Urgh....Eclipse under review

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,433
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
http://www.koat.com/news/17245439/detail.html

Federal aviation officials are doing an unusual 30-day review of the Eclipse 500 very light jets after reports of safety problems.

The review will determine whether some of the safety issues should been have caught when the jets were originally certified for flying in 2006.

The review, which began on Aug. 11, was announced by the Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday.
Click to expand...

This could be very bad for Albuquerque's economy. Eclipse has already announced job cuts:

http://www.koat.com/news/17264293/detail.html

Several employees of Albuquerque-based Eclipse Aviation told Action 7 News they lost their jobs Friday morning in a mass firing at the jet maker.

Eclipse Aviation said it will lay off about 38 percent of its employees in an effort to achieve financial stability.
Click to expand...
 
The review was completed already - the internal review found (paraphrasing) that the Eclipse met all certification standards, and that the internal politics and communication of the certification team was sucky, even by Federal standards.

Look for certain politicals with axes to grind to keep pushing the issue.
 
TMetzinger said:
The review was completed already - the internal review found (paraphrasing) that the Eclipse met all certification standards, and that the internal politics and communication of the certification team was sucky, even by Federal standards.

Look for certain politicals with axes to grind to keep pushing the issue.
Click to expand...

I guess I need to read the bylines better. Oops.
 
SkyHog said:
Eclipse has already announced job cuts
Click to expand...
Seeing that one of their main customers just shut down doesn't make the news all that surprising.

http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2008/09/22/daily11.html

Air taxi pioneer DayJet Services LLC has ceased all jet services.

All flights have been canceled and most employee jobs have been eliminated, the company said in a statement issued Friday.

The Boca Raton-based company blamed its failure to continue on the financial market and its jet supplier, Albuquerque, N.M.-based Eclipse Aviation. Day Jet said the shutdown was a direct consequence of its inability to arrange critical financing in the midst of the current global crisis.

“The company’s operations have also suffered as a result of Eclipse Aviation’s failure to install missing equipment or functionality or repair agreed technical discrepancies in accordance with the terms of DayJet’s aircraft purchase contract,” the statement said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ouch, that stings. Sounds like DayJets burned in, and wants to take out Eclipse on the way down.
 
I have not heard one good thing about those airplanes. I think further investigation would be good. I have a feeling that those things are going to start falling from the sky before you know it.
And not a lot of the folks I know that fly jets and buy jets think much of them.
Sorry to sound like chicken little here.....
 
n20junkie said:
Ouch, that stings. Sounds like DayJets burned in, and wants to take out Eclipse on the way down.
Click to expand...

Why would they "want" to? It isn't something they are doing on purpose. As Eclipse's biggest customer, I would think that DayJet would sort of drive Eclipse's fortunes by default.
 
deafsound said:
I have not heard one good thing about those airplanes. I think further investigation would be good. I have a feeling that those things are going to start falling from the sky before you know it.
And not a lot of the folks I know that fly jets and buy jets think much of them.
Sorry to sound like chicken little here.....
Click to expand...
I think you're wrong. I think it's a dandy little jet. Flies nicely, fuel burn is attractive. The company histrionics might give me pause about buying one (if I was in the market for something like that), but the jet itself would not really.

IMO a lot of the bad rap the 500 has gotten has come from experienced jet pilots who compare it to the larger jets that cost twice as much or more. Compare it to a new Baron or Mirage or Meridian or even TBM 850 and it looks pretty attractive. If you frame it in terms of aircraft available at a similar cost -- and I mean factory new aircraft -- it looks pretty good. By analogy, if you ask BMW owners about a Kia Rio, you'll not hear much good. But the folks who are driving the Kias are just happy to be in a new car they can afford.
 
If a guy had a new Eclipse in his hangar today, how much extra cash would it take to trade for a new Baron?

.
Ken Ibold said:
I think you're wrong. I think it's a dandy little jet. Flies nicely, fuel burn is attractive. The company histrionics might give me pause about buying one (if I was in the market for something like that), but the jet itself would not really.

