ECLIPSE 500 in the U.K. [Archive]

IO540

14th Nov 2007, 07:50

With EASA competence for third country aircraft just around the corner, you would be very unwise to buy one (any VLJ, not just the Eclipse) without ensuring it had EASA type certification.

That's a reasonable precautionary position for a purchase of anything in aviation, but the eloquent "European Union" language used hides the fact that there is no apparent way in which N-reg can be forced to comply with EASA maintenance requirements without EASA accepting FAA airframe and equipment certification, which then makes the subject moot anyway....

EASA cannot have control over foreign aircraft. Under ICAO, all they can do is somehow control those which are long term parked in the EU. If - like many jets - you fly around the place, you will be just another plane flying around..... This, no doubt, is one of many reasons why the DfT kicking-out move was dropped. The regular travellers would escape any parking ban.

I would delay a purchase for a much more pragmatic reason: to make sure the bugs are ironed out. A year or two. Mind you, with 30 months to run, that will take care of itself :) I wonder how many of those positions are speculative, and will come up for sale? Lots do, because many position holders run out of money for personal reasons and have to get out.

GK430

14th Nov 2007, 09:00

Hopefully....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Emirates/Eclipse.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Emirates/EclipseFlightdeck.jpg

IO540 - any going spare could be scooped up out here.....not sure how they perform on sand:{

sternone

14th Nov 2007, 11:04

I must say, it looks lovely! (no, i don't have 1000's of hours on the Eclipse500 *yet* )

deice

14th Nov 2007, 11:08

What's this, the Eclipse sports Garmin GNS430s? I thought the Avio system was a complete integrated avionics suite like the G1000!? Couldn't they have saved time, money and headaches by installing the G1000 in the first place? Is this a bad decision or does Avio provide a revolution over the Garmin alternative?
Surely they could have incorporated all their "advanced" systems into a special box hooked up with the Garmin...

scooter boy

14th Nov 2007, 13:07

I have had my eye on one of these babies for a while. It makes the Citation Mustang look like a fat plain older sister!

The aircraft Eclipse had on display at Friedrichshafen really blew me away.
For a total cost of £850K you get a heck of a capable aircraft.
One of my hangar-sharing buddies has a deposit on one, expecting delivery Sept '08, needless to say he is buying mucho US dollars at present while the rate is excellent.
I am very envious - maybe he will persuade me to do the same once I have seen his and helped him polish it (if he'll let me near it!)
In fact I went on the eclipse site this week and had my own little fantasy specifying my own options (including colour scheme), that is how keen I am!

I agree with you IO540 about ironing out the bugs - there will no doubt be further mods which will be built-in to new production aircraft but need to be retrofitted to operational ones and this will mean downtime and be a genuine pain in the backside. As happens with all aircraft though these bugs will continue to be thrown up for the duration of its service life and I guess just get less frequent with time in service.

If I bought one I would need to do the mentor pilot training as I do not have a multi-engine or jet rating (as will my friend) but that could also be a lot of fun.

I would also like to know how people will end up using the aircraft in the air-taxi market in europe. Also I am watching to see whether any max altitude restrictions will be placed on these aircraft.

Interesting times,
SB

soay

14th Nov 2007, 14:19

What's this, the Eclipse sports Garmin GNS430s?
That's because Avidyne let them down with their part of its Avio NG avionics system. Another subcontractor has been brought in to do the job, but in the meantime the aircraft are being delivered with a GPSMap 496! AVWeb have an article about the split here (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Eclipse_Avidyne_To_Part_194548-1.html), and there's more on the 496 connection here (http://eclipseaviationcritic.*************/2006/09/avidyne-guest-editorial-comments-just.html).

deice

14th Nov 2007, 15:13

It seems many are gearing up to start taxi services with these little buggers, but I don't understand the concept entirely. The Eclipse is supposed to be economical (for a jet), but at the same time very limited in actual performance if you factor in the need for two pilots up front in commercial operations. How much excess capacity do you have for passengers and their bags once the office is occupied?
Will it really work? I seriously doubt it, but stand to be corrected. Perhaps even I'll get a job eventually...

IO540

15th Nov 2007, 14:13

I gather a lot of people in the USA are wondering the same thing.

A few fat Americans (or Brits for that matter) will take the Eclipse to MTOW very quick.

