Mustang V Eclipse
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mustang V Eclipse
Mustang V Eclipse
From their own websites, the Eclipse seems to have the edge and at roughly £650,000 seems good value. Not sure what I would expect to pay for a Mustang though?
If I ordered one of each today (or two or three
), when might I expect delivery?
From their own websites, the Eclipse seems to have the edge and at roughly £650,000 seems good value. Not sure what I would expect to pay for a Mustang though?
If I ordered one of each today (or two or three
), when might I expect delivery?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eclipse
Not even fully certified, cant fly in IMC above 3-5000ft legally
Small cabin - think Seneca not a jet
Backup and customer support in EU.................(heloooooo - anybody there)
3000s order probably 1/2 speculative - 100 delivered so far
Avionics - yes very nice, does it work? are they reliable?
Cof G issues????
Keep going to court with their major component suppliers
Mustang
Fully certified N reg, EASA reg - flying now (In clouds)
Bigger Cabin - crap bog
Backup & Support not Gulfstream by any means but you can touch it feel it squeeze it
Again lots of orders - got the build rate up already
Avionics by Garmin - tried and tested.
Generally speaking you will never be able to buy an Eclipse for £650k, that is the price now if you ordered one 5 years ago. They are already fetching nearly a million quid and by the time you get yours (or 3
) they will be well into 7 figures
Just one other point to add. Cessna have been building bizjets for nearly 40 years, in monetary terms they outperformed other GA manufacturers by 3 last year. They know what works, they know what they are doing its a proven manufacturer WITH BACKUP.
You may get a C510 order for Q4 2010, if you speak to Timmy Leacock, he might rabbit you one out of a hat sooner but dont count on it.
Not even fully certified, cant fly in IMC above 3-5000ft legally
Small cabin - think Seneca not a jet
Backup and customer support in EU.................(heloooooo - anybody there)
3000s order probably 1/2 speculative - 100 delivered so far
Avionics - yes very nice, does it work? are they reliable?
Cof G issues????
Keep going to court with their major component suppliers
Mustang
Fully certified N reg, EASA reg - flying now (In clouds)
Bigger Cabin - crap bog
Backup & Support not Gulfstream by any means but you can touch it feel it squeeze it
Again lots of orders - got the build rate up already
Avionics by Garmin - tried and tested.
Generally speaking you will never be able to buy an Eclipse for £650k, that is the price now if you ordered one 5 years ago. They are already fetching nearly a million quid and by the time you get yours (or 3
) they will be well into 7 figuresJust one other point to add. Cessna have been building bizjets for nearly 40 years, in monetary terms they outperformed other GA manufacturers by 3 last year. They know what works, they know what they are doing its a proven manufacturer WITH BACKUP.
You may get a C510 order for Q4 2010, if you speak to Timmy Leacock, he might rabbit you one out of a hat sooner but dont count on it.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mustang
Check out http://www.eclipsecriticng.*************/ for some laughs
Everytime I have seen the Eclipse reps at a trade show, they were very dodgy and couldn't or wouldn't answer my tough questions. Such as, "Why did your first delivery take-off and land at the same airport?"
Anyway, I'm a broker and know of a few Mustang positions delivering this year, but they are by no means cheap. Position holders are demanding steep premiums for these toys.
Everytime I have seen the Eclipse reps at a trade show, they were very dodgy and couldn't or wouldn't answer my tough questions. Such as, "Why did your first delivery take-off and land at the same airport?"
Anyway, I'm a broker and know of a few Mustang positions delivering this year, but they are by no means cheap. Position holders are demanding steep premiums for these toys.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eclipse
Not even fully certified, cant fly in IMC above 3-5000ft legally
Small cabin - think Seneca not a jet
Backup and customer support in EU.................(heloooooo - anybody there)
3000s order probably 1/2 speculative - 100 delivered so far
Avionics - yes very nice, does it work? are they reliable?
Cof G issues????
