787 Wing - A New Twist on Structural Engineering?

(Thanks to Jon Ostrower, at http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/, for the graphic!)

I was a bit relieved to read comments indicating other folks also thought the 787 wing had an unusual amount of wing deflection during the first flight video.

In particular, the aft view of ZA001's climb-out seemed to indicate an amazing curvature/bending of the wing-

Reuters video of ZA001 First Flight Takeoff
0:18 great T-33 fun- swooping in for chase during takeoff roll
0:37 front view of wing bending
0:53-1:03 amazing (apparent) wing deflection

Now, camera angles can play tricks with our perception (Bonus Prize to those who have already identified a contributing effect- see first post of this new thread).

But discounting that, I did some surfing about to investigate the 787 wing. (Unfortunately, merely on the web, not long boarding as our friend Baron is doing off the coast of Brazil this holiday season- rats! :)

It turns out, Jon Ostrower, who runs the great FlightBlogger website, has been examining this topic for some time- here is his July 30, 2008 article "A Closer Look at 787 Wing Flex" (gulp! guess we're catching up a bit! :). My special thanks to Jon for letting me borrow the graphic above and to link in to his article.

As one of Jon's commenters noted, "One wag joked(?) that the only reason MCboeing put larger windows on the 787 so that the passengers would not get concerned when the lost sight of the wingtip...."

Julius noted the landing gear issues on the first flight of the second flight test article (ZA002), which also sent me surfing- (sounds like the nose gear initially only deployed 75 degrees- the crew did an "emergency" extension (which some say, is not that unusual for first flights or after maintenance) to get it down and locked, but the situation resulted in more video coverage than usual of the landing, which shows some fairly substantial wing flex too- looks like coincident with the ground spoilers deploying- guess those things really do have a big effect on brake effectiveness (among other things, "runway friction coefficient" x "actual weight on wheels") and landing lengths. This also prompted a review of the ZA001 first landing, which shows similar "flapping" during landing. (More correctly, relaxation as the wings unload, but heck, "flapping" sounds more spectacular).

ZA001 First Flight & First Landing (check out last few seconds of video)

ZA002 First Landing

With Jon's blog substantiating our observations, let's investigate this wing flex stuff!

As well commented upon, the 787 is a constructed with composites. I'm no structural engineer, and I'm sure there are many subtle variations, but it seems the terminology of choice is Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers, or CFRP.

Trying to find specifications for CFRP was one of the most frustrating experiences I've had on the web- quoted strengths varied widely, and most of the reference material is only available by purchasing trade journal reprints. (Given the wide variance of the open source material, I did not have confidence I would find a definitive answer with the journal articles). There was also some information about reinforcing concrete with CFRP- which while intriguing, I thought not too applicable for our purposes. (It seems CFRP makes a dandy "wrap" for concrete cylinders and beams that make up highway supports- I think after the Northridge earthquake in the Los Angeles area, circa 1994, many of the freeway overpass supports were reinforced with this fabric).

But, with little confidence in any alternative, I resorted to our steadfast reference, Wikipedia, which pointed me to "AS4", which seems to be a representative aerospace CFRP,
Hexcel AS4.

For comparison with conventional, shall we say, "non-disruptive", aluminum construction, I found a variety of sources- it seems like 7075T6 is a good representative material,
Alcoa 7075 fact sheet.

For our study, I used the Hexcel AS4 datasheet "Typical 350ºF Epoxy Composite Properties (at Room Temperature)" values, and the compression values, rather than tension, as bending loads create both conditions, on the "near" and "far" side of the article subject to the bending load. (The compression values used in this study are somewhat lower than the "flexure" strength listed in the AS4 table, so this represents the conservative case- I suspect the flexure values are for tension side of a loaded object, such as when working with prestressed beams, e.g., reinforced concrete and such- any stress engineer types out there?).

From Wikipedia, the above references, and a few other scribbled notes over the pat couple of days, I pieced together this table. (It's in metric units. I confess, rather than demonstrating my enlightenment, it reflects my laziness in not converting to "English" units. Well, make that "American" units, as even the British use the metric system... But since we'll be doing relative comparisons, the unit's won't matter- one less thing for me to goof up! :)

So here's the deal- we'll be using three metrics (so to speak!) of performance:

Young's Modulus, which is "stiffness": the amount of load (force per cross section area) divided by the resultant strain (axial deflection per reference length).

Yield Strength, the load (force per cross section area) that produces permanent deformation in aluminum, or damaged fibers in composites. (Note: this is slightly different than "ultimate" load, which is the "breaking point"- complete failure- but we will assume the airplane is kept out of the damage region).

Density, the mass per volume (perhaps there is a slight difference between "denseness" and "density" ... :)

So, here we go, the Mr. Science overview (these numbers are approximate, and "Your Mileage May Vary", but seemed to be the most typical values I could find):

Material ....... Young's Modulus ...... Yield Strength ...... Density
7075-T6 ........ 69 GigaPascals ....... 430 MegaPascals ..... 2700 Kg/m^3
CFRP (60%) .... 128 GigaPascals ...... 1530 MegaPascals .... 1550 Kg/m^3

Note: the CFRP properties are for "along fiber" loads, not cross-loads, which are markedly lower (more about that later- #1), but for bending, this is appropriate.

A higher value of Young's modulus means a "stiffer" structure- and CFRP is about twice as stiff as aluminum. (So what's up with this goofy-looking 787 wing? Calm down- let's continue! :) At least this "reinforces" our stereotype of "composites being better than aluminum".

A lower density value is also a good thing in general, and CFRP once again demonstrated it lives up to the stereotype expectations of composite's superiority over aluminum- the latter being about twice as "heavy" (dense) as CFRP. (Well, 2700/1550 = 1.74 to be "exact". Hmmm, so far, things are distressingly stereotypical, rather than disruptive!)

A higher yield strength is also a good thing. Again, CFRP follows stereotypical expectations, with a nearly four-fold advantage over aluminum. (Okay, 1530/430 = 3.56 or so, but hey- this is "ball park stuff"! :)

So, all the material properties would seem to be just as we would expect- so why all that wing bending?? Let's consider the primary design criteria for a wing: weight and strength. Does stiffness matter? Uh, well, er, "it ought to". But for now, let's say no (we'll come back to that one also #2!)

Let's look at "strength"- what it takes to keep the wing from "breaking" (Although strictly speaking, we will use yield- the point of permanent deformation- rather than breaking strengths). To handle a given load (bending load, which is converted to axial tension and compression, in the upper and lower wing skins, and upper and lower web caps of the spars), CFRP is about four times (3.56) as strong as aluminum. So, we can use one-quarter (28%) as much, to get the same strength (resistance to yielding or damage). There are two ramifications of this- one is obvious, the other not-so-obvious.

a) Obviously, there's a tremendous weight savings! (Ah, more on THAT later #3). And figure CFRP is about half as dense (0.57), the total weight savings would be about four times two: the composite structure would weight roughly 1/8 of the aluminum wing! (Or a bit less roughly, (1/3.56) x 0.57 = 0.16, or about 1/6; More on this later #4, with some real-world adjustments...).

b) Less obviously (until we saw the videos and Jon's graphic at the top), is: DEFLECTION. Since CFRP is -about- four (3.56) times as strong as aluminum, a wing designer can use one-quarter (28%)as much. But the stiffness is "only" twice (128/69 = 1.82) that of aluminum;

SO, "one-quarter the material" x "twice the stiffness"
= TWICE THE DEFLECTION
(Okay, (1530/430) x (128/69) = 0.52 the stiffness = 1.92 the deflection)

MYSTERY SOLVED ! (Yeah! Well, basically...); Viola!, as one public icon of past exuberantly, and famously, (mis-)proclaimed. (Which icon? I'm not so sure :)

NOW, back to those pesky "later" items mentioned above (#1, 3 & 4; #2 follows later):

#1) "CFRP properties are for "along fiber" loads, not cross-loads, which are markedly lower..."

#3) there's a tremendous weight savings

#4) the composite structure would weight 1/6 of the aluminum wing ...some real-world adjustments

All three of these items can be summarized in one discussion: how much additional material is required to compensate for the anisotropic (directionally dependent) properties of fiber reinforced materials, versus the isotropic (universal in all directions) characteristics of aluminum, and most metals for that matter. (There are some metallic structures, particularly crystalline turbine blades, that are not isotropic, but such exceptions are rare- and expensive).

Wings are subject to complex loads (different than "wing loading", weight/area). Obviously, with the shear, bending, and torsion, the load paths are complex, and this is one area the anisotropic nature of composites can create problems. Consider just how unidirectional composite strength can be: the shear strength of a single-direction layup is only 81 MPa for 90-degree cross load, or a mere 4% of the 0-degree tensile strength os 2205 MPa; and shear strength is only 128 MPa, or 6% of the 0-degree tensile strength. (By comparison, aluminum is equally strong in any axis, and the shear strength of 7075T6 is 331 MPa, or 65 percent of the 503 MPa yield strength in this ASM spec sheet, which is some 20% stronger than the yield strength listed in the Alcoa spec sheet, which did not list shear strength, but to compare "apples to apples", the ratio of shear to tensile strength for 7075 seems to be 65%).

