ECLIPSE 500 in the U.K.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Epic Escape
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
- 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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TP vs VLJ
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
) 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
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
) 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
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: cambridge
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
http://www.planecheck.com/cheyenne400.htm
Like the Piaggio Avanti, the old Cheyenne 400 gave business jets a run for their money...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's probably true, but I'm sure the cost is less than an old business jet.
Imagine running an early Citation, or a Sabre Jet, Learjet or even an early Falcon for that matter.
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...
Imagine running an early Citation, or a Sabre Jet, Learjet or even an early Falcon for that matter.
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...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crosswind Tolerance
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: spain
Age: 51
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eclipse 500 problems
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?
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?
