Hello Aviation Fans- welcome to the Aviation Critic & Enthusiast blog.
This blog has been inspired by the fine work of Stan Blankenship (Eclipse Aviation Critic) and Shane Price (Eclipse Aviation Critic- Next Generation).
I'm sure you enjoyed those blogs as much as I did- great journalism by our hosts there, and excellent commentary and analysis by the readership.
This blog is launched with the humble objectives of :
1) Continuing to observe and report the zany antics of Eclipse Aviation Corporation, et al.,
2) Expanding coverage to include the zany antics of other proponents of "disruptive developments" in aviation, which "fly" counter to conventional wisdom,
3) To re-examine conventional wisdom when the challenge arises (and sometimes, when it doesn't).
Towards that end, I feel it prudent to include in our discussions both the technical, and economic, factors- it would seem (particularly from our observations of Eclipse) that both items are critical to the successful deployment of new ideas.
(But, we are here to solve all of aviation's ills first, then those of the global economy- so I would patiently ask that we keep that in mind least we digress too far- although some here really ARE well prepared to tackle both- while others of us merely THINK we are :)
In keeping with the spirit of polite respect established by our esteemed predecessor blogs, I would ask that all participants engage with good will, and good humor; this is a blog about having fun and learning things, not about shouting the loudest.
I fully expect the blog to evolve as we feel our way along in the Post-VLJ Revolution (and Post-Spin !!) Period. Comments and suggestions for blog organization and discussion topics are welcome; aviationcritic@gmail.com
So, welcome once again- and Blog On !!
342 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 342 of 342WT,
Who wants to be King- I'm after "Emperor of the Universe"!!
.)
At least he has his loaner E500 to fly up the meetings. On the other hand, is he still entitled to one, now that EAC is officially bust?
================
If memory serves - I believe that was N528EA - which hasn't flown (IFR) in half a year.
BEG:
If you're implying that Icon's Board is light, I think you're way off.
Their Board strikes me as very high quality. The Icon project is a very specialized niche effort for sport pilots; it's really not a "GA" product per se; it's more of a recreational vehicle that appeals to people in extreme sports or high net worth leisure that might otherwise buy an expensive sports car, a power boat, a garage full of motorcycles and of course other pilots who might otherwise get into hang gliding, sky diving, scuba, water skiing or some adventure trip.
Icon is trying to build a new segment of recreational flying and their team strikes me as a solid mix of engineers, designers, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists (Esther Dyson was an early investor in FedEx when everyone thought that was a joke), and others.
Forget VR; like I said, he brings alot of battle wounds to the table; whether he can muster up some humility is problematic, but the Icon team isn't naive and it's their job to take any of his diatribes with a grain or two of salt.
At any rate, the Icon reminds me a bit of the old Lake Amphibian; anyone here remember that plane? My dad and I had one and used it for trips up north and fished from it; a cool plane (and that was back in the late 1960's).
All I can say is... at his old tricks... from Icon (could anyone make this up? "I Con"? I guess their sport flying tema will be called the "con-artists" .. Oh my.
"The first 100 ICON A5 customer deliveries will be exclusive A5 Limited Edition (A5 LE) models. Reserving an A5 LE, and thereby joining the ICON 100, requires a higher deposit of $100,000 USD.
To offset the increased commitment, the ICON 100 program includes a list of appealing additional benefits. Many of the ICON 100 positions are already sold, but at present there is still some availability. If you are interested in learning more about this unique program or owning one of the remaining ICON 100 positions, please email or call our Vice President of Sales at (424) 201-3509.
Regardless of which program you choose, you will be getting a truly incredible aircraft."
Order before midnight tonight.
Free shipping and handling.
Quantities are limited...
"with the strong sales rate we're seeing these days and the lengthening order list that recently passed position #410"
nice to know... why not say how many deposits you have?
They have an "order list" that "passed number 410"
Translation - anyone's guess, really.
I wonder if anyone is making a fleet order, for say 239 + 70 options?
ATman,
Order before midnight tonight.
Free shipping and handling.
Quantities are limited...
Now that's what I call a REAL 'Friday Funny'...
The remarkable similarities between this 'flying jet ski' and the ConJet include the 'initial deposit' of $100,000.
Which Vern stated would be held in escrow, but of course was not....
I'd remind you all that Vern tried to drum up support for the ConJet element of EAC last December/January, during the ill fated Chapter 11/356 period.
I'm wondering if his continued participation at ICON is about his commitment to the A5, or does he still fancy reviving the E400?
After all, EAC didn't have much involvement in the prototype, other than providing cash to the builders.
Shane
Regarding the whole market issue for the EA50...
It is true that some folks would chose the Epic over the EA50 - but this fact only makes the ea50 market SMALLER. The more viable choices, the smaller the specific market for the EA50.
The ea50 is arguably a $2.7 million twin jet, with limited P/R, and questionable support costs, making operating/ownership economics questionable, as well.
There is also the issue of the 10 year life limited part called the airframe.
Not to complicate things much - I just do not see the EA50 EVER had a prayer for a market big enough to justify the $1.5M price. This is the real issue.
At $2.7 (or so) the market is VERY small. I personally do not even think it is more than a few planes a year - and at that, the production costs probably make it even more expensive. You simply have no scale for cost of parts/support.
The product was supposed to be a very inexpensive jet to own and operate, and compared with the market, it is not. In fact, some rational folks will buy a turboprop, instead.
Shane, I forgot...
buy one, get one free, just pay the additional shipping and handling...
Its sad.
- on a more open ended note:
I have always wondered what approach would be best for developing and certifying new aircraft... garage shop, or big company. Both have risks, and advantages. I just cannot convince myself why "partnerships" between large companies and smaller organizations aren't more prevalent?
Maybe the scaled composites approach is viable - but Rutan has a terrible record regarding commercially successful designs.
Maybe Bass and the SSBJ will work out as a partnership.
Seems like Epic was in the middle somewhere...
Anythoughts?
"..it's more of a recreational vehicle that appeals to people in extreme sports."
I see. Take the jet-ski mentality, add a few beers, and take the concept to a couple of thousand feet above the lake? It will still seem like hitting concrete, no?