To address complex load paths, CFRP must could be constructed with complex fiber orientation, for maximum strength and minimum weight. This would require individual strands to be oriented in the unique desired directions. A more practical, and less expensive, alternative, is to use CFRP with the familiar 0 degree/90 degree weave orientation. To maintain full strength in either direction (0 and 90 degrees), twice the material is required (the intended 0-degree plies, PLUS plies oriented at 90 degrees). And to handle loads at 45 degrees (as shear strength is weak), plies in both directions must be stronger (read: more- by a factor of the square root 2 = 1.41, or 41%, if my trigonometry is correct). So, potentially, to make a CFRP structure as "isotropic" as aluminum, would require about 2(for 90 degree loads) x 1.41(for 45 degree loads), or about 3 (2.82), times as much material as a "simple" anisotropic structure, and the marvel of a CFRP structure weighing 1/6 that of aluminum now becomes about half (0.47) as heavy. Still an impressive weight savings! And most assuredly, the design engineers will strive to minimize such wasteful excess.

(The ply orientation issue could have other solutions; one might be using 0-60-120 or 0-45-90 degree plies, rather than thicker 0-90 degree plies. The various solutions would result in slightly varying weights, and strengths in off-primary axis directions. It seems I've seen broken composites, and the jagged edge seemed to have fibers pointed in multiple directions- not sure if that is a result of the damage, or the inherent weave pattern of the composite fabric fibers).

Our visual observations of the 787 wing flex, does seem to substantiate this ball-park estimation, of roughly twice the wing flex of an aluminum wing. Regarding CFRP manufacturing and design allowances to handle the anisotropic limitations, Dow Chemical has an interesting article, which states "The key drivers for using CFRP are light weight (50 percent lighter than steel and 30 percent lighter than aluminum)", which would seem to indicate a lot of material is going into making composites act more isotropic (plus, probably some conservative design practices with the still relatively new technology). The Dow claim of only a 30% weight savings over aluminum (rather than our 50%-ish number above) seems to be proven in aviation- there seems to be no real-world weight savings of composite airplane versus aluminum, so far anyway. Perhaps CFRP manufacturing and design allowances to handle the anisotropic limitations (??)

Besides weight, excess material imposes, ah, excess cost. Boy, I thought the mechanical properties of CFRP was hard to find- the cost was even more proprietary and elusive. (Please see accompanying post at the top of this thread).

#2) "Does stiffness matter? Uh, well, er, "it ought to". But for now, let's say no"

One of the advantages of a "flexy" wing is absorbing gust loads and provides a better ride, and improved fatigue life for the rest of the airplane. (With a flexible wing, the overall upward velocity is not changed in response to a sustained updraft, but the rate of upward velocity change is slightly more gradual (and prolonged), so the vertical acceleration is smoother, and forces -and stresses- are lower). This allows components to be made less robust, and lighter.

On the other hand, one of the more alarming presumptions regarding the appearance of unusual/"excess" flex in a wing, regards susceptibility to flutter. And this might be where composites/CFRP shine. The X-29 forward-swept wing program was feasible because of the torsional stiffness of a composite wing. It would seem the 787 is benefiting from this as well, not that it is vulnerable to the inherent wingtip divergence the X-29 had, but still, that flexy wing needs to be resistant to torsion/bending coupling.

Jon's FlightBlogger website has the scoop on this too; some early 777 testbed work for variable camber effects, and his Better Know a Dreamliner - Part Two - ZA002 post yesterday, ("Airplane Two will have the second most hours of the six flight test aircraft and will first participate in the initial airworthiness and flutter clearance, as well as stability and control testing...High speed air testing is also expected to be a significant part of ZA002's aerodynamic check-out along with wing twist that will be measured"). With fly-by-wire controls, and tailored twist characteristics from CFRP construction, this should go smoothly. (Then again, how often have we heard "it's only software" :)

One last (thank goodness!) item to consider is fatigue life. This turned out to be disappointingly proprietary or buried exclusively in subscription trade magazines. The best I could find was Wikipedia CFRP, "Carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRPs) have an almost infinite service lifetime when protected from the sun, but, unlike steel alloys, have no endurance limit when exposed to cyclic loading". So the "flexy" composite wings should not fatigue as aluminum would exposed to such large deflections. (One wonders about fuel and hydraulic lines though, but I suppose these are of a relatively small diameter such that bending will result in a low stress and strain).

787 First Flight

Congratulations to the Boeing team for the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner.

As well noted by the blog, this occurred on Tuesday, December 15 (2009), About 27 months later than initially forecast.

Boeing has had such a great record for meeting delivery and production schedules, I was curious to review what happened to delay this great day in aviation history. I fear I noted some striking similarities between the 787 and Eclipse 500 programs, at least judging by the press releases. (The most striking perhaps, was the wildly inaccurate press releases themselves, in hindsight).

SCHEDULE SLIPS
* "On September 5 (2007) (Boeing) announced a three-month delay, blaming a shortage of fasteners as well as incomplete software"

* "On October 10, 2007, a second three-month delay to the first flight and a six-month delay to first deliveries was announced".

*"On January 16, 2008, Boeing announced a third three-month delay to the first flight of the 787"

* "On April 9, 2008, Boeing officially announced a fourth delay, shifting the maiden flight to the fourth quarter of 2008"

* "November 4, 2008, the company announced another delay, this time caused by the incorrect installation of some of the structurally important fasteners"

* "Boeing confirmed on December 11, 2008, that the first flight would be delayed until the second quarter of 2009."

*"On June 23, 2009, Boeing issued a press release stating that the first flight is postponed..."

It is also interesting to note the EA500 "first flight" was likewise about 27 months late- the deposit locking first flight was August 28, 2002, the "real" first flight was December 31, 2004, 28 months later. It is also telling to note, in both cases, it was near the end of the year (VERY near, in Eclipse's case).

SUPPLY CHAIN PROBLEMS FROM OUTSOURCING

* "On March 28, 2008, in an effort to gain more control over the supply chain, Boeing announced that it plans to buy Vought Aircraft Industries' interest in Global Aeronautica, owner of the South Carolina plant that manufacturers major portions of the 787's fuselage. The purchase will make the assembly plant a 50–50 joint venture between Boeing and Italy's Alenia Aeronautica."

* "In July 2009, Boeing also agreed to purchase Vought's facility in North Charleston, S.C. that makes 787 fuselage sections, for a total cost of $1 billion."

CONTROVERSIAL FAA MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT

* "The national union representing about 190 Seattle-based FAA engineers this past Tuesday submitted a formal critique to the agency, calling the new policy "an unjustified step backward in safety."

* "The former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chairman who oversaw the TWA 800 investigation, said he's disappointed in the FAA but not surprised."

* "It appears that management has overruled the judgment of the people that have day-to-day responsibility for the safety of aircraft..."

STUPENDOUS BACKLOGS BEFORE IT EVER FLEW

* about 840 firm orders for the 787

* about 840 firm orders for the EA500

More or less, in both cases. The 787 firm backlog was over 900, but there have been some recent cancellations. The EA500 "order"(tm) book was "over 2700", but how many were "real"(tm)? Well, 260 were "delivered"(tm), and Shane reported there were several hundred jilted wantabe owners, and the law suits reported earlier had over 200 plaintiffs.

(Note: I have no doubt the 787 "firm" orders are indeed very real- the 737 "Next Generation" likewise had stupendous firm orders -over 1000- before certification, and they proved to be very real indeed. Plus, Boeing is a publicly traded company- too bad Eclipse was not obligated to adhere to the same transparency standards...).

ONE THING STANDS OUT...

With the advantage of hindsight, there is ONE singular item which is disturbingly ... convenient, about the entire 787 saga:

THE ROLL OUT WAS ON 7/8/7

So what? With said advantage of hindsight, it seems THAT was just a little bit too...CONTRIVED. (EXACTLY like the December 31, 2004 "first flight" of the EA-500: that sort of thing doesn't coincidentally happen- it was staged).

Which, could make one think perhaps ALL the scheduled events were just a bit too contrived- and that the schedules themselves are contrived.

Using what we've read on our predecesor blogs (EAC and EAC-NG), one can reasonably deduce went wrong at Eclipse- too much focus on meeting scheduled stunts, and not enough focus on real development. Meeting the scheduled milestones, even if so shallowly as to reduce them to being simply contrived stunts, seemed to take precedence over delaying "the show" of scheduled stunts, whether it be first flight, Oshkosh, Sun and Fun, "Certification"(tm), "Delivery"(tm), etc.

With that frame of reference established, one wonders how much the 787 program has suffered from "7/8/7" thinking (artificial/unrealistic milestones/schedules).

Wikipedia 787
FAA to Loosen Fuel Tank Safety Rules...