OTOH the USA has a significant market for very short (say 300nm) taxi flights.

deice

15th Nov 2007, 14:54

Mmm, yes, thanks to hamburgers...:rolleyes:
300 nm sounds a bit too short to make any use of jet propulsion, or fanjet rather. A turboprop would do better in terms of economy while matching the flight time and even a piston wouldn't lag far behind in terms of overall flight time and economy would be miles better.
I really don't see the benefits of minijets except as marketing BS. It seems many in the general public believe anything with props on it is a small and dangerous contraption, whereas the word JET makes everyone feel safe regardless what tin can you strap them to. It's a bit odd.

On longer flights I'll agree they provide real value, but short hops don't make any sense.

IO540

15th Nov 2007, 15:34

The way you are talking, deice, you will have the VCAD* after you :)

But I agree totally. A turboprop will carry more weight, further, for less money.

A jet is a little bit quicker, but the speed advantage vanishes totally if a fuel stop is needed.

A jet flies a bit higher (except for the Diamond one, 25k ft max) but - assuming a working anti-ice system - a ceiling over 25k improves the mission capability from close to 99% to something over 99%. Probably not worth paying for, in the intended market.

The Epic Dynasty is the one to watch. I suspect that the $millions spent on VLJ hype will largely benefit these new turboprops, because most buyers at that level are not stupid and once they start looking around they will soon realise they could have so much more for similar money.

* VLJ Critics Assasination Dept

sternone

15th Nov 2007, 16:04

Woops:

AVFLASH NEWS
November 14, 2007

Supplier Sues Eclipse, Alleging Lack Of Payment
By Mary Grady, News Writer, Editor

Hampson Aerospace, a U.K.-based company that has been building tail sections in Texas for the Eclipse 500 jet, sued Eclipse Aviation on Tuesday, alleging that required payments have not been made since March, the Albuquerque Journal reported Wednesday. A spokeswoman for Eclipse told the Journal she couldn't comment on the pending litigation. Email and voicemail messages left for Eclipse by AVweb late Wednesday were not returned by our deadline.According to the suit, Hampson agreed to reduce the payments, but Eclipse then said it could rescind the agreement altogether on the basis of fraud, according to the Journal. The suit did not give details of the basis for the fraud allegation. The value of the contract is estimated at $380 million. Eclipse laid off about 100 workers last month, and has run into repeated production delays. This week, however, the company went to the Dubai Air Show for the first time, and sold 12 Eclipse 500 jets to Dubai Aerospace Enterprise Flight Academy (DAEFA). Delivery of these Eclipse 500s will begin next year, the company said in a news release.

KeyPilot

17th Nov 2007, 19:59

I was beginning to wonder how many posts would be posted on this thread before someone highlighted the disarray that Eclipse are currently in.

Lost their chief engineer, delivered only tens of aircraft not the many hundreds it should be by now, suppliers fleeing the program, shed 10% of staff, the first supplier suing for non-payment (you can bet they won't be the last), by their own admission they almost went bust in the summer, ...

There is a very good site devoted to exposing the reality of Eclipse, although I can see someone else posted a link and PPRuNe has scrambled it (come on chaps!). A Google search will quickly reveal it, however.

The question has to be: how much longer will they survive? I predict Eclipse going TU within months, if not weeks...

sternone

17th Nov 2007, 20:05

Let us hope you are wrong...

IO540

17th Nov 2007, 21:15

The inside stories about Eclipse are indeed dreadful but hey this is aviation.

I've been in business, mostly very successfully, for nearly 30 years. The practices that go on in aviation are just utterly unbelievable to me as a manufacturer of technical products, yet punters buy into the most dodgy promises, in their hundreds.

Eclipse hangs on a knife edge and has done so since nearly day 1. If they fail it will be just another of many failures. If they pull through, the man will be a hero. I would just hate to be a supplier to an outfit like that. It may actually, just possibly, be better to sell to B&Q.

Being an honest person is as much an advantage in an aviation business as being a triple Y chromosome knuckle dragging heterosexual male is in the New Labour Cabinet.

deice

17th Nov 2007, 21:28

I still think the Eclipse type aircraft can have it's niche, but like all aircraft it's a compromise, not the solution to flight problems in general. The real issue is should we be burning that much fuel to transport so few people such a short distance? As you say, the Epic is an interesting aircraft, too bad they "stole" the design from R. Noble, but that's business I suppose. Don't know that they're planning to certify it though which makes it useless in Europe. The issue with these incredibly intelligent Turboprops, the Kestrel, PC12, TBM 700, Caravan etc. is that not enough people understand how good they are, and that the Eclipse niche really already is filled by these TPs. Except they're far too expensive I might add.

Personally I'd like to see a certified Lancair Evolution at 1 million US.