ATM:
I think you're being a bit unfair concerning the recreational pilot market.
As an ATP I have a built in bias against "sport pilots" but I do see a market there and Icon has in my estimation, done some very good work in making flying simpler, easier and safer--and more affordable. Their airplane is really very neat and innovative.
Whether EAC, EPIC, Icon, Cirrus and others, there are some good ideas and good entrepreneurship at work in the market; we all know most are a long shot and some are not terribly well managed, but what else is new.
The Icon team has alot of heart and their CEO seems to be working to build a good team and treat people honestly; you'll have to forgive them if they want to raise money, sell airplanes and otherwise engage in commercial activities...
And now with so much "intel" in the market about deposits, it should'nt be so hard for buyers to actually have a hard escrow contract and clear return criteria.
BTW, it is interesting how Honda stays out of the VLJ/LJ fray; of course, they can afford to. But otherwise, a very quiet project still, with modest order book goals.
airsafetyman,
What kind of avionics will it have?
ICON's philosophy in regards to cockpit instrumentation is to optimize the essential information the pilot needs, for readability in an aesthetically pleasing package. By removing any non-essential instrumentation, the instrument panel affords the pilot more time to interact with his passenger and to enjoy the scenery outside. This is not a head down, transportation-oriented cockpit for flying in marginal weather or in congested airspace - this is a fun to fly, look out the window type of plane.
there are further "nice" ideas on the "Legal" page - apart from outdated info's about the start of the production...
The wedge was so proud of the good training of the fpj-pilots - now everything is so easy, just 20 hours to the license, just the opposit of what we heard about the fpj!
We will see the next announcements!
Julius
"..this is a fun to fly, look out the window type of plane."
Hey, I'm an extreme sports kind of guy! I love going to Colorado and looking at the plaques memorializing some dude who went down a vertical cliff with skis or snowboard and didn't quite make it. Harder to do on a lake though. They could have a Memorial Fish Fry the weekend after, maybe? With luck some more of these things will show up and they can keep the gig going throughout the summer!
Re Gunner vs Epic...a couple of points
===================
1 - I (many of us here) as Aviation Enthusiasts (and any one who owns a personal airplane with all the costs and headaches - has to be one), can NOT be counted to act dispassionately when it comes to buying the new hottest model. I have a deep character flaw in that I'm an Enthusiast for a certain lady, hot cars and hot planes.
2 - Because of the above, I was dismayed by the manner in which Ken was treated in the previous blogs. Whatever his faults, he clearly was enthusiastic about his plane, and all here tried to shoot his enthusiasm down.
3 - So, even the smartest amongst us at this blog, e.g. Gunner, are not immune to the siren song either. I wish Gunner luck in extracting value out of his $2M (incl cost of money). But it IS a case of, don't throw rocks when you ALSO live in a glass house.
4 - $650,000 for build assistance (If I understand correctly) - at $100/hr shop rate, is 6,500 hours. This is *HUGE* and, more importantly, it underscores what a joke the amateur built rules have become. What percentage of the 6,500 hrs did Gunner personally put in the plane? (Yes, I know how the regs are written - and I like them - just noting the obvious).
5 - Incredibly, Epic USED the downfall of Eclipse and Adam as an EXCUSE for extracting more money from Gunner. Amazing.
DB,
My comment (I m not aSm...)
regarding i-con relates to the fact that they would probably be better served to avoid the silly hype, and act more like Honda... it drives the sort of crdibility they need to make it.
Honda made a deal with Piper for marketing - interesting move, which gave them access to a network of sales people, and connections in the industry - instead of needing to build this or try to hype it.
Its a good example, IMO, of the right attitude.
I love all the advancements in GA... ALL of them - I just don't like things called advancements that are clearly NOT, if you know the history.
Finally, regarding Baron defending our friend Ken... Ken was the biggest BS artist on this blog. If you chose to believe this to be his enthusiasm, that's up to you. The guy didn't even believe his own BS most of the time. Does he love aviation - sure... but the issue regarding him had nothing to do with that.
He was unwilling to admit anything there was anything risky/wrong with EAC or the plane. To me this is not because of his enthusiasm... it was because he was afraid to lose his money.
Even if you love something, like a plane... you can see its shortfalls, and you can (hopefully) understand some risk. Will I say anyone has perfect understanding of this? No... but Ken showed himself over and over again, to be unwilling to bet on his emphatic statements regarding FACTS we now know he was wrong about. He was the first to nit pick and parse posts to death, and begin throwing personal insults.
I do not think this is out of love for aviation or his darling EA50... sorry.
The point being that most, if not all, businesses that reach a point where cash runs out, and they must pay $15 for every $5 they take in, start using a variety of stalling and obfuscation tactics. That is called "cash conservation". At the same time, they start becoming more desperate in their actions to raise cash - e.g. trading immediate revenue for much larger future revenue.
Epic's CEO assertion that is COUNTING on Airventure to book sales, raise cash and solve his cash flow problems is naive to ludicrous.
There are only so many Kens and Gunners in the world willing to write checks to start-up companies to build planes months or years in the future. And even fewer that will write those checks once the company has laid off most staff is being sued by customers and is on record being naive about future sources of revenue. That small number of people is probably ZERO.
I PROPOSE that a NEW HEADLINE POST, be created to contrast the NG Blogers (led by gunner) of how Rick Schramec and Epic were outstanding and beyond suspicion and reproach, as compared to Vern/Eclipse and how things turned out.
EPIC is a valid topic for airplane startup disasters in the making.
The LT is a valid topic for substantially deficient airplanes (e.g. no FIKI, etc) that are passed along as ultra-capable.
Lets examine the record and dispel the myth that all things non-Eclipse and Epic in particular are golden.
baron95 said...
Because of the above, I was dismayed by the manner in which Ken was treated in the previous blogs. Whatever his faults, he clearly was enthusiastic about his plane, and all here tried to shoot his enthusiasm down.
It wasn't his enthusiasm we were aiming at, it was his ignorance which he defended with great vigor.