First Flight of the Airbus A400M

The Airbus A400M military transport aircraft had it's first flight on Friday, December 11, 2009 (Thanks to Julius for the tip).
As an aviation enthusiast, I consider every first flight an "event" of sorts, and I'm sure the EADS (European Aeronautic Defence & Space, the parent company of Airbus.
The NYTimes has short article, mentioning $30B to go (for 180 aircraft, $166.7M per copy), and 2 to 4 years late, depending on what one reads. (The C-130J is quoted as $48.5M in 1998 dollars- So it's probably more or less, about half what an A400M will cost. The A400M is purportedly faster, and has fly-by-wire flight controls. And, I believe we had some discussion about this technology a while back: COUNTER-rotating propellers, as opposed to countra-rotating propellers- the inboard and outboard props turn in different directions, but there is only one "row" of blades. "Contra-rotating propellers have been found to be between 6% and 16% more efficient than normal propellers[1]. However they can be very noisy, with increases in noise in the axial (forward and aft) direction of up to 30 db, and tangentially 10db").

(The Airbus website has a photo of the flight deck towards the bottom).

The aircraft is being built at the CASA facility in Seville, Spain- here's a really nice overview of the CASA facility.

The A400M seems to drop right into the notch between the C-130J and C-17; generally it is touted as a replacement for the C130J, which itself is a fairly recent replacement, of sorts, for the C-130-everything else (mostly H's). While relatively speaking a technical success (eventually), sales have not been overwhelming. The US has been a reluctant customer (the first two customers were the UK and Australia).
The customer list for the A400M is dominated by Germany (60) and France (50), with Spain on tap for 27, and the UK signed up for 25 (same as their original C130J order). Some attribute recent (modest) foreign C-17 sales to delays in the A400M program.
I thought it would be interesting to compare the recent airlift platforms operated by the USA, including the C141 (finally retired in 2006).
The C130J is hard to pin down, I've used "standard" fuel (not including the 18000 lbs in commonly attached external pods, and the -30 length for an extra 15 foot of floor space).
(Ranges and altitudes are important, but have been omitted because they are just too variable, depending on load):


AIRCRAFT________ C-130J-30 __ A400M __ C-141B ___ C-17 ___C-5B
MTOW (LB)________ 164,000 __ 310,852 _ 343,000 _ 585,000 _ 840,000
EMPTY (LB)_________ 75,562 __ 154,000 _ 144,492 _ 282,500 _ 380,000
MAX FUEL (LB)______ 44,240 __ 111,333 __ 153,352 _ 243,134 _ 349,886
MAX CARGO (LB)_____ 44,500 __ 82,000 __ 94,508 _ 170,900 _ 270,000
CARGO (MAX FUEL)___ 44,198 __ 45,519 ___ 45,156 _ 59,365 _ 110,134

Obviously, aerial refueling is an important part of the utility equation when flying at the maximum cargo load with all these airlifters. (Throw on the typical C130 external tanks with over 18,000 lbs of fuel, and it's cargo payload gets cut almost in half too).

A limiting factor in a lot of airlift operations is volume, particularly floor space. The C-130's were stretched in Europe until the C-130J offered the 15 foot stretch from the factory. (Great for hauling cargo, but the extra length was a modest complication in "tactical" (read: short field) operations. The C-141 was stretched (and aerial refueling added) as a result of experience during the airlift to Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The C-17 has been mentioned as a candidate for a stretch too, although nothing has come of that yet. (Instead, it's the production line that keeps getting stretched out, for the past 3 years or so).

With cargo voume in mind, here's the cargo bay dimensions, with just the flat floor shown for "length" (not the cargo ramp, which is usable to various degrees).

AIRCRAFT_______ C-130J-30 __ A400M __ C-141B __ C-17 ___C-5B
LENGTH (FT)_______ 55 ______ 58.10 ___ 93.3 ____ 88 _____ 121
WIDTH (FT)________ 9.5 _____ 13.12 ____ 10.3 ____ 18 _____ 19
HEIGHT (FT)_______ 9.0 _____ 12.63 ____ 9.1 ____ 12.3 ____ 13.5
463L PALLETS________ 7 _______ 7 _____ 13 _____ 18 _____ 36
FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)_ 522 ______ 763 ____ 961 ___ 1584 ___ 2299

On the other hand, sometimes heavy items DO need to be carried, the M1 Tank being the flashiest bling-bling at most parties. The C-17 can carry one. I suppose if we just put the barrel of an M1 tank on the C17, it would remove the need to transport the actual tank itself. (Which is sort of what the AC-130 does, with the 105 mm howitzer). Or maybe just lower the back ramp and let 'em shoot from there- great fun! (Hey, if you can launch an ICBM from the back, why not?).

More pedestrian uses of airlifters involved the Stryker ground vehicle, which will fit inside a C-130, per design. (At over 22 feet in length, these are reported to be somewhat ponderous to maneuver in parking lots, but get great respect at the exit gate).

It looks as if one wishes to haul their Bradley Fighting Vehicle around, the A400M is a good fit.

(The 463L Pallet is an Air Force cargo standard, outer dimensions 88" x 108" x 10,000 lb capacity. These dimensions don't take full advantage of the A400M's width, so the fact it and the C130J-30 both carry seven is slightly misrepresentative- one of the items I read states the A400M has twice the cargo volume of a C130, but I suspect that refers to the 40 foot floor of the C-130J-10 and all the C130E and H's).

A400M "cutaway" view.
A400M First Flight Video
A400M avionic suite
Main Landing Gear Configuration
Who makes What
(Although I think South Africa has pulled out of the deal- odd, just five weeks before first flight...)

A Day That Will Live In Infamy

My apologies for the tardiness of this headline post.

And, for taking "poetic license", in posting a non-aviation headline.

The headline I intended to post will be up on the next thread- delayed as it were, by reflections upon December 7- 1941 in particular. Which was the "trigger event" for the US entry into WW2.

I have thought long and often on this, and I still can't understand why the United States entered WW2 with such enthusiasm. How did we go from such an isolationist stance (or maybe not so isolationist, given the industrial significance of the "lend lease" deal), to such a seemingly non-linear reaction; the horror of over 400,000 combat deaths for the US for the war, in response to over 2,000 deaths at Pearl.

(And one of the later combat deaths involved a special uncle- his specialness becoming known to me only as older relatives relate details to the "younger generation". Which I suppose is why I have pondered the events ultimately precipitating his death with more "critical analysis" this year- certainly something which our blog has excelled at over the past years.

In today's parlance, it would seem a more "limited response" would have been both more appropriate, and less costly for the US.

The only rationale I can surmise, was that it was envisioned to be a short war. Maybe that's the way ALL wars start- it seems Hitler thought so when he invaded Russia (and probably the same goes for Britain and France when they declared war on Germany after Poland was invaded).

(I thought the US did respond with, in retrospect- frankly surprising appropriateness after 9/11- it would seem that moderation would have been considered in 1941. I not disagreeing that the world is better off with the response we had- although decades of Stalinist and Red Chinese rule were arguable no less evil than Nazism and Japanese Imperialism; I'm just perplexed how we swung from mostly isolationist to "total war" in about one day in late 1941).

Rest assured, I do not intend to change the focus of the blog away from aviation. And I don't want to interrupt the ongoing dialog, particularly on two items I'm most interested in, light GA and the 787 (I'm still not sure it will fly this year!, although word is "before Christmas"). But there are a lot of smart people who read and post here- and I would appreciate their reflections upon the why the U.S. entered WW2 with such vigor, rather than participating in a more specific, measured response, as well as their insightful observations on aircraft and the aircraft industry.

Thanks,
Phil

Shades of Disruption!

While touring about one-third of the USA over the Thanksgiving holiday (via: Dash-8, CRJ-700, A320, and 737, so far...) I had some time to do some reading. Okay, looking at pictures- and some reading too.

Drawn to aviation magazines at the airport gift shops, I came upon the November 2009 copy of Plane & Pilot, with the Icon A5 on the cover (different pic than the one shown here).

I hadn't intended on doing another headline about Light Sport Aircraft, at least not so soon, but the article well, set off the Disruption Alert Monitor (DAM) in my little brain.

As a somewhat gushy sort myself, I'll give the P&P writers a pass on the somewhat gushy "Rock Star" accolades regarding: the airplane, designers, staff, CEO, future owners, etc.

Where things seem a little, star-struck and rocky, are the observation:

"...the James Bondian prototype was unveiled at a very rock 'n' roll premiere in Los Angeles in June 2008. The lavish affair was complete with stage lighting, beautiful people, pumping music, and celebrities...".

Well, sounds like fun. Not to sound hurt or anything about not being invited, I was curious about who did attend. The Icon web site has a nice article about the "coming out" party. (I have to confess, I struggled recognizing the beautiful people, (the redheaded guy in the headlock turns out NOT to be Carrot Top, but rather Shaun White. OK, me too, so here- interesting picture with Sir Richard. Strange little incestuous world we seem to be discovering- more about that in a future headline). Not pictured but mentioned elsewhere was Jeremy McGrath, probably one of the 5 best motocross racers in the past 30 years- seems the Icon CEO Kirk Hawkins is a sporting type, interested in skiing and motocross- picks some world class chums to hang with). The single (well, single main-stream anyway) celeb I noted was Buzz Aldrin, the second guy on the moon. Buzz turns 80 in a couple of months, so I find it a little odd he'd be attending a LSA debut. Paid appearance, perhaps? Maybe a complimentary Icon whenever they come off the line- by then, I would expect even a former astronaut might be comforted knowing that a sport pilot license does not require a medical. (Not sure about military flight physicals- I remember seeing Barry Goldwater shuffling along with a cane, and then clambering into the back seat of an F-16, so maybe Buzz has some leeway...).