IMO a lot of the bad rap the 500 has gotten has come from experienced jet pilots who compare it to the larger jets that cost twice as much or more. Compare it to a new Baron or Mirage or Meridian or even TBM 850 and it looks pretty attractive. If you frame it in terms of aircraft available at a similar cost -- and I mean factory new aircraft -- it looks pretty good. By analogy, if you ask BMW owners about a Kia Rio, you'll not hear much good. But the folks who are driving the Kias are just happy to be in a new car they can afford.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
If a guy had a new Eclipse in his hangar today, how much extra cash would it take to trade for a new Baron?

.
Click to expand...
See, now you're polluting the issue because the resale value is tied to the health of the company -- which is very much in doubt. I was trying to separate the AIRPLANE from the COMPANY, given deafsound's comment about them "falling from the sky at any minute." In addition, it is the veteran jet pilots that seem to have the most criticism for the Eclipse, because as we all know it's tough to downscale, regardless of the product/item/lifestyle involved.
 
When established aircraft makers start producing their won VLJs the things will sell quickly and work well. There is little wrong with the concept. Eclipse has done just about everything you can imagine wrong, and will fail as a result. With luck, someone will pick up the pieces, put some decent avionics in the things, and sell them at a realistic price.
 
Ken Ibold said:
In addition, it is the veteran jet pilots that seem to have the most criticism for the Eclipse, because as we all know it's tough to downscale, regardless of the product/item/lifestyle involved.
Click to expand...
While there may be some truth to that, I have sat in, but not flown, both an Eclipse and a Citation Mustang. With the Mustang I had the feeling that, yes, if I had bundles of money that might be an airplane I would like to own. The Eclipse, not so much so. I would rather have a King Air 200. And you know how much jet pilots frown on props... ;) :D
 
The problem with Eclipse is the same problem facing many high tech start ups. They forgot what their "main thing" was and let the software guys out of their cages. The big deal with Eclipse was to make the most affordable personal jet. With all the risk involved in any aircraft start up, there's no way in hell they ever should have allowed the avionics to get on the critical path to profitability and organic growth.

I had dinner about a year ago with an exec from Eclipse who had story after story of how the software effort had run amok and how the software systems had more bugs than Vista. They've had aircraft actually spontaneously start up on the ramp with no one around them.

Software guys are like herding cats - there's always one trying to run between your legs to get involved in something other than a profitable, on-time product. I've been the main software guy at 4 start-ups were the company's products weren't thought of as a software product. For all the R&D people that do this to a company, there should be a near fatal case of rectal itch visited upon them. Because of them this amazing aircraft is being delivered with a 496!
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
While there may be some truth to that, I have sat in, but not flown, both an Eclipse and a Citation Mustang. With the Mustang I had the feeling that, yes, if I had bundles of money that might be an airplane I would like to own. The Eclipse, not so much so. I would rather have a King Air 200. And you know how much jet pilots frown on props... ;) :D
Click to expand...
Look at the price of the Mustang and the B200 (remember, NEW) and you're far above the Eclipse -- well, the difference shrank substantially with Eclipse's last price hike, but you're still comparing it to two aircraft that cost, what, 40 percent more to buy.
 
wabower said:
If a guy had a new Eclipse in his hangar today, how much extra cash would it take to trade for a new Baron?

.
Click to expand...


Good question. I'm not so sure Eclipse's spin that Day Jet's failure is great because it moves people up on the delivery list really makes any difference. Look at the (few) folks that bought Adam A500s, they're pretty much expensive ramp ornaments at this point.


Trapper John
 
Ken Ibold said:
Look at the price of the Mustang and the B200 (remember, NEW) and you're far above the Eclipse -- well, the difference shrank substantially with Eclipse's last price hike, but you're still comparing it to two aircraft that cost, what, 40 percent more to buy.
Click to expand...
I wasn't comparing new, though. You can buy a decent used B200 for the price of an Eclipse especially after the price hike. Plus, if you were going to use it for charter, like Dayjet, it has twice as many passenger seats.
 