SB, if you want to step up from the Mooney, have you considered a TP, and if so which one? I can see they're far more expensive than the Eclipse or Djet but in terms of running cost they should be more economical. I could be wrong however. Just being curious...

IO540

18th Nov 2007, 07:34

The Epic Dynasty will be certified, FAA at least so it will be viable as an N-reg. The absolute need for EASA certification will depend on what happens on the regulatory front in Europe; my view is that EASA will have to accept FAA certification eventually.

The Epic Escape TP is more interesting to me; smaller and even faster.

The "obvious" upgrade from a piston is the Jetprop conversion of a Malibu. This is much cheaper than stuff like the TBM700/850. This is crucially below 2000kg so avoids the Eurocontrol route charges which for an avtur engine are of the same order of cost as the fuel itself. Official TAS is limited to about 260kt I think, but by all accounts it has loads of spare power.

OTOH if you want to carry 6 fat people and luggage then you have to go for something big. One can't have it both ways.

Lots of twin piston pilots fly "VFR" to avoid the charges but that is very inflexible (I've done plenty of VFR before I got the IR but being 1400kg not to avoid the charges) unless one is willing to just scud run OCAS regardless of conditions. Some of these end up in the terrain.

sternone

18th Nov 2007, 07:41

Epic Escape

This machine looks great, let's hope it will achive it's announced performance. It would be a great machine for me to get to Italy...

IO540

18th Nov 2007, 08:34

Does anybody have figures on the direct operating cost of an Eclipse versus something with a PT6 on the front?

- 50hr check / 50
- Engine overhaul / engine TBO
- HSI cost / HSI interval
- Fuel

Unless the Eclipse uses engines with an amazingly low maintenance cost, the operating cost will dwarf the purchase price pretty quick.

I think this is the argument for operating an old piston twin. Most of them are real old dogs nowadays but one could buy an old pressurised dog and refurbish it to a high standard, and end up with a plane with a similar mission capability to a Jetprop / Meridian but with about half the total acquisition cost and probably a similar or smaller DOC.

I hope the Epic succeeds. It's got the backing of an extremely wealthy Indian man so money should not be an issue.

scooter boy

18th Nov 2007, 08:53

SB, if you want to step up from the Mooney, have you considered a TP, and if so which one? I can see they're far more expensive than the Eclipse or Djet but in terms of running cost they should be more economical. I could be wrong however. Just being curious...

Hi Deice,
I've looked at TBM700/850 and PC-12 but v expensive.
The Malibu jetprop looks interesting (and a nice weight too).
The problem is unlike you lucky Scandis commercial SEIFR is impossible based out of the UK (without serious forethought and planning :E) so getting the machine to earn its keep would be an issue.
Spending more than $1M on a depreciating asset (for personal use only i:e glorified toy!) would be far too painful an ongoing loss for me!

There are many issues to consider here outwith the usual performance and economics discussion; like legislation and new rules concerning VLJ ops i:e Will you seriously be able to climb to service ceiling in one of these machines to get the promised performance or will you be stuck down in the weather at altitudes where the advantages of the jet are less?

To be honest I am waiting and watching at present. I am investing in another (non-aviation related) project which should end up appreciating in value and generating a healthy income + retirement fund for me.;)

As an interim gift to myself (for working so damned hard) I may trade my TKS Ovation 2 GX up to a TKS Mooney Acclaim-S - I don't plan to fly around at FL250 and 243kts but like the option of going there if I need to. I also really like the GFC700 with flight director and the improved G1000 with approach plates on the MFD - very cute. It is due out in the spring and provided the taxman hasn't been too cruel then it may be the next step for me. As I do with my Ovation, I would tanker around very cheap CI Avgas in the 130 usg tanks sourced from Jersey (30mins away) so the increased fuel burn would not be a great issue.

Interesting times! and good luck to Eclipse (even if I never buy one) - they have bravely stuck their necks out and I really hope they pull it off.

SB

deice

18th Nov 2007, 14:39

I forgot to mention SEIFR is only allowed for cargo and there's only one company making use of it in Sweden. It still requires two pilots and special training. I'm not entirely sure of the reasoning there.
The old piston refurbishment idea is an interesting one, and something I've thought of myself. It would be really interesting to see a comparison of DOC for say a Cessna 414, versus a Meridian and one of the new jets.
Perhaps even more interesting would be the seat cost per mile.