Anyway, back to what set off the DAM:

"In an extraordinary example of viral marketing, Icon has- almost without trying- created an airplane so anticipated by the general public that it has leapt outside the geriatric boundaries of general aviation...".

Wow. Okay then. Time for US to step in and give this thing a look.

(And I'm sure Buzz would appreciate it if that were changed to "generic" boundaries).

First of all, this is being built to pass the Light Sport certification regs, rather than the "onerous" FAR23 standards. I am becoming less and less enamored with LSA certification, and frankly, wonder why a LSA shouldn't have to stand up to the same requirements as a Cessna 152. After considerable contemplation, the ONLY reason I can see the FAA establishing LSA is to avoid the expense of reviewing numerous small aircraft programs, and avoiding some sort of liability exposure, even if it's only moral or political exposure. The EAA was behind the sport pilot licensing, which I can understand, and appreciate- why they would become involved in fighting OEM legal and regulatory battles stretches the imagination. ("Good for the flying public" I suppose- perhaps some of our fellow bloggers can shed some light on this). Lots of airplanes are being certified to LSA/NTSM standards, so I'll cut the Icon guys some slack on that one.

The design team was recruited from Scaled Composites- they are very good with prototypes, but shall we say less than stellar record of successfully certified derivatives. Maybe the LSA rules will present, um,...less of a challenge.

Only two people have flown the airplane- and one of them is the lead engineer, and the other is the CEO?? That seems very odd. Credit to both of them for being highly experienced, but multiple inputs are the norm. (Maybe there aren't any other pilots? Is the operation that small?)

Being built with "disposable tooling" that allows two or three uses? Oh? How, ah, very ...interesting.

Over 450 orders, and "Standard A5 deliveries are scheduled to begin fall 2012, with position 450 delivery estimated for Q4 2013". Lets see- 450 airplanes, on disposable tooling, in the first year of production. Ooookay.

And, those "orders"- $5K down, fully refundable (and escrowed! Silicon Valley Bank. Yeah for Icon for doing the ethical thing). But that only comes out to a bit over $2M. Outside "angel" and venture capital has been obtained (sufficient to take the program through certification and production startup. R-i-g-h-t. I suppose compared to some of the big ticket IT adventures in Silicon Valley (where the players in this seem to be from), this is chump change- maybe $20-50M to get it going? (Anyone think it will be only $5-10M? For build quantities approaching 500, the first year? More like $100M for that volume probably. How do you make a small fortune in aviation?...)

Icon does have a nice up-front purchase contract.
($139K+CPI, figure 3 years. Standard equipment: manual folding wing, steam gages, no BRS- seems like a CPI'd, optioned up one would come in around, say, getting close to $200K or so..).

I'm a bit concerned about the wing fold thing- there is a video of it, but "we already have that mechanism tested" doesn't quite jive with "they've built the actual mechanism, (but) the implementation needs to be finalized".

I was also a little puzzled about the first flight video.
One, why did it take place on a lake, instead of a long runway, with crash crews, ambulances, etc.- and without the risk of drowning. Two, where is the chase plane? It is a ground based video- no chase plane? A bit substandard.

(An alternate explanation dawns on me- could it be they don't even have a hangar at an airport? -the home page shows landing at a land airport, but is it a touch and go from the lake?)

After watching the video several times to detect a chase plane- I think the takeoff "roll"(?whatever it's called for an amphibian?) was shot from a boat(?)- the engine start scene puzzled me- why it just starts moving. Then it dawned on me- fixed pitch prop, the airplane starts moving as soon as the crank starts turning. It would be helpful to have a variable pitch prop for zero thrust- maybe even a reversible one for shorter landing and crude maneuvering. But LSA rules say fixed (or ground adjustable) pitch only. And speaking of maneuvering- don't float planes usually have water rudders? (Not a big thing to add, but I don't see it yet. The engine placement would make the air rudder pretty effective, but sometimes more speed isn't a good thing).

Speaking of propulsion- the 100 HP Rotax "is enough power, but we're looking at the turbo charged engine". Cha-Ching!

The Wall Street Journal article mentions "barely 9 feet across".
The California DMV says 108 inches for the trailer, 102 inches for cargo- looks like a tight squeeze. I assume they designed for it. In California anyway.

One other thing concerns me- the flight test is taking place at Lake Isabella, a lovely little lake, in the middle of nowhere (I've been there in passing).
"This is a machine that appeals in a big way to nonpilots and is changing the public perception of flying...that is Skimming just 20 feet above the water, I sense the fun and excitement that Hawkins is working to convey". I have some concern that flying boats will, to some degree, indeed "change the public perception of flying"...mostly in response to noise.

How about the management experience at Icon?
The "team" has a lot of smart guys, but any aircraft manufacturing experience? NOPE.
Don't worry- there is a "board of directors and advisors":
John Dorton- CEO of a boat company
Vern Raburn- Lately?
Jim Ellis- a lecturer at Stanford
Bruce Holmes- Ex-NASA, of airspace "modernization", AGATE, and air taxi fame.
David Kelly- Industrial designer
Esther Dyson- "noted visionary"
Ilan Kroo- Aero Prof at Stanford (certification experience?)
Stewart Reed- industrial designer for automobiles
Troy Lee- industrial designer of sporting apparel and concept cars.
David Beech- Manufacturing engineer at Stanford ("Innovative Manufacturing").
Smart folks, no doubt. But aircraft manufacturing experience? (As a group, quite limited. The first three are directors, the next seven are advisors- handy for determining the interior colors and such. Plus, maybe they can help out with the books too- at some airplane companies the directors apparently were color blind, at least when it came to red ink versus black).

Anyways- the Icon looks like a fun project. And I think it is technically feasible. How affordable, profitable, practical, and plausible, well...I wish them well.

(This month's edition of Plane & Pilot- has lots of fun articles- Light Sport avionics, electric airplanes, convective weather, VFR corridors, Cessna 206).

It appears the Cessna Skycatcher is about to enter "the real world". Rose Pelton, wife of Cessna CEO Jack Pelton, will be the first customer. It's interesting to study what -might- be the start of major OEM involvement in the trainer market again, first time in, literally, a generation- the Cessna 152 production ceased in 1985.

And speaking of a new generation (of avionics), the Skycatcher comes with a glass cockpit. (After our many discussions regarding standby indicators, I was perplexed that there is not one in the 162. But the airplane is not offered as an IFR paltform (and LSA-only pilots are restricted to Day VFR).

(This article is a bit dated, Garmin G300 to Make Debut on Cessna 162 LSA (Aviation Week, Fred George, July 20, 2007), but might be indicative of the cost savings philosophy on the SkyCatcher program: "The new Garmin G300 avionics package, a de-contented, non-TSOed, VFR-only outgrowth of Garmin's G1000 integrated system..." The Cessna website has this press release regarding the 162 and Garmin G300- "Quite literally made for each other".

One kind of odd looking item, is the pilot control- Cessna Cuts Pilot Training Cost In Half (Flying Magazine, J. Mac McClellan, Oct 2007) notes "The fulcrum of the sticks is configured so that control inputs feel like those of a centrally mounted stick on the floor instead of a sidestick, or some other kind of push and twist arrangement." (Roomier and more convenient for entry and egress, I suppose).

Cessna LSA Flies
(AVweb, Oct 16, 2006)
"Cessna's proof-of-concept entry into the light sport aircraft category flew for the first time last Friday (the 13th). The 33-minute flight originated at McConnell Air Force Base and ended at Mid-Continent Airport in Wichita."
(Not a superstitious bunch!)

"The LSA also has a free-castering nosewheel and, although it's about 200 pounds lighter than a 152, its cockpit is about six inches wider. Cessna CEO Jack Pelton says the LSA market is the fastest-growing sector in aviation and could be a crucial factor in reigniting interest in personal aviation."
(Hmm, six inches wider. One could wonder what really is the fastest growing "sector" in aviation).

"An important part of our thought process in looking at LSA is the value in terms of new pilot starts," Pelton said in the release. The company's thought is that today's LSA pilot will be tomorrow's Skyhawk -- or Citation -- owner."

Using the Cessna 162 article in Wikipedia, it is interesting to map out the timeline for the Skycatcher:

* Jan. 2006- Program launched

*Oct. 13, 2006- nine months after launching the program, the concept prototype aircraft, registered N158CS flies.

*July 22, 2007- at Oshkosh, unveiled a full-scale mockup and details about the planned production version.