I looked hard at the Eclipse and the Mustang; took the demo flight in the Mustang. Shied away from the Eclipse because of the escrow agreement and known problems. We just seem to have a lot of folks compare apples to oranges. I'm sure some just haven't looked at the details or prices. Let's not forget Eclipse was originally supposed to be a $1MM plane. The price kept edging up and is now over $2MM. For folks that got the low initial pricing locked in, they should have expected those risks associated with a start up and new certification in return for the lower cost. Now, Eclipse if over $2MM and for that cost, there should be no issues when one purchases it. The Eclipse is the size of my P-Baron. Same payload with full fuel at slightly higher fuel burn for the trip, but still very affordable to operate to someone in a P-Baron looking to step up (acquisition cost aside). If one was taking two or three folks about 900 miles, it's a good fit at a reasonable price.

The Mustang is quite a bit larger than the P-Baron; kind of a different plane to me. Close to the same range and payload with full fuel as the Eclipse and my P-Baron but another step up in cost to acquire. Because it's bigger, burns a bit more fuel. Acquisition cost is about $2.3MM last I was told.

A lot of the jet jocks that compare these look down on them, but most of them aren't paying to purchase or run the plane. From an owner's perspective, this puts a smaller jet with much more efficient engines in the air. It opens up an opportunity that isn't there now. To move to a jet, one generally has to tolerate much higher fuel burn or pay a much higher acquisition cost. These jets only become efficient on a passenger mile basis when fuller and they have more seats.

The King Air C-90 new is about $4MM. Same range as my P-Baron; same payload with full fuel, twice the fuel burn, twice the operating cost with reserves not counting acquisition cost, hanger, insurance, training, etc.

Best,

Dave
 
I always thought the Eclipse was a great concept. But, early on they made some bad engineering choices based on that "million dollar" price tag rather than reality and certainly without forethought of inflation and operating costs. Add to that some top-heavy management and hemorrhaging capital that wasn't going to cover the cost of design and production, what happen should have been expected all along. Hopefully, this expected buyout and influx of capital along with a corporate haircut will get it on track.

That being said, a substantially increased price tag doesn't put it far ahead of several other viable options. Had they gotten into production at least two years ago, it might have had a better go in market share. Now, I think it's barely going to touch the surface; maybe a scrape.

Both the Eclipse and the Mustang have doubled in price from original claims but I predict the Mustang will far outrun the Eclipse in spite of costing 50% more. The latter comes from a proved history in production and engineering. It also has a cabin larger than a 206.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
The Eclipse is the size of my P-Baron. Same payload with full fuel at slightly higher fuel burn for the trip, but still very affordable to operate to someone in a P-Baron looking to step up (acquisition cost aside). If one was taking two or three folks about 900 miles, it's a good fit at a reasonable price.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there a lot of customers who would fit this niche. It was my impression that Eclipse was going after the air taxi segment a la Dayjet. However, I don't think the product was reliable enough or robust enough to stand up to everyday use in that manner, at least not in its current form.

Dave Siciliano said:
These jets only become efficient on a passenger mile basis when fuller and they have more seats.
Click to expand...
That is one of the problems too. When you fill up the seats you don't have much range because of the weight of the fuel.

Dave Siciliano said:
The King Air C-90 new is about $4MM. Same range as my P-Baron; same payload with full fuel, twice the fuel burn, twice the operating cost with reserves not counting acquisition cost, hanger, insurance, training, etc.
Click to expand...
I guess if a person had their heart set on a new airplane this would be true, but you can buy a used C-90 for a lot less.
 
I don't know how to cut and paste all your comments; so, I'll just hunt and peck.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there a lot of customers who would fit this niche. It was my impression that Eclipse was going after the air taxi segment a la Dayjet. However, I don't think the product was reliable enough or robust enough to stand up to everyday use in that manner, at least not in its current form.

I think you're right on. In simple terms, Eclipse was a good GA step up plane, not designed to be a reliable commercial product. I think a start up plane relying on a start up commercial market in a toppy economic market is right up there with leveraging sub-prime debt. I point out the P-Baron market and it could be Cessna 340 market because they aren't made anymore. There are a lot of GA folks that want a newer version or step up plane. Those could be priced at $1.5MM if made today (maybe). That move up buyer is out there, but the plane isn't.

