclipse. Wheee!!! It's a nice little airplane and is a delight to fly. But it is little for a jet -- think Baron sized, but with worse access to the back seats. The cabin is very cozy, and I would think it would be unacceptably cramped with more than three souls aboard. The avionics issues are well-documented and have been/are being addressed by the new company. However, a bigger deal in my book is that the brakes and tires are simply not up to the task. As the gross weight went up after the engine change, the tires and brakes stayed the same. They wear out VERY quickly, on the order of 75 landings per set of tires. That's simply unacceptable.

I also got a chance to fly a PC-12NG. That was a nice plane, but of an entirely different order.

Both are easy to fly. The difficulty of the Eclipse type rating was tied, I am told, to the fact that the training organization was starting up and that the failure modes of the avionics were not well understood. I am not type rated in it, so I can't comment from direct experience. I was also told by a guy who did acceptance testing and mentor piloting for owners that the biggest problem he saw among buyers was a simple lack of instrument proficiency.

Now, were it me looking for a nice little personal jet similar to the Eclipse, I'd go build myself an Epic Victory, which I found to be one of the coolest aircraft I ever had the pleasure to fly.

The Mustang is a different kind of animal than the Eclipse. It is less personal. That's not better or worse, just different. Making an automobile comparison, the Eclipse is like a roadster, while the Mustang is a sports coupe.
 
Ken Ibold said:
went up after the engine change, the tires and brakes stayed the same. They wear out VERY quickly, on the order of 75 landings per set of tires. That's simply unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Why? Thats 74 more landings than one gets with space shuttle tires. :D
 
Everskyward said:
That was my first experience in a twin too, only I wasn't having a formal lesson. The pilot said, "Want to feel what it's like with an engine out?" You're right it wasn't hard to control but my leg got tired after awhile because I didn't have the presence of mind to use the rudder trim. Then there's the time he was going to let me land it and one engine quit on short final. I wasn't even sure what had happened except that I heard lots of out of sync noise. He said, "I think I'd better land it this time..." All this happened when I had less than about 150 hours and hadn't thought much, or at all, about twins.

That said, all the other airplanes are a modern design. I think the industry has made a lot of progress in making their products user-friendly. As far as engine out goes the two jets would be easier to manage than the Twin Commander, after all, there are no props to feather.
Click to expand...

Right, and they're mounted on the tail, so asymmetrical thrust isn't as big of an issue.
 
I like the idea of the Mustang coming from a company with a proven history of building good quality aircraft!

Ken Ibold said:
I was the first press guy to fly the Eclipse. Wheee!!! It's a nice little airplane and is a delight to fly. But it is little for a jet -- think Baron sized, but with worse access to the back seats. The cabin is very cozy, and I would think it would be unacceptably cramped with more than three souls aboard. The avionics issues are well-documented and have been/are being addressed by the new company. However, a bigger deal in my book is that the brakes and tires are simply not up to the task. As the gross weight went up after the engine change, the tires and brakes stayed the same. They wear out VERY quickly, on the order of 75 landings per set of tires. That's simply unacceptable.

I also got a chance to fly a PC-12NG. That was a nice plane, but of an entirely different order.

Both are easy to fly. The difficulty of the Eclipse type rating was tied, I am told, to the fact that the training organization was starting up and that the failure modes of the avionics were not well understood. I am not type rated in it, so I can't comment from direct experience. I was also told by a guy who did acceptance testing and mentor piloting for owners that the biggest problem he saw among buyers was a simple lack of instrument proficiency.

Now, were it me looking for a nice little personal jet similar to the Eclipse, I'd go build myself an Epic Victory, which I found to be one of the coolest aircraft I ever had the pleasure to fly.

The Mustang is a different kind of animal than the Eclipse. It is less personal. That's not better or worse, just different. Making an automobile comparison, the Eclipse is like a roadster, while the Mustang is a sports coupe.
Click to expand...
 
Ken Ibold said:
OK. I've never flown a Cessna that I actually enjoyed flying, so I guess that's my bias.
Click to expand...

The Cessna singles I can't stand. The Twin Cessnas I like the best out of the piston twin bunch.
 