Keep going to court with their major component suppliers
Not even fully certified, cant fly in IMC above 3-5000ft legally
Small cabin - think Seneca not a jet
Backup and customer support in EU.................(heloooooo - anybody there)
3000s order probably 1/2 speculative - 100 delivered so far
Avionics - yes very nice, does it work? are they reliable?
Cof G issues????
Keep going to court with their major component suppliers
Again, once certified and more widespread, won't the customer support improve?
Any reason why the avionics won't work?
C of G????????
Just seems to me that at about $1 million cheaper to purchase, cheaper to operate, with slightly better TO/Ldg performance, more speed, almost identical range..............
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO both are designed for private owners flying themselves around, but the Mustang pitches itself halfway between a private aircraft and an entry level jet. Peronally would not buy either for Public transport Ops, maybe when they have depreciated a bit, can't think of any owner operator who has managed to make new aircraft work in this marketplace, but am talking to a few parries about managing Mustangs having discounted the Eclipse as a long shot on the production / certification hurdle. Lack of TCAS in RVSM airspace may prove an issue as a costly retrofit, and the toilet issue will artificially reduce the aircraft range to the size of your bladder.
Phil
Phil
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil
It would appear that LEA and Blink seem to think that they can make the
numbers work - they have ordered 40 Mustangs between them for air taxi work. There is also Jetbird in Ireland with orders for 100 Phenom 100s (Embraer version of the Mustang).
Personally, I think that their main obstacles to success will be:
1. Lack of slot availability, particularly in SE England.
2. ATC are unlikely to allow these aircraft up to their optimum cruise level (in the order of FL40) when they can only make M0.6 at best. Therefore they are likely to spend most of their cruise time bumping around in the weather with the TPs.
3. Lack of pressurised luggage space
4. Lack of availablilty of suitable pilots. Flying these aircraft commercially and safely will be no job for low-timers and I don't know many pilots of "grown-up" bizjets (Myself included) who would want to trade to work in a toothpaste tube without an APU unless there were some serious salaries on offer. Exciting times, though!
AP
It would appear that LEA and Blink seem to think that they can make the
numbers work - they have ordered 40 Mustangs between them for air taxi work. There is also Jetbird in Ireland with orders for 100 Phenom 100s (Embraer version of the Mustang).
Personally, I think that their main obstacles to success will be:
1. Lack of slot availability, particularly in SE England.
2. ATC are unlikely to allow these aircraft up to their optimum cruise level (in the order of FL40) when they can only make M0.6 at best. Therefore they are likely to spend most of their cruise time bumping around in the weather with the TPs.
3. Lack of pressurised luggage space
4. Lack of availablilty of suitable pilots. Flying these aircraft commercially and safely will be no job for low-timers and I don't know many pilots of "grown-up" bizjets (Myself included) who would want to trade to work in a toothpaste tube without an APU unless there were some serious salaries on offer. Exciting times, though!
AP
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apruneuk,
We operate CJ's, to all intense and purpose similar to the mustang operationally. We have no great problem with slots and operate mainly from the South East. We operate normally at about 38,000ft, no resistance from ATC (think that is an urban myth), however I have my own views on non-TCAS aircraft in RVSM airspace. We have unpressurised cabin space, and fly 800+ hours a year, so I assume that it is not deemed an important factor for the paying clients.
We had a choice, Mustangs (unproven, range limited, but NEW) or CJ's (tried and tested, better range / payload and a toilet with a curtain, but Older).
By the time you factor in finance, depreciation etc both aircraft cost the same, I think the Mustang will make a good living going back and forth to LBG, DUB, IOM etc, and the CJ's make a good living going back and forth to NCE, GVA, CEQ etc.
Phil
We operate CJ's, to all intense and purpose similar to the mustang operationally. We have no great problem with slots and operate mainly from the South East. We operate normally at about 38,000ft, no resistance from ATC (think that is an urban myth), however I have my own views on non-TCAS aircraft in RVSM airspace. We have unpressurised cabin space, and fly 800+ hours a year, so I assume that it is not deemed an important factor for the paying clients.