*Nov. 27, 2007- Cessna announced that the Cessna 162 would be made in China

*March 8, 2008- The conforming prototype had its first flight

*May 5, 2008- The first initial production configuration aircraft flew

*Sept. 18, 2008- Prototype crashes (spin testing- The aircraft was equipped with a Ballistic Recovery System parachute, but it failed to deploy when activated)

*Late 2008- The 162 received a redesigned vertical stabilizer...with the new larger fin the dorsal fin was unneeded and was deleted from the design to save weight

*March 19, 2009 -A second prototype crashes (spin testing- BRS deployed, but "The pilot exited the aircraft and attempted to remove the parachute, which remained attached to the aircraft. Wind then dragged the aircraft 0.6 miles into a fence, leaving it inverted and heavily damaged".)

*Mid 2009- The final production 162 incorporated a thicker wing and further changes to the tail, including a ventral fin, to make the aircraft more resistant to spins.

*Sept. 17, 2009- The first production Cessna 162 had its initial flight in China

*Nov. 2009- the company indicated that it expected to deliver the first production SkyCatcher...by the end of 2009

The program has been met with good market acceptance, "In July 2009, orders were still reported at "over 1,000." The forecast production rates I've read vary from 300-700 per year (based largely on which year the article was published).

It is interesting to note the "extra" testing Cessna has conducted, beyond the Light Sport Aircraft requirements.
"The company indicated that the testing was outside that required for LSA certification...The aircraft entered an unintentional flat spin and was not under control at 5,000 feet (1,500 m), at which point the test pilot bailed out of the aircraft. Cessna confirmed that the 162 entered a spin from cross-controlled, power-on stall, that the spin became flat and recovery was not possible."

And from the Cessna press release (July 27, 2009)

"In several areas, Cessna conducted additional tests on the SkyCatcher not required by the ASTM International standards, such as an extensive Ground Vibration Test (GVT) and instrumented, in-flight flutter testing. Planned testing, also not required by ASTM, includes an airframe fatigue test to ensure a durable product for the training environment."

I certainly applaud Cessna for the extra testing they have conducted. But I must confess, I am rather perplexed that this is "extra", and not regulatory.

*Spin testing
*flutter testing
*fatigue testing

It seems to me these should all be mandatory, and not left to the owner to become unwitting "test pilots"/guinea pigs.


NTSB asks FAA to ground Zodiac CH-601XL
"The NTSB has asked the ATSM to take the following actions: 1) Add requirements to ensure the standards for light sport airplanes reduce the potential for aerodynamic flutter to develop; 2) develop standards on stick force characteristics for light sport airplanes that minimize the possibility of pilot’s inadvertently over-controlling the airplane; and 3) ensure standards for light sport airplanes result in accurate airspeed indications and appropriate documentation in new airplane pilot operating handbooks."

Isn't this kind of what we have the FAA for?

(Not to pick on the Zodiac 601- it seems to be a quite popular airplane, but rather to express concern over the relaxation of purposeful regulatory standards, namely, the FAA Part 23 standards).

A little research turned up this AOPA article from 2004.
"FAA Administrator Marion Blakey on Tuesday, July 20, 2004, officially unveiled the long-awaited Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft rule that allows many pilots to fly light sport aircraft with a valid driver's license in lieu of a medical certificate and creates new, less-expensive ways to become a pilot."

Seems like M. Blakey was quite an "enthusiast" of "new, less expensive", and perhaps- disruptive- ways of circumventing established certification processes, on a number of levels. (I'm okay with the idea of using a driver's license for a 1320 lb airplane, rather than medical exam, but think the pilot training for LSA is in general, an unwise simplification, perhaps appropriate/adequate for those in rural areas, but not in general).

(That's good material for another day- but for now),
Congratulations to Cessna 162 design team.

So, How 'bout those Single Engine Jets? I thought it would be fun to see how the Cirrus program is coming along. Things have been a bit "disruptive" lately, with some management changes, but I think it is a promising program.

There's a great short article in Flying Magazine, March 2009, by Robert Goyer, Cirrus Vision Jet Gets Lighter. While tempted to place it "between" the Eclipse EA400 and EA500, marketing-wise, it is interesting to note that at 6000 MTOW (or 5,999, depending), and 1900 lbs thrust, spec-wise, it is much closer to the EA500. Performance wise, it is not quite so impressive compared to the EA500 though, with a full-fuel usable load of 400 lbs, and a max speed of 320 knots (odd that Cirrus compares it to the SR-22 Turbo: "Cirrus is designing the Vision SF50 jet to be a step-up aircraft for a pilot currently flying a high-performance single, like the Cirrus TURBO, or a twin engine piston rather than being a down-sized business jet. The Vision will carry more payload, farther and faster than the Cirrus TURBO while maintaining the same outstanding handling characteristics". Certianly the SR22 turbo is a very fine airplane, but still, using that comparison in one's own marketing information seems a bit overly modest. (Especially if there is a 300-400 percent price difference...)

"The New Cirrus Jet"
(Philip Greenspun's Blog; June 17, 2009- (It's not so new to readers here). Seems like I frequently come across Philg's postings when I'm searching for something or other on the web regarding airplanes. He's a good writer and observer- an interesting read indeed.
"I sat in a mock-up of the new Cirrus Jet today alongside Alan Klapmeier, the company’s co-founder". "If the Cirrus Vision jet can be delivered at anywhere near the originally promised price ($1 million 2006 dollars) it will certainly be a revolution in family jet" (!?! Guess KoolAid had to make up for lost sales in New Mexico somehow).
(About six weeks later, Alan Klapmeier was out, and his bid to take over the program rejected. Sounds like an outstandingly talented and pssionate aviation enthusiast. But I wonder if that poppycock about $1M had something to do with it...I think we've seen enough of that kind of bunk for a while. Still, he did a great job growing Cirrus from 1984-1999. Too bad Eclipse didn't study Cirrus. Or Cessna).

S-T-E-P Right Up!!
(This is from the Cirrus web site, Nov 16, 2009):
"Our expectations for the base cost will start around $1 Million US dollars...We are presently accepting deposits* for delivery positions and we will eventually ramp up to a delivery rate of one jet per business day. We expect the annual order rate will closely match the delivery rate, so the wait will never be shorter than it is now."

Private Plane Manufacturer Cirrus Aircraft Offers Vision Jet
(International Business Times, September 10, 2009):
"Customers who reserve their aircraft between now and December 31, 2009, with a non-refundable $100,000 deposit, the maximum purchase price for a Vision Jet will be $1.55 million. The price will then increase beginning in January 2010".

Cirrus Hiking the Price of Vision Jet
(AIN, Chad Trautvetter, October 1, 2009):
"Cirrus Aircraft last month raised the price of the single-engine Vision Jet, a personal VLJ, to $1.39 million for existing position holders and to $1.55 million for new orders placed before December 31. The price increases to $1.72 million for orders placed after January 1."

(? $1.0M, $1.39M, $1.55M, $1.72M, in "2009 dollars", think maybe $2.0M in 2012?)

"Cirrus Jet in Capital Crunch, But Progressing
(AVweb, Mary Grady, November 5, 2009):
"Undertaking the development of a light jet is a project "not for the faint of heart," Cirrus CEO Brent Wouters said at AOPA's Aviation Summit on Thursday..."
(Nor for the light of wallet...at least not when they start... although they do tend to get that way).

A memo from Brent Wouters, Cirrus President & CEO to Cirrus Aircraft Employees.
(Cirrus, November 10, 2009):
"Cirrus CEO notes significant progress in last 12 months, seasonal adjustsments still to be made and increasing optimism heading into 2010 in message to all employees".
(Nice that he's trying to keep everyone informed- I suspect the rumor mill there had a jump on the story before it was official though).

Cirrus Reduces Staffing Levels
(NorthlandNewsCenter, November 11, 2009):
"Company officials say more than 50 people are being furloughed...Cirrus officials says the move is in regard to an anticipated decline in economic demand during the first quarter of next year...Officials say the curtailments will not impede progress on Cirrus' jet program."

Cirrus Vision Overview
Nice slide show for "jet position holders". (That sounds a little more dignified than the Eclipse "position holders" nomenclature).

(Despite earlier metion of the L3 SmartDeck avionics package, the overview says V1 prototype updated to Garmin Perspective, which makes sense, since their piston lineup also uses Garmin).

But it looks as if there were some hard feelings over that:
L-3 seeks $21.7 M from Cirrus in SmartDeck Lawsuit.
(AINonline, Stephen Pope, July 1, 2009):
"L-3 says Cirrus then agreed to go ahead with the purchase of 75 SmartDeck systems, but in December asked that L-3 not ship the systems because of a slowdown in aircraft orders. In February L-3 sent Cirrus a bill for $18.7 million to cover SmartDeck development costs. Cirrus allegedly replied that it owed L-3 only $3.5 million–the stated purchase price for the 75 systems. Since then, “Cirrus has failed to pay any amount due to L-3 and has not responded to any communications from L-3,” the avionics maker said in its lawsuit, which is requesting an additional $2.99 million to recover money allegedly owed for stand-alone systems."