Unlike you, I don't see value in cheering on delusion like that. You have to be real before you can be enthused, or it is just an expensive mental vacation.
Gents-
Rumors of Epic's demise (and my own) are greatly exaggerated. I'm not able to give any more comment on the litigation than that just yet.
For now, suffice it to say GA has been hit hard....just ask Jack Pelton. ;-)
What I can say is this:
- Our N5Z is next in line for engine which accounts for about 1/3 the total cost of the LT.
- Regardless, if asked whether someone should place a deposit on an LT today, I'd be forced to say, "Hell no. Wait a bit, friend". If that is cutting my own throat, so be it. I never ascribed to the "My plane at your cost" school of marketing.
- Baron is either confused in his logic or intentionally obfuscating when he claims my actions toward Eclipse and Epic have been contradictory. On the contrary, they've been as consistent as the sunrise.
I try to deal fairly with all and have precious little patience for any man unwilling to take responsibility for his own actions; regardless of the cost. Not because I'm so rich or noble; only because it simplifies my life immeasurably.
- I disagree that the Epic business model is ideal. As an experimental, the LT is a winner. As a potential certified model, the Dynasty is fair bet. They both fit a very strong market niche. As to the Elite, Victory, Escape et al, development depends on how much money is available and whose money you're spending. New model R&D is REAL expensive in this business.
Unless I had Vijay Maliya's money, I'd probably hunker down with the LT and continue to move the Dynasty forward as finances permitted. The others, while exciting, might wait until I caught the attention of a deep pocket partner.
The concept of flying a new model to every major airshow is one more associated with "disruptive technology" (ultimately identified as "personal hubris") than with sound business.
But that's just my opinion.
Gunner
In fairness to the whole Epic/Gunner discussion, there is one very significant difference and that is WHY Ken was subjected to the flogging he took.
The difference of course is that Gunner laid down the gauntlet when it became obvious to him that strange things were afoot at the Circle K insofar as his money and his plane and his expectations, right or wrong.
Rather than remain silent about those concerns or actively promote the company to try and ensure that at least he 'got his' he took a completely different tack, and called a spade a spade as he sees it - so it is not comparing apples and oranges, it is comparing apples and thermonuclear war.
I am sure that this move was not a surprise to anyone who has observed the blog for the past couple years - I would say you could have in fact predicted it if you were faced with the situation as described in the complaint.
After all, Gunner had previously pulled the trigger so-to-speak when he felt Wedge and Co were treating hum unfairly in regards to position vs. S/N and such when he was an Eclipse customer.
It is well known that in many (if not all) experimental aircraft companies there is a certain near-'ponzi' element in that money paid in by customer A does not necessarily go ONLY to parts or labor for customer A's plane. It is understood and accepted, we are after all talking about experimental aircraft and in some cases young companies.
That is not the problem, as I believe customers (like Gunner), employees, and vendors/consultants (like myself) go into relationships with companies like this with eyes wide open, it is a known risk.
Reading the complaint and the response it appears (as always) that both parties believe themselves to be in the right, my experience is that a problem like this stems from a breakdown in communication.
I hope that this thing can be solved equitably as I believe Epic is positioned for great success with an impressive collection of designs, and they have I believe a fairly significant order book across the designs currently in work (measured in the several dozens).
My appreciation of the utility of the LT specifically is a matter of record, but what we see from the outside is not good right now and that is too bad.
Also, the LT is not quite a $2M plane even when loaded fairly well, and it is equipped with de-ice equipment. As we have discussed befire, there is no FIKI cerrtification per-se with an Experimental - my bigger concern is the current lack of group RVSM, that would improve the utility of the LT by giving it another 3-4 thousand feet to play with for weather or fuel flows.
Again, hope it works out justly for all the customers, the company, and the employees/vendors - probably too early to say.
Ahhh, I should've just waited 5 minutes and let the man speak for himself....
Gunner - I do NOT think at all that you have been contradictory.
The point is that you, CW, and many others on the critic blog put Epic and Rick on a pedestal, as the company that really was going to blow all other out of the water on entry-level turbine.
I can appreciate the Enthusiasm and the sureness with which you switched your money from Eclipse to Epic.
As I said. I wish Eclipse AND Epic well. I wish Ken and you well. I hope products from the investments of both these companies find future support. And I respect both of you for enthusiastically, if in a risky (and perhaps naive) way, putting your money in the hands of an unproven startup.
Yes, it appears that you are A LOT less defensive and cheerleading than Ken. I salute your for that.
But that was not my point.
My point was contrasting your decision when you went in with Epic.
Anyway - what do I know - I don't know either you guys personally or the companies and planes involved. My opinion is worth exactly what you are paying to read it ;)
I hope you get your engine, have a successful flight test and enjoy your plane soon.
Good luck again.
CW said....my experience is that a problem like this stems from a breakdown in communication.
===========================
Or from the customer being stiffed due to lack of money.
What part did you miss? Epic laid off most of their staff and is running out of money. Once news like that get out, money dries out even faster.
No completions, no build starts = no more progress payments.
Bad news = no more orders/deposits and vendors demanding COD.
Litigation = more money out the door.
Haven't we heard this before?
Can someone come in an inject money under onerous terms? Yes. Anything can happen.
But given the naive statements of the CEO on the statement - he is HOPING more than managing right now.
EPIC is a valid topic for airplane startup disasters in the making.
how true...
also, how new GA successes are born... think Cirrus...
Man, bottom line, its such a tough business.... how would you define success? If Cirrus is in toruble (I am not saying it is... just IF) at this point, I would still call them a success...
Perhaps THIS is an indication of how hard this business is?
- Regardless, if asked whether someone should place a deposit on an LT today, I'd be forced to say, "Hell no. Wait a bit, friend". If that is cutting my own throat, so be it. I never ascribed to the "My plane at your cost" school of marketing.
A Rich Lesson in Humanity -
thanks, so much for writing this - its one of the key aspects to the passionate arguments we've all had with Ken.....
CW,
The bottom line, as I read it... the Schrameck took some money for an engine... and is now saying its another company's problem not Epic.
Sorry, this is not miscommunication, its misdirection.