We had a choice, Mustangs (unproven, range limited, but NEW) or CJ's (tried and tested, better range / payload and a toilet with a curtain, but Older).
By the time you factor in finance, depreciation etc both aircraft cost the same, I think the Mustang will make a good living going back and forth to LBG, DUB, IOM etc, and the CJ's make a good living going back and forth to NCE, GVA, CEQ etc.
Phil
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APU?
Relevance to this thread - none whatsoever. In fact this might get moved by the moderator, but until then...
APU stands for Auxilliary Power Unit. Very simply, an APU is a small engine that doesn't fly the aircraft, but can run a generator, air cycle machine, and suchlike.
Big jets with big engines have APU's because they can't start their own engines without them. They start the APU first (generally using an ordinary battery and starter motor) and then use the APU output (either compressed air, or electricity, or whatever) to start the main engines.
Smaller jets have smaller engines, and can therefore start an engine from their own battery (the second engine is then usually started from the output of the first). Smaller jets therefore don't need APU's.
If you were designing an aircraft you would only generally include an APU if you really had to - they are expensive, heavy, and represent another thing to go wrong. But APU's bestow considerable bragging rights on the flight crew, because if your aircraft has an APU, it must be BIG, and therefore your salary, car, and sexual appetite must also be enormous.
There is one other clever trick (and irritating source of noise polution) that APU equipped aircraft can do - the APU is generally sized with enough power output to run all the electrical system on the aircraft, so it is quite common for the crew to run the APU on the ground so that they can sit in the aircraft with all the lights on, drinking coffee, whilst waiting for the passengers. The primary purpose of this exercise is of course to emphasise to all the lesser crew on the ramp that this is a BIG aircraft with very important flight crew.
APU stands for Auxilliary Power Unit. Very simply, an APU is a small engine that doesn't fly the aircraft, but can run a generator, air cycle machine, and suchlike.
Big jets with big engines have APU's because they can't start their own engines without them. They start the APU first (generally using an ordinary battery and starter motor) and then use the APU output (either compressed air, or electricity, or whatever) to start the main engines.
Smaller jets have smaller engines, and can therefore start an engine from their own battery (the second engine is then usually started from the output of the first). Smaller jets therefore don't need APU's.
If you were designing an aircraft you would only generally include an APU if you really had to - they are expensive, heavy, and represent another thing to go wrong. But APU's bestow considerable bragging rights on the flight crew, because if your aircraft has an APU, it must be BIG, and therefore your salary, car, and sexual appetite must also be enormous.
There is one other clever trick (and irritating source of noise polution) that APU equipped aircraft can do - the APU is generally sized with enough power output to run all the electrical system on the aircraft, so it is quite common for the crew to run the APU on the ground so that they can sit in the aircraft with all the lights on, drinking coffee, whilst waiting for the passengers. The primary purpose of this exercise is of course to emphasise to all the lesser crew on the ramp that this is a BIG aircraft with very important flight crew.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry CJ, maybe I didn't phrase my question particularly well.
I know what an APU is and what it does, but earlier on this and other threads that compare aircraft types, the lack of an APU is often regarded as a negative point.
apruneuk said:
What's the relevance in this context?
Surely not just down to willy waving?!
I know what an APU is and what it does, but earlier on this and other threads that compare aircraft types, the lack of an APU is often regarded as a negative point.
apruneuk said:
4. Lack of availability of suitable pilots. Flying these aircraft commercially and safely will be no job for low-timers and I don't know many pilots of "grown-up" bizjets (Myself included) who would want to trade to work in a toothpaste tube without an APU unless there were some serious salaries on offer. Exciting times, though!
Surely not just down to willy waving?!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope certainly can run the A/C with a GPU on the 550/560 nobody does though due cost.