And, with the Cirrus cancellation, so far no announced OEM is using the L3 SmartDeck avionics package (New Flat Glass "L3 introduces SmartDeck with Huge Displays"
(Flying Magazine, November 2007, J. Mac McClellan).
Well, I guess in 2007 12.1 inches was "huge".
Still pretty nice, but I think the Garmin G3000 is 14.1 inches).
(Consistent with apparently no firm users for the SmartDeck, the L3 website, all the "news" articles are from 2007...)

As some have pointed out, the now-cancelled Grob SPn was using the Honeywell Apex avionics suite.

Grob went bankrupt, but it looks like somebody has bought them (yeah!), as their website seems to still be up, with some recent minor news).

Interestingly, as others have noted, Avidyne has a nice upgrade package for the piston powered SR-22 Cirrus aircraft).

Looks like Cirrus was going to use the old Northwest Airlines facility at MSP for the Vision Jet, until things slowed down.

The Airplane that won the Cold War

That's a pretty impressive accolade! Where'd I get such a notion? By reading an article in the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine (July 2008), which perhaps put it even a bit more "enthusiastically", naming it one of the ten "Aircraft That Changed The World".

What secret military technology did this device conceal? Well, none. It was the "mission" it was flown on, also expounded upon by the Smithsonian some time earlier (June/July 2005 issue), "The Notorious Flight of Mathias Rust".

At the time, the general perception conveyed in the U.S. press, was this was an amusing stunt performed by a naive but somewhat unbalanced and delusional extremist.

(And, perhaps he was...Mathias Rust).

But to his credit, he had done some thinking (on things besides flight planning: 550 nm flight was at the far end of the Cessna's range): "To many Europeans, Mikhail Gorbachev’s ascendancy to the Soviet leadership in 1985 offered a glimmer of hope. Glasnost, his policy of transparency in government, and perestroika, economic reforms at home, were radical departures from the policies of his predecessors. So when the U.S.-Soviet summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986 ended without an arms reduction deal, Rust felt despair. He was particularly angered by Reagan’s reflexive mistrust of the Soviet Union, which Rust felt had blinded the president to the historic opportunity Gorbachev presented."

Reykjavik Summit, Oct 11-12, 1986.

With today, November 9, being the 20th anniversary of the nominal observation of the "fall of the Berlin Wall", I think the humble Cessna 172 deserves it's due credit.

From U.S. News and World Report, June 15, 1987:
"Mathias Rust surely had no thoughtof doing Mikhail Gorbachev a favor. But last week, Gorbachev was trying to turn what could have been humiliation into opportunity by undercutting the old military establishment and launching what may be the long-awaited mopup of opponents--military and civilian --who impede his reforms. Rust's tiny plane, which he had flown unscathed through vaunted Soviet air defenses, was still parked near Red Square when Gorbachev began firing and promoting military brass. His dismissal of Defense Minister Sergei Sokolov, 75, appeared only the first step in a purge of recalcitrant officers."

Gorbachev and glasnost: viewpoints from the Soviet Press by Isaac J. Tarasulo, Dec 1989):
"For two years Gorachev did not attempt to interfere with military personnel decisions. While military leaders supported Gorbachev's call for revitalizing the Soviet economy, they believed themselves exempt from these changes. Exempt, that is, until May 1987. On May 28, 1987, nineteen-year-old Mathias Rust landed his Cessna 172 in Red Square..."

NYTimes, June 1, 1987:
A Test for Gorbachev...
"The scalding public indictment of the military signaled that even the most revered and powerful institutions would be subject to open criticism...Since taking office in March 1985, Mr. Gorbachev has pressed to hold down growth in military spending and has pursued a number of foreign policy initiatives, including an 18-month moratorium on underground nuclear testing, that have troubled the military." (How's that go again, that we forced the Soviet Union to economic collapse with an arms spending race?)

"Tear Down This Wall". (Ronnie reads his lines, on June 12, 1987. He was in Germany to bolster support for Pershing II nuclear missile deployments in Europe).

Two weeks after the Cessna 172 landed.

Reagan ends his second term, on Jan 21, 1989.

"In May of 1989, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev visited West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Gorbachev told Kohl the Soviets would not block democratic reforms in Warsaw Pact nations".

In June 1989, the Polish elections legitmize Solidarity.

On August 23, 1989, Hungary removed its physical border defences with Austria, and in September more than 13,000 East German tourists in Hungary escaped to Austria.

The East German head of state Erich Honecker, from 1971 until 1989, is forced by his own Poltiburo to resign on October 18, 1989. (The big significance: "In 1961, Honecker, as the Central Committee secretary for security matters, was in charge of the building of the Berlin Wall.")

"East German government announced on November 9, 1989, after several weeks of civil unrest, that all GDR citizens could visit West Germany and West Berlin."

"The fall of the Berlin Wall paved the way for German reunification, which was formally concluded on October 3, 1990."

What a wonderful moment in history, to be celebrated! It was amazing how fast Germany reunification happened- I remember estimates of the year 2020-2040. (Erich Honecker, The Party Leader in East Germany:"The Wall will be standing in 50 and even in 100 years, if the reasons for it are not yet removed." (Berlin, 19 January 1989).

What's Next for Eclipse ?

Now that the drama regarding Eclipse Aviation Corporation bankruptcy has been resolved, with Eclipse Aerospace winning the bid for $40M (or, well $20M plus promises to Al Mann and others, and discounting the $10M that Al Mann put in himself, leaving $10M, of which around half was borrowed, we can conclude that the fabulous assets of EAC (and none of the even more fabulous liabilities) were "locked up" for about $5M plus another $5M OPM (other people's money). Anyone think a $5M+ player is going to restart production with those kind of "deep pockets"? I think there's two probabilities:

1) No How
2) No Way

IMHO: They're gonna flip that sucker like a pancake!

From the press releases (admittedly, perhaps a bit, "Verntastic"), the facilities and infrastructure, and inventory and IP, were all substantial, worth MUCH more than $5M or $10M. For comparison, Cessna paid $26M for Columbia, a company with a very nice, but MUCH lower price point than the Eclipse (at least, a sustainable price point). That was during the "boom" times; but with all probability, there's going to be another "boom" time again, as our investigation of the past five business cycles, over the past 40 years showed.And when it comes, the Eclipse facility will be a hot commodity- I'd figure, with IP and what will be by then, a fully functioning parts and service network. I'd say to the tune of $100M or more.

And until then, Eclipse Aerospace wins, and the customers and supplier base wins, with parts and service support. NewCo might even make some bucks selling off excess facilities. Or subcontracting bits and pieces for other OEMs (aviation or non-aviation related) in lieu of manufacturing restart up. And make some bucks on the training program. And some bucks on the DayJet fleet. And some bucks on the assembly line articles- if they can be finished and delivered, even without PC (using individual FAA inspection- there's not all that many of them). And make some bucks either selling or licensing the EA400 Single Engine Jet (Con-Jet). For that matter, even licensing the EA500, without ever restarting production in ABQ.

Maybe some bucks in licensing the Phoestrex patent? (If the legal squable- yes, ANOTHER Eclipse OldCo legal squabble, has been patched up with the patent holders- see Dave Ivedorne's excellent post, on March 25, 2009, 2:54 PM). Although OldCo claimed it patented Monday and sunrises, there is some legal dispute in those regards as well. (I think a patent for Friday afternoon would be more marketable than the one for Monday morning though).

Or doing some sort of contract FSW for a military program or two?

I for one, think some foreign interests might pursue Eclipse, either license or the entire factory; Piper was bought by Imprimis, based in Brunei. (Apparently, for $20M in 1998+ $35M in 2003 + $31M profit = $86M. According to GAMA; in FY 2008, Piper delivered 216 pistons, and 52 turbines, Eclipse delivered 161 aircraft- in the first 8 months or so- I suspect Eclipse "out billed" Piper, and it would have been even more so if EAC hadn't stalled in the last part of the year).

And Emivest of Dubai owns the old (VERY old now) SJ30 program (nie, Sino-Swearingen SJ30; arguably/possibly, the only GA story rivaling Eclipse for weirdness).

How interested were the Russians? Since Eclipse denied (for a while anyway) any Russian connection, I figure just the opposite was true, to some extent. And remember, oil prices, on which the Russian boom was based, were over $125/barrel in the heady times of initial ETIRC involvement, but plummeted to below $50/barrel, when the time came to close the deal.

How interested were the Chinese? Definitely some courtship, at least contemplated. ("AIN has been in contact with a person who said he represents a Chinese company interested in bidding on the Eclipse assets, but he would not reveal any details by the time this article was published. He also would not confirm if he represents China Commercial Aircraft, which is interested in bidding on Eclipse’s assets, according to a March 17 article in the Albuquerque Journal." For those not following the Chinese aviation industry, there has been a shakeout/re-organization in progress, actually, for the last six months or so- which might have, er, dare I say- disrupted- plans for Chinese involvement. As might engine and avionics technology export concerns, etc. By sitting on the assets, EAC-NewCo might be, literally, buying time, for these details to be worked out. (The blog reported the FBI was asking questions some months back, presumably related to technology export concerns, with an undisclosed suitor).