That is one of the problems too. When you fill up the seats you don't have much range because of the weight of the fuel.
A lot of planes have very low full fuel payloads. That's good in that it offers maximum flexibility. Getting into a jet with a large payload and long range fuel is out of the reach of all but a very few GA folks. Jets do well when they go high and far; turboprobs do better lower and shorter. Recips are much more economical with one or a few passengers.

I guess if a person had their heart set on a new airplane this would be true, but you can buy a used C-90 for a lot less.

It's difficult to compare new to used. In one case, dispatchability should be excellent; in the other, just like with a used car, one trades paying more up front for more maintenance as they go along. A mistake I often see made here is one can purchase a used King Air as you said, but maintenace will be higher than for a new one. If used parts aren't available, you'll pay factory price for a new plane part.

We looked closely at a used C-90 with the Blackhawk engines, Raisbeck conversion and decent avionics. Anything with acceptble AF and engine times was close to $2MM for a mid 80s model. Now, you've got a 20 plus year-old AF.

It's all tradeoffs. I'd just like a P-Baron with jets or turbines. Just having trouble finding something exactly like that.

Best,

Dave
 
Everskyward said:
I wasn't comparing new, though. You can buy a decent used B200 for the price of an Eclipse especially after the price hike. Plus, if you were going to use it for charter, like Dayjet, it has twice as many passenger seats.
Click to expand...
That's true. But people in this class of airplane who want to buy new do so for particular reasons. Generally speaking, I have found that people who want a "new" airplane are not interested in "used" even if it does represent an increase in utility.
 
Everskyward said:
I guess if a person had their heart set on a new airplane this would be true, but you can buy a used C-90 for a lot less.
Click to expand...
There are a number of tax implications for new vs. used (besides bonus depreciation) you have to look at as well. And just like you might only consider new cars when it's time to replace one, there are many people who only consider new planes. These people should be applauded, as they create used airplanes for the rest of us. :yes:
 
Dave Siciliano said:
The Mustang is quite a bit larger than the P-Baron
Click to expand...

Good points, Dave. Speaking of aircraft sizes, I saw the C182, Mustang, and Caravan side by side at the Reno Air Races, in Cessna's booth. The Caravan is HUGE and totally dwarfed the Mustang... that surprised me. The Mustang sure was pretty, though....
 
I disagree with your premise. The reason the company is in the tank is because the airplane they tried to produce is in the tank. If/when they finally deliver a conforming airplane (to their own announced specifications) then we can evaluate the finished product. Until then, it's an ongoing string of excuses, rationalizations, half-finished proof-of-concept airplanes and day-VFR certifications that are impossible to equate to real airplanes.

And now it's the professional pilots who are to blame for this mess? What are they supposed to say? "Great airplane, Vern, when will you install some avionics"? It's not those guys who are asking for refunds on their undelivered airplanes or blaming their subcontractors and vendors for their problems. Serial number 3 was (I think still is) for sale and showed up on the ramp at our airport a while back. I don't have a dog in this fight, but after taking a close look and talking to the pilot for 20 minutes, the airplane is a joke.

Ken Ibold said:
See, now you're polluting the issue because the resale value is tied to the health of the company -- which is very much in doubt. I was trying to separate the AIRPLANE from the COMPANY, given deafsound's comment about them "falling from the sky at any minute." In addition, it is the veteran jet pilots that seem to have the most criticism for the Eclipse, because as we all know it's tough to downscale, regardless of the product/item/lifestyle involved.
Click to expand...
 
Cessna said from the get-go that a VLJ would be feasible, but would be a $2 mil airplane, based on the $ value at the time Eclipse announced.

KennyFlys said:
I always thought the Eclipse was a great concept. But, early on they made some bad engineering choices based on that "million dollar" price tag rather than reality and certainly without forethought of inflation and operating costs. Add to that some top-heavy management and hemorrhaging capital that wasn't going to cover the cost of design and production, what happen should have been expected all along. Hopefully, this expected buyout and influx of capital along with a corporate haircut will get it on track.