Is there an engine somewhere?
Does it belong to Rich?
How was Rich's engine money spent?
It seems like answers to these three simple questions would answer the mail...
Success in any business, can only be defined by a SUSTAINED ABILITY TO DELIVER PROFITS.
If you think about it, to be able to accomplish that, all else needs to be in order (product desirability, pricing, support, R&D, etc).
Examples in GA---- hummmmm.....err....maybe....hummmm no....sorry, can't think of one now.
In Biz Av? Gulfstream.
sustained...
...for how long before they close?
Funny definition. I disagree.
I am poking fun - -in a subject that is more sad than funny.
In our too fast paced society, too risk-mitigated by short term thinking.... its probably impossible for a GA company to make it based on your defintion...
So, there's a problem with the definition, or with the world, or with this business insofar as it fits in the world...
I am truly at a loss.
But, I will say this - I would MUCH prefer a world where GA-type businesses could make it... and be successful.
ATM said "It seems like answers to these three simple questions would answer the mail...
",
Insofar as characterizing it as 'miscommunication' or a communication breakdown, I was being generous and speaking about it ending up in a suit specifically. The underlying machinations and actions (or lack therof) that led to this are now the pervue of a Federal Judge, would that it could have remained private and constructive between interested stakeholders - but there may yet be hope.
You are absolutely correct that straightforward answers to simple questions is what was called for, the suit is apparently (and predictably) the result of that not happening.
"Examples in GA---- hummmmm.....err....maybe....hummmm no....sorry, can't think of one now."
Robinson Helicopter Company
Hi Rich,
"Rumors of Epic's demise (and my own) are greatly exaggerated."
Congratulations on the way it sounds like things are working out- most encouraging!!
I hope they continue to evolve in a positive fashion!
Hey Rich, sorry things turned out so badly for you with Epic and Diamond. I really do hope things ultimately go okay for you.
Meanwhile, you seem to misunderstand why I said the Eclipse is so good.
It wasn't for the reason some have recently cited...It's because: the Eclipse is so good.
Keep in mind, you paid over $1.8 million and you're still trying to find an engine for your plane. Meanwhile, we're cruising along at 420 mph in the kind of quiet and comfort only a jet can provide. And with twin-engine peace of mind.. If you do find your engine, you won't be cruising above the weather like we do. Ever.
But, look Rich, we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, but I wish you well and hope you get the rest of your airplane. I really do.
And I hope it turns out as well for you as the Eclipse turned out for me.
Ken
I think there is one H-U-G-E difference in the Eclipse saga, and the Epic, er, epic.
Most of the Eclipse customers bought in before the airplane was delivered-
HECK- BEFORE IT EVEN FLEW *.
Now, in a completely OPPOSITE approach, most Epic LT cusotmers, had already seen the performance of DELIVERED AIRCRAFT.
THAT is a HUGE difference in approach. Both on the part of the companies, and on the part of the consumers.
--------------------------------
*WHY did so many customers "sign up" for Eclipse, so early in the program?
I think almost universally, the reason was "before the price goes up".
What this recognized was; the price is set too low, and EAC was selling them at a loss. What this did not recognize was, a company that sells things at a loss goes bankrupt.
Now, a relatively simply alteration prevents a company from going bankrupt- it just raises prices until it -at least- breaks even. THAT is where the Eclipse saga unravels. Costs spiralled out of control;
1) development costs
2) excessive infrastructure costs
3) costs of reworking prematurely released products
4) avionics redesign costs
It was impossible to raise the per unit cost sufficiently to address this debt burden. So, they continued to sell at a loss, which only made things worse. There was no alternative to bankruptcy.
Epic's struggles seem to be simply related to trying to do too many things (new models) at once.
And some ethics challenges, as it appears they tried to misallocate some of Rich's LT funds.
Baron said,
"The point is that you [snip] put Epic and Rick on a pedestal, as the company that really was going to blow all other out of the water on entry-level turbine."
Ummmmmm, Source please?
Ken said,
"Hey Rich, sorry things turned out so badly for you with Epic and Diamond."
Slow down there cowboy. I know misery loves company, but I'm not exactly suffering the same fate as you:
- Diamond is a pretty damned honorable company. They declared a voluntary default event on the first 110 positions about 13 months prior to their own contractual requirement. Eclipse might still be around to support your orphan had they taken that approach.
- Though I think the D-Jet is still a player, if push comes to shove I'll take three Diamond refunds over one Eclipse lawn dart gladly, thanks.
- I've had the extraordinary honor to speak at length with Peter Maurer of Diamond more than once or twice and as late as last week. He may owe me money, but he's hardly ducking his obligations; he gets the Class Act Award from me. Vern, on the other hand, got his Class Act Award from Roel...and you, of course.
- Epic? Well Epic's hardly cratered the way Eclipse did. Should it fail though, I doubt Rick would create near as big a hole as Vern....after all, Vern had salesmen like you; Rick has more simple minded individuals....like me. ;-)
Keep peddlin', brother. there may be one or two fence sitters even now. Do you ever think about the hundreds who suffered for your 30 seconds of flaunt, Ken? Ever wonder why you get so little respect?
Regards-
Rich Lucibella
WhyTech said...
Robinson Helicopter Company
================
Thank you WhyTech - I'll take your word for it. I don't follow companies that make thinks whose wings spin around ;)
However: On an event in Feb/2009 Company founder Frank Robinson said... “The only thing that we can count on to save this company,” he said, “is to get that R66 on the market as soon as possible, and at that point we can stop having layoffs.”
That does not sound like sustained profits to me.
ATM said... ts probably impossible for a GA company to make it based on your defintion...So, there's a problem with the definition,
============================
Huh? Why? What is your definition for business success in GA? Having nice press releases? If you are not making money on a sustainable basis and you don't get an Obama bail out you are gone.
By the way sustainable profits doesn't mean you are profitable every year. Only that, over time, and given expected market conditions, you make money on average.
BEG said...What this did not recognize was, a company that sells things at a loss goes bankrupt.
=========================
Well, now, THAT is not true. Particularly not true about start up companies. Many startup companies "sell" or give away things at a loss for a long time.
