Single Engine ECLIPSE Jet POC!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single Engine ECLIPSE Jet POC!!!!
From Aero-News:
ANN Exclusive: First Flight Photos of Eclipse ECJ S/E POC
Mon, 23 Jul '07
Yes... There IS A Single Engine Eclipse... Proof Of Concept
We've been waiting for a while to break this... but ANN readers will be pleased to know that they are the FIRST to see the amazing pictures we took of the first flight of an experimental 'proof of concept' Eclipse single engine jet.
Using an extensive amount of Eclipse componentry, the flawless 70 minute, July 2nd flight was photographed by ANN and documented in video by our Aero-TV staff.
The first flight was conducted by veteran test pilot, Terry Tomeny, who was first pitched on this idea just a few months before at the company Christmas Party by Vern Raburn, himself.
Just a little over 200 days later, in a magnificent effort of intense prototyping and development, the Eclipse Concept Jet (ECJ) was born.
Mind you, we can't say much yet... as the bird has continued to fly over the last few weeks to compile nearly 30 hours before landing late Sunday at Wittman Field, where it was unveiled at Eclipse's opening press event... but the plans are to see if the bird can hit targets of 345 knots, 41,000 feet and a range in excess of 1250 nm... so far, early test results look promising and Raburn was all smiles after logging his first bit of flight time in the bird yesterday.
In fact, it was Raburn in the left seat when he landed on Runway 9 at Wittman Field at approximately 2000 CDT.
ANN will have more information and detail on our site, later today. One of our first Aero-TV presentations on the ECJ is available now on the Aero-TV Beta Site.
Who copied who ?? At least this bird is already flying!! Here ya go Cirrus!!
ANN Exclusive: First Flight Photos of Eclipse ECJ S/E POC
Mon, 23 Jul '07
Yes... There IS A Single Engine Eclipse... Proof Of Concept
We've been waiting for a while to break this... but ANN readers will be pleased to know that they are the FIRST to see the amazing pictures we took of the first flight of an experimental 'proof of concept' Eclipse single engine jet.
Using an extensive amount of Eclipse componentry, the flawless 70 minute, July 2nd flight was photographed by ANN and documented in video by our Aero-TV staff.
The first flight was conducted by veteran test pilot, Terry Tomeny, who was first pitched on this idea just a few months before at the company Christmas Party by Vern Raburn, himself.
Just a little over 200 days later, in a magnificent effort of intense prototyping and development, the Eclipse Concept Jet (ECJ) was born.
Mind you, we can't say much yet... as the bird has continued to fly over the last few weeks to compile nearly 30 hours before landing late Sunday at Wittman Field, where it was unveiled at Eclipse's opening press event... but the plans are to see if the bird can hit targets of 345 knots, 41,000 feet and a range in excess of 1250 nm... so far, early test results look promising and Raburn was all smiles after logging his first bit of flight time in the bird yesterday.
In fact, it was Raburn in the left seat when he landed on Runway 9 at Wittman Field at approximately 2000 CDT.
ANN will have more information and detail on our site, later today. One of our first Aero-TV presentations on the ECJ is available now on the Aero-TV Beta Site.
Who copied who ?? At least this bird is already flying!! Here ya go Cirrus!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, he's probably the #1 position holder and is looking for a nice return 
Interesting... it looks a smaller plane than the twin. And since about 80% of the fuel flow of a 2nd engine is used to drag the engine along (at least that's true for piston twins), one would expect the range to be a lot better. But then a smaller airframe will have less range... still, 1250nm IFR range is very good for half the flow rate.
Interesting... it looks a smaller plane than the twin. And since about 80% of the fuel flow of a 2nd engine is used to drag the engine along (at least that's true for piston twins), one would expect the range to be a lot better. But then a smaller airframe will have less range... still, 1250nm IFR range is very good for half the flow rate.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my God!
Oh my God... the D-jet (baby sperm whale) and the cirrus jet (fat little forker) have mated and produced the ugliest 
offspring in the history of aviation.
YUK!
SB
offspring in the history of aviation.YUK!