That being said, a substantially increased price tag doesn't put it far ahead of several other viable options. Had they gotten into production at least two years ago, it might have had a better go in market share. Now, I think it's barely going to touch the surface; maybe a scrape.

Both the Eclipse and the Mustang have doubled in price from original claims but I predict the Mustang will far outrun the Eclipse in spite of costing 50% more. The latter comes from a proved history in production and engineering. It also has a cabin larger than a 206.
Click to expand...
 
A Mustang is $3.3 today, including premium for buying close-in slot. Used CJ-1 is same price. We looked at all of them too. None worked due to cabin size. We bought a used B-200, love it.

People who haven't looked carefully at the Eclipse don't realize that it is a tiny airplane. Those who have been flying a Baron might consider one, those who have been flying anything bigger are unlikely to bite. Taking a load of golfers or even two couples and bags is not easy.

Dave Siciliano said:
I looked hard at the Eclipse and the Mustang; took the demo flight in the Mustang. Shied away from the Eclipse because of the escrow agreement and known problems. We just seem to have a lot of folks compare apples to oranges. I'm sure some just haven't looked at the details or prices. Let's not forget Eclipse was originally supposed to be a $1MM plane. The price kept edging up and is now over $2MM. For folks that got the low initial pricing locked in, they should have expected those risks associated with a start up and new certification in return for the lower cost. Now, Eclipse if over $2MM and for that cost, there should be no issues when one purchases it. The Eclipse is the size of my P-Baron. Same payload with full fuel at slightly higher fuel burn for the trip, but still very affordable to operate to someone in a P-Baron looking to step up (acquisition cost aside). If one was taking two or three folks about 900 miles, it's a good fit at a reasonable price.

The Mustang is quite a bit larger than the P-Baron; kind of a different plane to me. Close to the same range and payload with full fuel as the Eclipse and my P-Baron but another step up in cost to acquire. Because it's bigger, burns a bit more fuel. Acquisition cost is about $2.3MM last I was told.

A lot of the jet jocks that compare these look down on them, but most of them aren't paying to purchase or run the plane. From an owner's perspective, this puts a smaller jet with much more efficient engines in the air. It opens up an opportunity that isn't there now. To move to a jet, one generally has to tolerate much higher fuel burn or pay a much higher acquisition cost. These jets only become efficient on a passenger mile basis when fuller and they have more seats.

The King Air C-90 new is about $4MM. Same range as my P-Baron; same payload with full fuel, twice the fuel burn, twice the operating cost with reserves not counting acquisition cost, hanger, insurance, training, etc.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Dave Siciliano said:
It's difficult to compare new to used. In one case, dispatchability should be excellent; in the other, just like with a used car, one trades paying more up front for more maintenance as they go along. A mistake I often see made here is one can purchase a used King Air as you said, but maintenace will be higher than for a new one.
Click to expand...
That is definitely true. Having flown mostly "legacy" (old) airplanes and now a new one, I can see how the dispatch reliability is much better. The new airplane is also under warranty for a while. On the other hand, the new airplane I'm talking about isn't an Eclipse, it's a CE-680. Wonder how the dispatch reliability of an Eclipse is...

Dave Siciliano said:
It's all tradeoffs. I'd just like a P-Baron with jets or turbines. Just having trouble finding something exactly like that.
Click to expand...
Are the turboprop singles out of the question for you?

Ken Ibold said:
And just like you might only consider new cars when it's time to replace one, there are many people who only consider new planes. These people should be applauded, as they create used airplanes for the rest of us. :yes:
Click to expand...
Haha yeah, I'm pretty much a new car buyer, and not an airplane buyer at all, but for all of the companies I've worked for, a new airplane was completely out of the question. That's why, up until only a few months ago, it wasn't even within the realm of my consciousness.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
A Mustang is $3.3 today, including premium for buying close-in slot. Used CJ-1 is same price. We looked at all of them too. None worked due to cabin size. We bought a used B-200, love it.