That is why, say Airbus, requests launch aid from the parent governments, and only, much later in the program, start making royalty payments back.
The first B787 will cost boing about $8B to produce and will be sold for $150M give or take.
Facebook is CORRECTLY incurring monumental losses by giving the service away for free - it is a land grab phase - profits, hopefully, will come later. Now is Facebook a successful business?
Nope. Not yet. They haven't demonstrated sustained profitability yet. Are they success for the phase (land grab) they are in in their business plan? Yes.
But many others before have done a good job at the land grab phase, then failed miserably to be a sustainable business. Example: Netscape.
My conclusion is that no company will be successful (sustained profits) as a GA manufacturer, with current thinking - low volume, high prices, fighting for a dwindling owner-flown market.
I think Eclipse had the right idea - "Lets try higher volumes at lower costs". Their execution sucked, but, I think that was something worth trying with other people's money.
I hope someone else tries again.
More on Robinson delivered 48 helicopters in January and began laying off workers at the rate of 50 per month beginning last November, the maximum rate allowed by law without having to provide workers with 60-days’ statutory notice. Frank Robinson hinted that more layoffs likely are in the offing...
==========================
Hopefully, they'll make it through this crisis and in fact prove to continue to be a successful business.
And B.E.G. you'll be delighted to know that the B787 has moved as fast as your Ercoupe this week. 100Kts.
And no, that is not the high speed taxi tests just yet - that will be at up to 120-130kts. But I think, in keeping with Boeing tradition, only fight ready A/C gets to do high-speed taxi tests. So we have to wait for the bird to be patched up
"That does not sound like sustained profits to me."
Sorry, didnt realize you meant sustained forever. They have only done it for a few decades.
"Robinson delivered 48 helicopters in January"
That's an annualized rate of almost 600 helicopters - down a bit form the 800 or so in recent years, but not exactly a death spiral. Frank's public comments about saving the company are most likely posturing to soften up the workforce.
" I don't follow companies that make thinks whose wings spin around "
Well, you did say "GA." You are missing out on one of aviation's great accomplishments and flying's great joys.
" I don't follow companies that make thinks whose wings spin around "
Like United Technologies, Lockheed, Boeing, or Textron?
“You are missing out on one of aviation's great accomplishments and flying's great joys.”
Let’s hear it for helicopters. In New England we have a numerous helicopter-friendly restaurants. These restaurants are not on airports and some have spectacular scenery. Please see my comment on the Dolphin House:
New England Helipads
Baron said:
**My conclusion is that no company will be successful (sustained profits) as a GA manufacturer, with current thinking - low volume, high prices, fighting for a dwindling owner-flown market.**
Okay, not to toot my own horn Baron, but I think your conclusion is 100% wrong. As one who majored in production and operations management with a silly minor in Economics, I'd be lucky right now if I could find a job in a fast food "factory." My perception may be off, but I am DEAD CERTAIN that old-school manufacturing in the USA is gone. Case in point is to see the new-and-improved General Motors post-Chapter 7. But they still have a small chance to be successful because the USA market is between 10-17 million units per year. Is there any chance in Hell that GA companies could crank out 5000 planes in 2009? Good Lord, could a miracle happen, even without Vern, where the units delivered by year 2015 hit 10,000? BY DEFINITION, this is a low-volume industry, and thus, OEMs have no choice but to pair up with larger fish...
I think the common mistake is to think that any supply chain wants to increase sales. Vern has claimed that his supply chain was the problem, yada yada. But look at the situation from their perspective. The guys/gals running the 1st or 2nd tier aviation shops have a primary job of maximizing profits, not maximizing sales; that is a BIG difference many biz people fail to understand. It is a major oversimplification to assume that profits are a linear function of sales, and at least in the aviation biz, that is not the case. All the disruptive technology in the world didn't help because whatever Vern thought he had never made it to the suppliers, from what I had seen and heard. As an example, I'm thinking of all the issues with the Nordham windows. Now if TOYOTA was building the EA500, what do we think would have happened? In the context of Nordham, I think a Toyota EA500 would have solved the problem before s/n 1 left the factory: they would have switched to a glass window no matter what the weight penalty.
The other critical mistake is two-fold with both the GA market and the price of the plane. The old joke we have all heard in military circles is that NO ONE wants their son/daughter to use an M-16 that came from the lowest-bid defense contractor. Enter the concept of the economic "inferior good." Doesn't anyone see that plays into the psychology of the typical GA customer? The typical EAC customer was willing (consciously or sub-consciously) to roll the dice on this, but I'd say that is not consistent with the typical risk averse GA customer. That person, AND the typical GA OEM's are all fat and happy with the current status quo. Ok, maybe not so fat with the current economy. But I don't see Cessna rushing to buy up all EAC assets so they can crank out 1000 EA400's and EA500's. That could be one way for Cessna to grab market share with a loss-leader, so why don't they do it? #1, the GA market doesn't want a $2 mil EA500 since only the leanest shops can benefit when profit margins are thinner per unit. They don't want to take the risk that they can make it up in volume and they are right not to change the current biz model!!
#2, and perhaps the most important, the GA market is not like making cars: without the US military, it will NEVER be a high-volume manufacturing sector. Vern's biggest mistake was in thinking that he could make up all the cost overruns with a few extra units. My God, when I came into EAC, I think their math at the time was like 600 units per year before you even BREAK-EVEN. The economics of Vern's great plan was flawed from day one.
I suspect even HondaJet will have similar problems, since they can't use a Japanese keiretsu. The industry is fat with so many people making $20-$60 per HOUR, combined with a finite number of units/year that you can deliver. I don't see these numbers changing anytime soon to the point where anyone could be profitable with high-volume GA production. It won't happen in my lifetime!!
e.d.t.
Hi Deep Blue,
I admire your, um, admiration of the Board of Directors of I-Con Aircraft. (I even admire the aircraft!).
--------------------------------
"If you're implying that Icon's Board is light, I think you're way off."
Not exactly- I just think they don't know a darned thing about airplane manufacturing- any of them !!
.)