And per the article about Columbia Aircraft above, they were owned by an affiliate of the Malaysian government.

How about Fuji Heavy Industries- they are doing the FSW wing assembly, with tooling and technology shipped from Albuquerque to Japan- maybe they'd be interested in buying the rest of the tooling and IP for an EA500 final assembly line in Japan? (Or just keeping in in New Mexico, for ease of dealing with a Production Certificate).

And I'm not arguing that production of the EA500 won't restart, and not even that it won't restart in ABQ- I think it very well might. (And personally, I hope so- on both accounts).

But I just don't see it happening with the current team that took months scraping together $5-10M. It will be a deep pockets adventure ($100-200M, if the ETIRC figures used in 2008 are a reasonable guide).

Could the current owners restart production? Possibly. But why would they want to, if they can "flip" the company for a 500-1000% return in a couple of years? And make a profit in the mean time, by providing parts and service.

Personally, I think they've made a very smart move by acquiring the assets to Eclipse. If the plane turns out to be a turkey, they make a mint by providing engineering, service, and parts. On the other hand, if turns out to be a great airplane, that just enhances the market value of the production facilities, once the larger economy improves in a year or two. Which is about the time it will take to work through the Dayjet fleet and customer-delivered rework.

So I think they're pretty smart guys (and seemingly, pretty honest guys too). My bet is they are smart enough to be aware of the adage;

"Q: How do you make a small fortune in aviation?"
"A: By starting with a large one."

I think there is nowhere that this is more true than in the manufacturing end of aviation.

Of course, priorities change, when working with OPM (other people's money). As we have well seen.

Still, I'd buy stock in Spatula City!

"NEGLIGENT MISREPRSENTATION, NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO OVERSEE AND CONTROL, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES, CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW MEXICO UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT"

There has been some buzz on the blog about pending civil legal action involving jilted depositors. Looks like, as usual, the blog was on to something.

A casual perusal of www.NMCourts.gov/caselookup/app, and using a small variety of names and keywords commonly associated with the former Eclipse Aviation Corporation* reveals:

Case Number: D-202-CV-200911924
SM et al .v. Raburn V et al
Court: ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT
Filing Date: 10/09/2009
(140 plaintiffs)
Which alleges:
"NEGLIGENT MISREPRSENTATION, NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO OVERSEE AND CONTROL, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES, CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW MEXICO UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT"

Against defendants (with the results of an internet name search and their probable association with Eclipse):

Vern Raburn...(CEO)
Harold Poling...(BoD)
Kent Kresa...(BoD)
Al Mann...(BoD)
Edward Lundeen...(VP International Sales)
Roland Pieper...(CEO)
Mike McConnell...(President & GM)
Andrew Kamm...(VP Finance)
Mark Borseth...(CFO)
Margaret Billson...(COO)
Todd Fierro...(VP of manufacturing)
John Ricciardelli...(VP Product Support)
Andrew Vitka...(VP/Chief Accounting Officer)
Matthew Malfitano...(Director of sales)
Ricardo Conreras...(legal dept)

This case was filed on Oct 9th; a few days later several others were filed, with different plaintiffs:
Case Number: D-1329-CV-200902423
VF Manufacturing .v. Vern Raburn
Court: BERNALILLO DISTRICT
Filing Date: 10/14/2009
"Breach of Contract"
(2 plaintiffs)

Case Number: D-101-CV-200903325
Opus et al .v. Vern Raburn et al
Court: Santa Fe District
Filing Date: 10/14/2009
"Contract Miscellaneous"
(79 plaintiffs)

Case Number: D-202-CV-200912018
Echo Leasing, et al .v. Raburn, V. et al
Court: ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT
Filing Date: 10/14/2009
Other Damages
(45 plaintiffs)

While the first suit names (with 140 plaintiffs) features exclusively prominent figures, these last three have a mixture of prominent, and seemingly obscure (nothing came up on the internet in association with Eclipse) persons- I am sad to see difficulty in anyone's life- whether it be financial, health, family, or legal duress. Many involved with Eclipse have already suffered enough duress already. (I would suspect some were just "in the wrong place, at the wrong time").

On the other hand, to read the old Eclipse Press Releases, many of which were patently ludicrous, makes a person wonder, just who knew what- and when.

While it is distressing to contemplate how much cash Eclipse incinerated, WAY past the point of economic viability, at least to a) anyone who has studied the aviation industry for a modest amount of time, and/or b) who doesn't believe in Santa Claus anymore; it is worth pointing out that nobody seems to have profiteered from this misadventure. In fact, just the opposite- it seems there was every effort made to keep the corporation afloat. (And THAT is probably the crux of the legal action- some the desperate actions seem...well, shall we say, desperate).

There were undoubtedly lots of important issues on the line (figuratively, as well as literally); partially assembled aircraft, financial obligations to investors and tax payers, and jobs at Eclipse and at suppliers- so dedication to purpose is to be admired. These are all great things for the aviation community to rally around. But, there comes a point, where trying harder doesn't help if the business plan just isn't viable- at that point, trying harder just digs the hole deeper, and doesn't fill it in. Eclipse just keep digging deeper, and asked depositors (who did not have innate knowledge of the privately held company's finances) to do the same. The moral threshold seems to have been when "customers" were treated as de facto "investors". But that's probably not where the legal line is, as the purchase contracts were probably constructed to indemnify Eclipse in the event of financial difficulty. IANAL (I am not a lawyer, as Dave I would say), but the allegations seem to be related to issue of the depositors, as de facto investors, not being properly represented or informed by the Board of Directors and officers of the corporation./?/! (I think the depositors accepted the technical risk involved with the EA500, and EA400, but were perhaps unaware of the true financial risk ?).

So, it will be interesting to see how much of the Eclipse saga gets revealed "for the record". As one of aviation's favorite disruptive ex-CEOs once said, paraphrasing, "(I) would be happy to respond to critics who aren’t anonymous".

It looks like there will be a day in court, to do just that. (About 266 non-anonymous critics involved- not sure how much "happiness" is involved though, on anyone's part. Let's hope there is, somehow, an outcome that satisfies everyone- a pretty tall order, I fear. The best outcome might be just knowing what went on, and why).

(*For new readers, it is important to point out, this involves the former Eclipse Aviation Corporation, NOT the new Eclipse Aerospace Corporation).

NBAA 2009

Honeywell released their eighteenth annual business aviation outlook this week, coincident with the NBAA convention in Orlando FL (Oct 20-22). The chart shows their overall forecast of the biz jet deliveries for the next 10 years. Next year is forecast to be about 10 percent slower than this year.

In the "glass half full" department, if one considers that most 2009 deliveries occurred in the first half of this year, then perhaps it is correct to infer that the current delivery rates represent the bottom of the production rate forecast.

(In the "glass half empty" department, the forecast shows strong sales for the nine years after 2010; some earlier review of the past five business cycles suggests that their is about an eight year period, which would have a downward trend resuming in 2019 or so. Maybe globalization, etc. will keep it from happening in 2019. Then again, it was supposed to keep it from happening this time too...).

Jack Pelton, Cessna's CEO, had some words of cautious optimism. Pelton commented "the international markets seem less frozen than our domestic market right now, particularly Western Europe and South America" (indeed as our friend Baron noted on his recent visit to Brazil).

China is stimulating the business jet market somewhat as well, relaxing domestic flight plan filing to three hours, and reducing tariffs.

In the cool news department, Garmin unveiled their G3000 suite, for "light turbine" aircraft. (Still a couple years away from deployment).

In other cool news, Learjet has their in-development model 85 mockup on display there too, with it's revised flight deck.

It will be interesting to hear what visitors to the NBAA show have to say regarding attendance and displays- please drop a line or make a post to update us!

Shooting Fish in a Barrel

It was interesting to read the Eclipse Aerospace Customer Communique" last week (I guess they figure the previous owners gave the term "press releases" a bad name).

Over the past months, there has been much speculation on when (or if) production of new aircraft will resume. The new owners are cautious about that, saying it is months to years away. I don't have any idea, other than regrettably endorsing their cautious note, as it appears the market will be slow for months to come.

So, a quesion might arise, did the new owners get a good deal when they purchased the assets?

Well, that depends, on what they paid, and what they got.

The figure of $40M is used as lot, but the not so fine print is $20M in cash, plus $20M in notes.

The notes are "promises", so the real skin is $20M. (Earlier buzz had it that Al Mann put up $10M, M&M put up $5M, and somehow another $5M showed up in an unmarked bag- or something like that).

So, what came with the deal?
How about 400K square feet of floorspace?
350,000 sq ft at the main airport, and another 41,000 sq ft at a nearby satellite airport. (At $10M, that's 25 $/sq ft).

And, then there's the airplanes on the assembly line, some nearly finished, some less nearly- maybe 25-30 total. Maybe enough parts on hand to finish some of them? Or a good prelude to low-rate spares/completion delivery from suppliers. (At $10M, and say 25 planes in semi-completion, that's $400K each)

Plus another 28 or so Dayjet airplanes- earlier configurations in some cases, but still, flying assets. (At $10M, that's $357K per airplane).