SB
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those interior computer-generated pictures don't match the prototype. Think about it - where is the rear seat passenger looking out? On the starboard side, the interior shots show a porthole. But on the real thing, there is a door there - with a different shaped window. Granted there is a porthole on the port side, but they should update their CAD interior shots!
Tim
Tim
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 49
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing I like most about the actual cockpit is not the nice big flashy panel mounted garmin....it's th Garmin 296 above it!
Should make up for the lack of backup steam powered instruments.
Should make up for the lack of backup steam powered instruments.
When Eclipse decided to change engine suppliers, they ended up with a bunch more thrust than needed by the original design + more expen$ive engines.
So they've thinned down the airframe to where they can get a decent climb on one engine and hopefully lower stall speed for those off-airport landings
So they've thinned down the airframe to where they can get a decent climb on one engine and hopefully lower stall speed for those off-airport landings
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, SB I agree it does look ugly.
I guess they are going for lots of body lift; not the sort of "lift" you may be thinking of but by making the fuselage top curved and the bottom flat (i.e. like a wing) they will be getting a lot of lift from a part of the plane which is otherwise a waste of space (except you need it for the people to fit into) and which would otherwise just be a large frontal cross-section which needs to be dragged through the air.
In turn, you don't need so much lift from the wings and they can be smaller... less drag etc.
This is a very old technique but is not so effective on something long i.e. a 6+ seater. It also needs composites to do the curves, unless you spend a lot of money on press tooling or 3D CNC setups like they do on airliners.
Recently I went around an EADS factory and it was interesting to see the order of magnitude gulf in the tooling investment between passenger and military jets, and a TBM which sells for a mere $3M or so. The latter is made almost entirely from 2D curves (a flat plate bent over, basically).
Two big problems with composites: it can be very expensive or impossible to repair hangar rash, or accidental over-stressing e.g. a tiny crack around a door hinge.
Overall, composites are rarely lighter than aluminium unless you go flat out for carbon fibre for everything. But none of these companies are going to invest in the tooling to make these things out of metal.
I'd like to see the MTOW. We are not talking about £1000+/hour DOC on these, or spending so much money on fuel you may as well employ a couple of ATPs to fly it for you (which is true for most exec jets). For Europe, the 2000kg mark will be very important; much more so than on a twin jet. We know that Diamond have already missed it, and not by much which I think is a very bad mistake.
I guess they are going for lots of body lift; not the sort of "lift" you may be thinking of
but by making the fuselage top curved and the bottom flat (i.e. like a wing) they will be getting a lot of lift from a part of the plane which is otherwise a waste of space (except you need it for the people to fit into) and which would otherwise just be a large frontal cross-section which needs to be dragged through the air.In turn, you don't need so much lift from the wings and they can be smaller... less drag etc.
This is a very old technique but is not so effective on something long i.e. a 6+ seater. It also needs composites to do the curves, unless you spend a lot of money on press tooling or 3D CNC setups like they do on airliners.
Recently I went around an EADS factory and it was interesting to see the order of magnitude gulf in the tooling investment between passenger and military jets, and a TBM which sells for a mere $3M or so. The latter is made almost entirely from 2D curves (a flat plate bent over, basically).
Two big problems with composites: it can be very expensive or impossible to repair hangar rash, or accidental over-stressing e.g. a tiny crack around a door hinge.
Overall, composites are rarely lighter than aluminium unless you go flat out for carbon fibre for everything. But none of these companies are going to invest in the tooling to make these things out of metal.
I'd like to see the MTOW. We are not talking about £1000+/hour DOC on these, or spending so much money on fuel you may as well employ a couple of ATPs to fly it for you (which is true for most exec jets). For Europe, the 2000kg mark will be very important; much more so than on a twin jet. We know that Diamond have already missed it, and not by much which I think is a very bad mistake.
Last edited by IO540; 25th Jul 2007 at 20:19.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We know that Diamond have already missed it, and not by much which I think is a very bad mistake.
In a way it may not be a bad thing. A lot of jets flying about in IFR paying zeros fees would have commercial users whining and put pressure on the whole sub 2t exemption. If you're running a $1m airplane the Eurocontrol fees are not a killer cost - I think most operators would pay them to avoid crippling the useful load.