"Their Board strikes me as very high quality. The Icon project is a very specialized niche effort for sport pilots; it's really not a "GA" product per se; it's more of a recreational vehicle that appeals to people in extreme sports or high net worth leisure that might otherwise buy an expensive sports car, a power boat, a garage full of motorcycles and of course other pilots who might otherwise get into hang gliding, sky diving, scuba, water skiing or some adventure trip."
Well, hmm... maybe- kind of a funky concept. In reading the Executive Team list was this line: "Steen Strand is a seasoned sports product entrepreneur..." My principle concern over I-Con failing was their UTTER lack of experience in builing a CERTIFIED aircraft *. But- perhaps the LSA rules are lax enough that anyone can do it without any prior experience. (Too bad 'ole Wedge's accomodating pal at the FAA, Marion Blakey, is out- maybe the LSA rules could have been "adapted" to fit the Eclipse 500 :). There does seem to be substantiating evidence that bringing an LSA to market is considerably simplier than a FAR23 airplane- witness the list of LSA manufacturers.
So, maybe anybody can do it technically, and regulatorily. But profitably...I have my doubts.
"Icon is trying to build a new segment of recreational flying and their team strikes me as a solid mix of engineers, designers, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists (Esther Dyson was an early investor in FedEx when everyone thought that was a joke), and others."
Al Mann was not light weight either, but look what happened...
"Forget VR; like I said, he brings alot of battle wounds to the table; whether he can muster up some humility is problematic, but the Icon team isn't naive and it's their job to take any of his diatribes with a grain or two of salt."
I figure Wedge will be on good behavior- image remediation, etc. And besides, every company -especially one making flying boats- needs the stability a boat anchor provides.
.)
(Although with Wedge, ah, I'm not sure "stability" is the first term that comes to mind... :)
"At any rate, the Icon reminds me a bit of the old Lake Amphibian; anyone here remember that plane? My dad and I had one and used it for trips up north and fished from it; a cool plane (and that was back in the late 1960's)."
I like the Lake too (Airliners.net)
But as far as a successful business venture, consider the certified, 4-6 place Lake, versus a 2-place I-Con:
"The company (Lake) had previously been offered for sale in 2001, 2002, via auction in 2005 and in 2007. Lake Aircraft produced one aircraft in 2007 and none in 2008...In 2009 the company employed six people, down from the 200 employees that it had in the 1980s"
--------------------------------
*What also struck me was half the I-Con "exec team" were renegades from Scaled Composites- the hack engineering capital of aviation.
No doubt, technically talented folks. No doubt, ingrained in the "creative atmosphere" that has CURSED EVERY SINGLE COMERCIAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM WITH WHICH THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED TO FINANCIAL FAILURE.
But, maybe the LSA rules are lax enough, that anybody can do it. Still, I think this will be an exercise in making a small fortune in aviation- out of a large fortune. I suspect the founders are wily enough that it won't be THEIR fortunes undergoing "downsizing"- and I caution anyone contemplating involvement to consider how much is hype, and WHY ON EARTH you should put down ANY money before the first 50 are delivered.
Sorry about that bold letter thing...
--------------------------------
While noting the discussion of "companies that make things whose wings spin around"...
This is a nice, but complicated feature, add the aerodynamic and weight penalties of a boat hull (although, at LSA speeds, maybe not so significant), and one is left with a rather compromised product- but as Deep_Blue points out, if it is considered a "sport product" instead of a "GA" aircraft, perhaps there is a modest market for it. I was on Lake Minnetonka last weekend, and one of these things WOULD have been fun...
ATM,
"thereby joining the ICON 100, requires a higher deposit of $100,000 USD."
I-Con FAQs
Q: Where will ICON manufacture the planes?
A: The site of manufacturing and assembly facilities has yet to be determined. The selection process will be completed in 2009.
Q: Will the price change?
A: The price is an estimate only and is subject to change.
I don't pooh-pooh the airplane, but, well, I'd wait this one out for a while. If they want 70% down up front (the first 100 deliveries will be "I-Con 100" customers), I'd say nobody else is putting any money into the company, and they are financiing the startup with depositors' funds- so what's left to build the depositor's planes? Sounds like Eclipse all over again...
WhyTech,
Thanks for bringing up Robinson- they are indeed a success- I believe now the helicopter volume leader- by a substantial margin.
"Robinson delivered 823 aircraft in 2007..."
Wow. Kinda cool. They are exactly the kind of company I think is "progressive" rather than "disruptive".
Robinson Helicopter
BAron...
"over time"
I like this... make money "over time..."
I understand, and I'm not making a comment on YOU per se, just that there are many industries where long term thinking is required, and we live in a short timers world.
I guess the jury is out on the airlines and GA, then. I will wait until they are extinct, look back, and measure whether they made money... over time. Sustained, of course...
I am not saying I have a better defintion than you, but it appears as if, eventually, over time... GA companies will never make money, really. Kinda like the airlines.
OK, Southwest...
Re: Vern and Icon.
I recall an episode of "Seinfeld" wherein George Costanza concluded that all of his initial instinctive actions proved to be incorrect. He vowed to always do just "THE OPPOSITE". It worked like magic. He landed the job with the Yankees, attracted a beautiful girlfriend, and life was good. Perhaps ICON will succeed if only the board of directors elects to consult "His Wedgeness" on all matters important and then invoke the Costanza Method in each case. That is the only reason that one can fathon them keeping him around.
edt,
What you say makes so much sense. The biggest lie was the "revolution" VErn claimed, coupled with this Verntastic orderbook, cooked of course by him and Ed. Some wanted to believe that this would change the economics of making jets, and it did not.
Suppliers were shown/developed "curves" and the EA50 was on another curve... until the price went up and up and low and behold, its not on any special value curve - its just a small, limited utlity jet... on the same old curve as all conventional jets.
Value is more bang for the buck, either in payload range, speed or cabin volume.
Once you have a conventionally priced engine (1/3 the cost of the aeroplane) the rest seems to fall right in line. $/lbst drives a lot in this business.