If anyone has any figures that could be used for this comparison I'd be greatly interested.

windy1

18th Nov 2007, 15:29

Insurance could be interesting. In the US “Flying” magazine, a pilot with 4000 total time, 1000 turbine, 2500 multi, type rated B737 and Cessna 500 was quoted $37k annual premium. Maybe quite a reasonable cost relative to the other costs of ownership.
But for another pilot to fly his aircraft, Insurers wanted ATP, 5000 total, 3500 multi, 1000 pure jet, 250 make and model, school and annual recurrency.

Europe is not USA so the insurance picture will be different and a Mustang at $2.5m is not an Eclipse, but a point to ponder.

IO540

18th Nov 2007, 20:23

You need to separate the hull value part of the cover.

Very roughly, hull value is insured at about 1-2% so a $2M plane will cost $20k to $40k per year just for that.

If you buy a $2M spaceship this comes with the territory :)

Also, don't expect to turn up at somebody's hangar with a $2M spaceship and expect to get it for 300 quid a month. There goes another 10-20 grand a year :)

After all that, if you actually want to fly somewhere, more money....

One can pick up a well used but good TBM700 for quite a bit less than some people would think. Certainly not "millions". Especially since the TBM850 came out. But, the total ownership cost is probably 10x higher than most piston pilots pay on even on a very nice IFR tourer.

deice

18th Nov 2007, 21:46

While we're on the subject of TPs versus Jets. This is a bit out of my league still, but I think there's an interesting comparison made in this text.
http://www.planecheck.com/cheyenne400.htm

Like the Piaggio Avanti, the old Cheyenne 400 gave business jets a run for their money...

IO540

18th Nov 2007, 21:55

Agreed, the Cheyenne looks very nice.

I wonder what the operating cost is like. An old pressurised turboprop gives you the highest costs in every department.

deice

18th Nov 2007, 22:20

That's probably true, but I'm sure the cost is less than an old business jet.:ok:
Imagine running an early Citation, or a Sabre Jet, Learjet or even an early Falcon for that matter. :eek:
Interestingly, there seems to be enough value left in them because there are several operated by charter companies still.
The cheyenne beats the early slowtations on every aspect of performance, and I think it looks pretty awasome too. I rather like them big props...

The question in my mind is, if it is cheaper to run, and performs better or equal to a jet, what's the catch? Why aren't there tons of them doing the jethaul? I suppose Beechcraft beat them to the business with the King Airs, but they're not nearly as sparkling in performance. Perhaps they're just built better.
It would be interesting to see how the Cheyenne 400LS would stand up to the Eclipse 500 in terms of economy...

scooter boy

18th Nov 2007, 22:45

one other factor that carries high importance for me (esp at this time of year) is crosswind tolerance.
Bloody windy here in the UK for the next little while.
Heavier airframes are better from this point of view but what about twin vs single-engine? and twin with engines very close to the midline (VLJ) vs right out on the wing (like the cheyenne)?

SB

flyingfemme

19th Nov 2007, 08:30

Cheyennes have a bad reputation for stability - it scares a lot of people. Parts are also difficult to find.

Kingairs have a good reputation for everything. You can always find Beech maintenance wherever you are on the planet. They also have a bigger cabin than almost anything in that performance category - jet or TP.

The best aircraft for getting places are a B200 or a PC12 - depending upon your tolerance for single-donk.

deice

19th Nov 2007, 17:24

I'm sure you're right about stability and the issue about parts, Piper didn't build many Cheyenne airframes, expecially not the 400LS, while there are several thousand Beeches flying and they're still in production. I was mainly interested in the performance available from TPs. My personal favorie is the Piaggio, but that's because I think it looks pretty cool and appears to go like stink. It may be a dog though, I don't know...
The PC12 and TBMs have impressive performance also except for the purchase price. And they can't be used for commercial ops as pointed out.

A piston twin sounds like the obvious choice after all. I asked this question in another post, but would a modern light-medium piston twin have any chance in todays market? Or would it be impossible to build one that could compete costwise with old refurbished hardware? The Adam A500 looks a bit disappointing to me. It seems to offer little improvement over anything old and used and costs a fortune...

carloslopez

20th Nov 2007, 16:03

Hi there,

To keep with the eclipse 500, this was published by the EASA this summer:

'The Eclipse 500 has an unusual design feature with respect to engine control. The engines FADEC’s are electrically powered by the aircraft electrical system instead of a dedicated and independent electrical source on each engine. This means that in case of total electrical failure the engines will maintain the power setting that was present at the moment of the failure. This failure also leads to the loss of shut-off capability'

It looks like this specific problem is causing the delay in easa certification, which was originally intended for the end of this year, and now it is said to be early 2008. I wonder how come they got FAA certification with such an issue.

Do any of you know anything about this?