People who haven't looked carefully at the Eclipse don't realize that it is a tiny airplane. Those who have been flying a Baron might consider one, those who have been flying anything bigger are unlikely to bite. Taking a load of golfers or even two couples and bags is not easy.
Click to expand...

I went back an looked at my notes and saw it was $2.6 back in 2006; haven't talked to them for awhile as that's just not in the cards for me. So, up to 3.3 now. That's pretty strong. I see there are some used ones on the market, but still over $2MM won't work for me.

I think size is a point I've tried to make that many folks don't realize, thanks for chiming in on that. It's really a Baron with jets as far as size. Would fit in my current hanger. That's why I've been making the point, for someone in a Baron of 340; it's the same sized AF with jets on it. Lack of quality and production hiccups is why I shied away. If one ever took time to read the escrow agreement that I read, it was very one sided: send us your money and we'll tell you when to send more. Well, not quite that bad, but you had few outs and couldn't resell to anyone else without going to them first.

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
I disagree with your premise. The reason the company is in the tank is because the airplane they tried to produce is in the tank. If/when they finally deliver a conforming airplane (to their own announced specifications) then we can evaluate the finished product. Until then, it's an ongoing string of excuses, rationalizations, half-finished proof-of-concept airplanes and day-VFR certifications that are impossible to equate to real airplanes.

And now it's the professional pilots who are to blame for this mess? What are they supposed to say? "Great airplane, Vern, when will you install some avionics"? It's not those guys who are asking for refunds on their undelivered airplanes or blaming their subcontractors and vendors for their problems. Serial number 3 was (I think still is) for sale and showed up on the ramp at our airport a while back. I don't have a dog in this fight, but after taking a close look and talking to the pilot for 20 minutes, the airplane is a joke.
Click to expand...
Jeez, twist words around much?

After flying the airplane, comparing performance specs to actual performance, talking to several owner/operators umpteen times, I disagree with your premise. Yes, the company is a mess. The airplane, however, is not. It's not perfect, and it's not what Vern promised 12 years ago. I never said it was. There are in fact some pronounced issues WRT to tires and autopilot -- the kinds of teething pains you find in pretty much any new design. (Look at the avionics problems Mustang has had/is having.) But take the hardware solely as the hardware, and it stands up pretty well.
 
Everskyward said:
Are the turboprop singles out of the question for you?
Click to expand...

We wouldn't want to go to the Piper line. We can discuss that sometime if you'd like, but my partner and I just aren't on that track. That leaves two very expensive turbine singles. We looked at early 90s TBMs and one with decent engine time, good shape and nice avionics was $1.5MM for an early 90s model. Now, we're in a 15 year-old-plane.

Since our business had turned down, we're just going to keep flying our P-Baron for now. We'll see how some of the other paper VLJs shake out and what the resale market does. We really wish Beech offered something between a P-Baron and a King Air, but it isn't there and they aren't even considering one as far as we know.

Best,

Dave
 
Ken Ibold said:
Jeez, twist words around much?

After flying the airplane, comparing performance specs to actual performance, talking to several owner/operators umpteen times, I disagree with your premise. Yes, the company is a mess. The airplane, however, is not. It's not perfect, and it's not what Vern promised 12 years ago. I never said it was. There are in fact some pronounced issues WRT to tires and autopilot -- the kinds of teething pains you find in pretty much any new design. (Look at the avionics problems Mustang has had/is having.) But take the hardware solely as the hardware, and it stands up pretty well.
Click to expand...

Alpo's worst fear is when the dogs won't eat it. Three times as many Eclipse as Mustang for sale ads, Mustangs selling for 250k premium over cost. Nobody buying Eclipses. Birthing and teething pains are good excuses for a while, but not in Jr. High. Stands up pretty well to what?
 
wabower said:
Alpo's worst fear is when the dogs won't eat it. Three times as many Eclipse as Mustang for sale ads, Mustangs selling for 250k premium over cost. Nobody buying Eclipses. Birthing and teething pains are good excuses for a while, but not in Jr. High. Stands up pretty well to what?
Click to expand...
Whatever. This discussion is going nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top