Your comments on the risk adverse nature of many pilots... well, I am always surprised that anyone with two marbles rolling around up there, placed a deposit with EAC... and even more surprised when I read posts like the one above from you know who. There are always outliers... Vern is one... you know who is another. I think they were lucky to find eachother!
Hi Baron,
"Well, now, THAT is not true. Particularly not true about start up companies. Many startup companies "sell" or give away things at a loss for a long time."
Yes, I recognize the significance of "loss leader" marketing. The airlines do it all the time, with predictable results :)
And, it's a good way to get a new product established- which I think, as you point out, is what Facebook is doing, but I can't help but think about the dot.com bust- lots of expectations of "future profits". As was EAC's marketing scheme based on "future profits".
But, I concede it is a helpful temporary "stimulus" for market penetration. In a sense, it can be viewed as an "advertising expense".
EDT,
"That could be one way for Cessna to grab market share with a loss-leader, so why don't they do it? #1, the GA market doesn't want a $2 mil EA500 since only the leanest shops can benefit when profit margins are thinner per unit. They don't want to take the risk that they can make it up in volume and they are right not to change the current biz model!!"
I agree- I think Cessna would have been quite happy to have not had Eclipse nibbling away at the lower end market share, which is why they came out with the Mustang. But as you point out, they did not buy EAC for a CHEAP $50M, even though it is an incredible bargain (I think); it is simply better business strategy to stay with lower volume/higher profit models.
Which- is EXACTLY what Gulfstream's market strategy has been. (I am not so confident that their marketing of the IAI products is beneficial to that model, but I have noted they are positioning them "upscale" in their respective markets.
(I also think, it is what Eclipse's marketing strategy should have been- go bigger, not smaller. But I think they had so much manufacturing capacity to use, they were obligated to try to maximize it's utilization with smaller / less expensive / more volume. I liked the EA-400, and EA-500 too, I just think it was a mismanaged opportunity. But, I give them credit for trying. Less credit for being ethical with depositors).
Hi Baron,
I'm psyched about the 787 taxi tests- (100 knots- maybe an ERcoupe for a chase plane? :)
It will be interesting to see when first flight is- if they are doing a "work up" to the 120-130 knot high speed taxi tests, it ought to be pretty soon now.
I'm curious how long the flight test program will take. I think they still have an "ambitious" delivery schedule, so presumably they'll be increaseing the size of the test fleet (kind of like 9 women making a baby in 1 month). I think 10 months would be a minimum, with the first revenue flight probably 12 months after first flight? (That's probably a "success-oriented" timeline, still, they've had a lot of time to do ground tests and simulations, so maybe things will go better than the past few years for them. I hear the 747-8 is getting some increased focus by Boeing too- some resources being diverted to "accelerate" that program (after so many years of fiddling around, it is hard to find an appropriate phrase for progress...sort of like, well, you know what in ABQ :)
"I was on Lake Minnetonka last weekend, and one of these things WOULD have been fun..."
They would run you out of MN if you tried this. Besides, with the gunwale to gunwale boat traffic on this lake, especially on summer weekends, you'd be challenged to find enough room to take off or land. ;-)
By AVweb
AVweb
As of June 12, 2009, the EASA Type Certificate covering the Eclipse 500 has been suspended, striking a potential blow to the value of Eclipse Aviation's intellectual property assets that may soon be sold at auction. Now in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Eclipse Aviation has even less to offer potential buyers. Eclipse achieved the EASA certificate in November of last year, hoping to win a new market for the aircraft in any of 30 European nations, but since that time the vast majority of delivered Eclipse 500 very light jets have been registered in the United States. So, on the upside, the suspension shouldn't have much of an effect on aircraft that are currently in use. On the rapidly growing downside, Eclipse's assets will now offer even less to the company's suppliers that have lined up to fill out bankruptcy court claim forms for money due them. One supplier (of about 145) that may take a big hit, 59-year-old Sun Country Industries, may be stuck with unpaid invoices totaling half a million dollars and "is sitting on an additional $750,000 in parts and material" otherwise destined for Eclipse, according to Aircraft Maintenance Technology online (AMT). To make matters worse, of Eclipse's physical assets, which could be sold to repay its debts, it seems many may have never been paid for by Eclipse.
According to AMT, court documents show that some $76 million worth of equipment and parts housed in Eclipse's facilities were never owned by Eclipse. Companies that continued to work with Eclipse in 2008 reportedly saw payment delays increase to about three months in the second half of the year when many suppliers shifted to a credit freeze/cash only policy with the company. Of those that stayed with the company, many truly wanted the manufacturer to succeed, according to AMT. That condition lasted mostly until July 2008, when Eclipse CEO Vern Rayburn was removed from his position, blaming much of the company's problems on issues with suppliers.
"Q: Where will ICON manufacture the planes?
A: The site of manufacturing and assembly facilities has yet to be determined. The selection process will be completed in 2009."
Translation: We may heve to really look hard to find some burg who hasn't heard of Eclipse and will give us lots of money to go there, and build our factory, and buy our specialized equipment, and train our employees. Places in Iraq and Afghanistan are really high on our list with the US Government aid and all.
Why Tech Said..." I don't follow companies that make thinks whose wings spin around "
Well, you did say "GA." You are missing out on one of aviation's great accomplishments and flying's great joys.
===========================
I know. That was self-criticism on my part. Yes. I did mean GA. And I do think Robinson is a "success story". I simply don't know much about the company or the helo market. They may indeed be THE ONE GA successful business.
(this time) I was not trying to be argumentative ;) But I guess, I was, old habits die hard ;)
EDT said...the GA market is not like making cars
=========================
Yes it is. It is exactly like making low volume expensive cars like Konigsegg or Lotus or Tesla.
Konigsegg makes their own engine, gearbox, suspension, body, etc. How can they do that? Because computer design and low volume computer controlled manufacturing and low volume exotic materials are now easy to design/manufacture. They make money selling MUCH LOWER volumes than Cirrus or Beech.
Technology is allowing new entrants into the car business like never before.
And LSA rules are doing the same for the low end aircraft.