The reason why we have an APU fitted is for exactly the reason CJ Driver said
Would try to avoid flying an aircraft without APU but I do miss the simplicity of the Bravo - The boss couldn't moan about a warm cabin in the 550!
The reason why we have an APU fitted is for exactly the reason CJ Driver said
Would try to avoid flying an aircraft without APU but I do miss the simplicity of the Bravo - The boss couldn't moan about a warm cabin in the 550!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ
A highly amusing and not totally incorrect post. However, the big advantage of having an APU is that when you get stuck on some distant stand at an Eastern European airport in the middle of the night in the middle of Winter and the client calls to say he/she will be an hour late, not only can you put on the percolator and watch a bit of telly while you wait but you can also turn on the heating - very "Jet-Set"!
AP
A highly amusing and not totally incorrect post. However, the big advantage of having an APU is that when you get stuck on some distant stand at an Eastern European airport in the middle of the night in the middle of Winter and the client calls to say he/she will be an hour late, not only can you put on the percolator and watch a bit of telly while you wait but you can also turn on the heating - very "Jet-Set"!
AP
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Arthur's Wizard, as you probably see from the other follow-ups to my post, saying "My aircraft has an APU" really is just an insider way of saying "Mine is bigger than yours". Aircraft of course, although possibly also other equipment.
There are many other similar comparisons, where a practical limitation is turned into a positive feature, the most obvious being the number of engines. I might need to put on my flame-proof suit before saying this, but for example pilots of three-engined aircraft will claim that three engines are better, when in fact from an engineering and commercial point of view the only reason you would ever add the third engine is because you couldn't pass the certification OEI requirements with only two. That's not to say that you can't then put a positive spin on having three (ETOPS anyone?) but you only started down that path to solve a problem. Thus, the APU chaps can drink coffee and preheat the cabin, which is a nice touch, but they started down that path because of the technical problem of starting a large engine.
And for apruneuk:
We can preheat or precool the cabin too, but we just start an engine as our "APU". When the passengers arrive we start the other APU and take off!
There are many other similar comparisons, where a practical limitation is turned into a positive feature, the most obvious being the number of engines. I might need to put on my flame-proof suit before saying this, but for example pilots of three-engined aircraft will claim that three engines are better, when in fact from an engineering and commercial point of view the only reason you would ever add the third engine is because you couldn't pass the certification OEI requirements with only two. That's not to say that you can't then put a positive spin on having three (ETOPS anyone?) but you only started down that path to solve a problem. Thus, the APU chaps can drink coffee and preheat the cabin, which is a nice touch, but they started down that path because of the technical problem of starting a large engine.
And for apruneuk:
We can preheat or precool the cabin too, but we just start an engine as our "APU". When the passengers arrive we start the other APU and take off!
Ground power is available at my airport, hence APUs can be used for a minimum time.(Not allowed at certain times anyway due to local planning conditions)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: FL006
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicely siad CJ...recently the APU idea has more psychological aspects than technical..so we reach the same point-someone's ego..which on the other hand is good stuff-it gives us those jobs
)
)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eclipse certification
I think it's going to be a long time, if at all, before EASA certify the EA500.
See:
www.easa.europa.eu/doc/Certification/Consultation/Eclipse%20500%20%20Special%
As the aircraft still doesn't have FAA certification for Flight into Known Icing, the new Avio NG avionic system is way from complete and lacks much functionality, and EASA have all of their concerns about the FADEC systems, don't hold your breath!
See:
www.easa.europa.eu/doc/Certification/Consultation/Eclipse%20500%20%20Special%
As the aircraft still doesn't have FAA certification for Flight into Known Icing, the new Avio NG avionic system is way from complete and lacks much functionality, and EASA have all of their concerns about the FADEC systems, don't hold your breath!
Last edited by wigglyamp; 9th Mar 2008 at 23:33. Reason: spelling correction