And how about the flight test airplanes? I don't know if these were refurbished and delivered, or used for customer training, or demonstrators- I think there were around half a dozen of them. (Let's say five flight test airplanes- for $10M that comes out to $2M each- early models yes, but also configured for testing, a blg plus for future development exercises.

Speaking of flying airplanes, and future development exercises- how about the EA400 (aka "Conjet"). How many people did it take, and how long? Beats me. But figuring the engineering, wind tunnel, and construction time; plus avionics, engines, structure, etc, I'd say 50 people x 2 years x $100K/man-year = $10M for the design, construction, and preliminary testing. (At Least- probably double that cost in real life).

How about a captive market for service, since most of parts are not PMA'd, and will have to go through the TC holder? The best-case upgrade (already equipped with new boots and AvioNG) is 150-ish $K, probably on the long side of double that for older configurations- say they can clear $50K per mod, with 200 airplanes (260 less Dayjet, test fleet, reluctant participants), that's $10M. (Or more, with other maintenance).

Any one of these seems to be a good case for buying the assets, especially if a mutually beneficial deal was pre-arranged with Mr. Mann, for later action.

And, I've left out the TC for the EA-500. In 2002, Eclipse said it "will need a total of 'somewhere north of $300 million' to certify the Eclipse 500 and establish production...". So, figure real world, and 2010 numbers, will combine to double that to $600M, and a third of it goes to design, test and certification; that's $200M. Buying this for $10M is an outrageous bargain, IMHO. (How realistic of "stab" is that? Seems like Cirrus was looking at an additional $120M past the flying prototype stage for the Vision certification program).

Now throw in office furniture, computers, copiers.

And, FSW technology; semi-adaptable to other uses, if the layup molds are changed, such as subassmbly work for Detroit, or other airframer OEM's.

I have to admit, I think the Eclipse Aerospace owners got a heck of a bargain.

So what's the key to success? Cash flow. And what generates cash flow? Service work. Which is exactly what I expect them to concentrate on.

Restart manufacturing? I think that is a ways off- if it ever happens. Personally, I think it will. But I'm not sure when (12-30 months, I'd guess).

Or by whom. Or where.

My bet would be a different owner, but still in Albuquerque. We no doubt remember talk of the Russians or Chinese having an interest. I'm still betting on it staying in NM, regardless of where the owner is from. I think the current owners are capable, but they are probably adverse to the hefty investment -and high risk- involved with restarting production. (I suspect Al Mann is in it this time for the sort term, until the economy recovers enough for him to cash out of the airplane manufacturing game. Just a couple of years ago, Cessna paid $26M for Columbia- I like that airplane, but think the Eclipse "package" -factory floorspace, tooling, TC, aircraft and equipment inventory- is enormously more valuable).

I think there is a very good arguement to be made for buying Eclipse assets (in fact, I just recited it above). Once the GA/Bizjet market recovers, I should think a number of OEM's and investment companies would be interested in all or part of their physical assets and/or "Intellectual Property". (For example, I expected Alan Klapmeier to have an interest in acquiring the EA-400 program, after he left Cirrus, and they kept the jet program). The background of the current ownership seems more atuned to merchandising, than manufacturing. And the old adage "How do you make a small fortune in aviation? Start out with a large fortune", would seem to substantiate their priorities.

The good news, for those longing for a restart of the production line: I think the airplane really is very good, especially with the new AvioNG 1.5 configuration. Good enough, that I can't imagine it not going back into production. But that will probably take hundreads of millions of dollars- a long way from the investiment the current owners ponied up. In the mean time, I expect Eclipse Aerospace to have good cash flow with service (it sounds like they are treating the aircraft owners right)- and will probably experience an even better ROI if they can sell the company once the market is strong enough to justify a restart of production.

Still, it will be intriguing to watch. Low rate production might not be that expensive to restart. I believe there was a number going around of 7,000 hours to build an Eclipse. With a shop rate of maybe $60 per hour with overhead and benefits, that would seem doable, and falls right in line with the blog's earlier guestimates of labor cost being about 1/4 of the cost of production. (Engines being another 1/4 also seems about right, airframe components being about 1/4, and avionics and systems being the remaining 1/4; all more or less. Since the suppliers are already tooled up, resuming delivery, even at a low rate, might not be too difficult). I expect the Eclipse show to be interesting for some time to come.

And it is great news that the aircraft owners have factory support once again!

A Little Dab (of Precaution) Will Do 'Ya

(And, a brief absence of precaution can do 'ya in...)

The product on the right is Prist fuel additive- mostly for our turbine power friends, although they make a product for avgas too ("Prist Hi-Flash...for aircraft operating in extremely cold climates or in aircraft that are flying in freezing temperature for extended periods of time").

I'm a piston-head guy, and plead indulgence (and solicit correction) regarding this topic, but with the intent of promoting safety, we proceed. There is some suspicion that fuel icing might have been a factor (perhaps a human factor) in a turbine-powered aircraft accident earlier this year.

I had always assumed jet fuel had anti-ice ingredients mixed in "from the refinery", but I have been informed, such is not always the case.

While Prist is not the only brand of fuel additive available, it seems to be what the "Kleenex" brand name is to paper tissues. Prist's home page has a nice history of their fuel additive product (they also make transparancy cleaners).

Of interest to those of us less familiar with the product, "PRIST® Hi-Flash™ Fuel Additive must be injected into a stream of fuel and not “poured” or “splash blended” into a tank." (However, "For fueling from slower flowing fueling systems (ie: remote or hand pumps), or into aircraft requiring slower fueling (ie: helicopters); PRIST HI-FLASH comes in a ‘LO-FLO’ version specifically designed to mix properly under these fueling conditions. PRIST HI-FLASH LO-FLO comes in 8 oz aerosol cans."). The Prist web site has an informative details of handling the additive.

In addition to anti-icing benefits, Prist (and other fuel additives) have biocidal/antifungal properties to keep your fuel tanks from becoming amusing Petri dishes.

While most turbine airframes have engine oil/fuel heat exchangers which cool the engine lubricating oil, and heat the fuel to prevent jelling -and perhaps ice formation- and do not require fuel additives, it seems it is mandatory for some (from the FAQ section of Prist's web site):

• Aerospatiale/Mooney - TBM 700
• Beechcraft Raytheon - Beechjet 400 & Starship’s
• Bombardier Learjet - 23-24-25-28-29 & 35/36 Series
• Cessna Citation – Caravan, Corsair/Conquest, Citation I & II
• Hansa – HFB-320
• Mitsubishi - MU-2 Series & MU-300 Series
• Piaggio - Avanti
• An ever increasing number of Very Light Jets (VLJs)

I would encourage all our turbine flying friends to re-examine their familiarity additives.

For additional general reading on fuel systems:
Jet Fuel Quality: Flying Clean and Dry

Not to leave our piston friends out on the topic of engine intake icing...

The picture of the Piper in a tree was addressed with a helpful email, cautioning the use of carburetor heat to prevent more visits with tree doctors, (and other doctors). As a piston driver, the correspondent's letter had great impact, and we all thank him for his helpful information:

"Hello,

"I am Writing your Blog with a simple message, based on your picture, to use Carburetor Heat with the lycoming engine, as a habit on all landings. Maybe it will save someone an Airplane, or maybe a picture on a Blog.

"I fly out of our local field- It is dry here, were it not for the mountain Range to the west of us, this place would be a desert.

"I know what I am saying will upset many pilots, but I feel it might do some good.

"I have no connection to the manufacturing or inside tales to give, but I have read your Blog, hoping for the best for Eclipse and the future of aviation. I belong to a small flying club with a few piston aircraft. We try to fly the aircraft by the "book". Our Instructor is from the local FBO, and is a very good instructor.

"Three years ago on a nice warm day, like today, a member was up in our Cherokee 235, it had just been refurbished, we were proud of it., and he was flying it by the "book"." APPROACH AND LANDING, 5. carburetor heat -off [unless icing conditions exist ]". It was a warm dry day and we had learned with the lycoming engine to use carb heat, as needed. As he entered the pattern he lost power. Carb heat only made matters worse [as it should], and with the heavy 540 in front, he was on his way down before he had time to do anything but find a road to land on. Our new shoulder harness left him with only a sore shoulder ,but the plane was a total loss.

"A year later our FBO rented out his Cherokee 180, as the Pilot went around the field, He also lost Power, as he came into land, He wasn't able to make the field, and so lined with the road running in front of the airport at Meadowlake Airport. No Carb Heat, as he was about to flare he faced a car coming down the road, and a head on collision, so at the last moment, he turned into the field to avoid hitting the car, and landed in a tree, Your Picture.

"From these experiences we have learned with the lycoming engine, GET IN THE HABIT, ALWAYS USE CARBURETOR HEAT ON LANDING, I hope these story's do some good for someone, and keep someone from landing in a tree.

"Sincerely,
xxx"

We certainly are thankful for the inputs, regarding the importance of fuel additives for turbines, and carb heat for Lycomings.