Mustang, Pilatus, Hawker - I'd take any of them. For functionality I would take the Pilatus though.

To get to the vacation place though an Albatross would be nice. In fact, two albatrosses - one grumman albatross and one L39 Albatross would be perfect.
 
timrj said:
Mustang, Pilatus, Hawker - I'd take any of them. For functionality I would take the Pilatus though.

To get to the vacation place though an Albatross would be nice. In fact, two albatrosses - one grumman albatross and one L39 Albatross would be perfect.
Click to expand...

I'm hard pressed to find anything wrong with this concept. :thumbsup:
 
spiderweb said:
Right, and they're mounted on the tail, so asymmetrical thrust isn't as big of an issue.
Click to expand...
I've noticed that even with fuselage mounted engines some jets have much more asymmetric thrust than others. I can't speak for either the Eclipse or the Mustang. Manufacturers use various methods such as rudder boost to dampen the effect. I have been told that there is a maximum amount of rudder pressure required during engine failure beyond which the aircraft cannot be certified.
 
Ken Ibold said:
OK. I've never flown a Cessna that I actually enjoyed flying, so I guess that's my bias.
Click to expand...
This is just my observation but I think Cessna's objective has always to build plain vanilla, middle-of-the-road, solid, utilitarian airplanes. I don't think "sexy" is in their vocabulary. The notable exception would be the X or the Ten or whatever they are calling it now. They've been pretty successful with this business plan. After all they have everything from a light sport to mid-sized jets. They would have had a large jet too if the Columbus had not been discontinued. I don't think any other airplane manufacturer can say that. Beechcraft had the Beechjet before it became a Hawker 400 but that was originally an Mitsubishi. It's also a lot smaller than the bigger Cessna products.

I don't know if it's a coincidence or not, but I learned in Cessnas and I'm sure I have more hours in various Cessnas than in any other make of airplane I've flown for work.

As far as the single-engine Cessnas go, I thought they were fine. In fact, I like the view better down than up.
 
Everskyward said:
This is just my observation but I think Cessna's objective has always to build plain vanilla, middle-of-the-road, solid, utilitarian airplanes. I don't think "sexy" is in their vocabulary. The notable exception would be the X or the Ten or whatever they are calling it now..
Click to expand...

How about the Cialis Sorry, Corvalis?

Cessna%20name%20change-thumb-450x359.jpg
 
Ben: I spend a lot of time looking into Eclipse; I'd lease, not buy :).

I have a 58P and was looking at upgrading and it's the size of my plane, same general range and payload with a reasonable price.

First, all planes are a trade off: range, payload, size, cabin class etc. all have advantages and disadvantages. A problem one has in posting on board where folks aren't flying the different birds is they mix them all together.

My six seat Baron has no potty and isn't cabin class. The trade off is it's more affordable, pressurized and a twin. I go a bit faster than the Cessna cabin class twin, but they may travel more comfortably as far as room and ease of access. The Eclipse is like a Baron with jets in that respect.

When one compares a King Air or Pilatus to a Baron (or Eclipse) they are comparing apples and oranges as far as acquisition and operating cost.

I really liked Eclipse but they have real issues; so, one has to decide if one wants to spend a lot of money AND have a plane with issues. That means down time, perhaps ADs, SBs, etc., a lack of service centers and question about future production and support v. a more proven plane where that isn't an issue.

I looked at a local Eclipse partnership and told the owner I would lease until the issues were cleared up, but not invest. Even if you get a new Total Eclipse jet, think about if they will be around, where service centers are and how much isn't proven. The first Citation jets had a bunch of ADs. Eclipse is still young. If you purchase an existing plane that needs the upgrades, you will have a lot of time spent working through issues and getting the plane to a service center for upgrades. I have an acquaintance with one parked in a hanger. (Neighbor of a close friend). He left it there and bought a Mustang. I'm sure you could buy it from him.

I really hope things work out for them. I'd really like to have that plane available without the big issues and have confidence in it's future support, but if I was paying over $2,000,000 (which is what you'll have in one with all certs and compliance with all AD/SBs), I'd rather spend it in a place where I had more confidence in their future.

Best,

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top