==================================
BEG said...My principle concern over I-Con failing was their UTTER lack of experience in builing a CERTIFIED aircraft
==================================
That can be a good thing. LSA and GA manufacturers are NOT in the transportation business. They are on the ENTERTAINMENT business.
If they fail to recognize that, they will never succeed.
Cirrus, I think, was the first GA company that recognized that. They put as much, if not more, effort into their interior and branding as in their airframe.
LSA buyers are motor hangglider, parasailing, home built buyers. A certain amount of risk and fatalities is expected and EVEN PART OF THE ALLURE for them.
It is a thrill seeking entertainment audience.
GA today is like GM and Chrysler - fighting over a dwindling market of aging customers. Good luck making money on that.
They need to turn into Konigseggs and Teslas and (if they want to associate with larger groups) into the modern Ferrari (Fiat), Lamborghini (VW), etc.
It will take another 20 years or so to get there.
"And I do think Robinson is a "success story". "
Most think so. I think it is an approximately accurate statement to say thah Robinson manufactures more civilian helicopters each year than all other manufacturers combined. Not everyone is enchanted with their products, but the numbers tell the market acceptance story.
"But I guess, I was, old habits die hard ;)"
No problem - great entertainment!
bill e. goat said...
It will be interesting to see when first flight is- if they are doing a "work up" to the 120-130 knot high speed taxi tests, it ought to be pretty soon now.
===============================
I'm sorry BEG. But first flight will NOT be soon. I doubt Boeing will release the 787 for 120-130KTS. I may be wrong - they may be looking for things to do with all the delays. BUT, it is the flight line's decision. And those guys do not go high-speed test unless the plane is ready for flight. There is always that chance that something will "force flight" on a high speed taxi test - e.g. brake failure. VR for the 787 should be about 150KTS in flight test config. So 130KTS is way too close to VR, for a non-flight ready plane.
My guess is this.
1 Month for Boeing to design the structural fix.
1 Month to fix ZA997 static test plane and run stress test on the fix.
1 month to fix ZA001 Dreamliner 1 and get it flight ready.
1 week to finish high-speed test and final prep to first flight.
So I venture first flight after Labor Day - some time in September.
After that, ZA002, 3, 4, 5 will quickly join the flight line.
I think flight test concludes in 6 months AND EIS is less than a month after that.
My guess is that ANA will fly first passengers on April 1st - or there abouts ;)
Lets see how my predictions hold - I bet I will not be as far off as BCA executives have been.
Anyone wants to take the bet?
At least they know they are in the entertainment business.
And GA needs to sell entertainment as well
I've waited 3 years for the final word on "how anyone thnks its a good idea to buy an EA50.. all things considered" and now I have it...
"That can be a good thing. LSA and GA manufacturers are NOT in the transportation business. They are on the ENTERTAINMENT business....
..... A certain amount of risk and fatalities is expected and EVEN PART OF THE ALLURE for them."
Thanks Baron... ;)
Baron,
That can be a good thing. LSA and GA manufacturers are NOT in the transportation business. They are on the ENTERTAINMENT business.
Be careful there, my friend.
Vern might think you were saying he is a clown.
And sue.
Boy would I love to see THAT case come to trial.
I'd be your first witness for the 'defense' and I'd bring loads of stuff to prove you were right....
Shane
Rich says, "I'm not exactly suffering the same fate as you
Right. Yours is worse. You paid more than me and you didn't get an airplane. I did. A nice one. With engines, no less :)
I said I felt sorry for you, and I do. You've had some bad luck dealing with aircraft manufacturers.
But you were so gung ho to attack Epic, a company you used to hold up right here on this blog as an example of "integrity," that you sued the wrong party!
You sued Epic Air when you needed to sue Aircraft Completion Services LLC. The judge is probably going to get a pretty good laugh from the Epic response which correctly points out that you sued them for not providing an engine when an engine wasn't part of the contract!
That's a foul-up. If I might ask, how'd that happen?
Ken
Ken said... Right. Yours is worse. You paid more than me and you didn't get an airplane. I did. A nice one. With engines, no less :)
=====================
Have to agree with Ken here. At least so far, he is ahead.
Jet vs prop. Certified vs Kit. Flying vs waiting. $1M +/- vs $2M +/-. 260 vs 26 other copies to find probs before they do. Already in BK vs Still to enter BK.
Now, things may change. And fast.
But for now, I'd rather be in Ken's shoes.
I just love watching the pathology...
I'll send you a mirror :)
Ken
Ken said:
"But you were so gung ho to attack Epic, a company you used to hold up right here on this blog as an example of "integrity," that you sued the wrong party!"
For the second time, to the second person......ummmm, source please? Or has so little really changed in your world?
To your claimed knowledge of corporate law, I hardly think an answer is warranted.
Do carry one, though.
Rich
I sincerely don't think you have one...
Rich, I was going to comment on Ken's stupid remark regarding your suit, but I didn't bother... because it' so useless.
He is dreadfully transparent. Perhaps that's why he cannot use his mirror?
"At least they know they are in the entertainment business."
The car isnt bad either!
Rich says, "Do carry one, though." Carry one what? A laugh? You bet.
'Cause not only did you file the suit against the wrong party, and not only did you file it in the wrong court, I'll bet you get slapped for the deceptive effort to represent to the court that the appendices of the ACS contract were in fact part of the EA contract.
Perhaps you didn't notice that the contract, as represented by you to the court, jumped from "Page 6 of 7" to "Page 7 of 8," but Rick Schrameck's attorney did.
Thanks; it is fun to watch. "He who laughs last..."
That said, I do hope you get your plane, even if you're a PITA.
Ken
Ken-
Why are you doing this? Why would you possibly begin to make definitive predictions about court actions of which you know so embarrassingly little?
My original comments didn't mention you for a reason. Most of us dismissed you long ago as a guy who mistakes "value" with "cheap". We get it, Ken. You like "cheap" planes. That's why you flew a mid-air crashed Cessna 340 for years until you purchased an EA-500.
You choose cheap planes, Ken. We wish you well in 'em. But you needn't continue to personally attack anyone who rejects your idea of "value". Many of us don't measure pleasure by how much less we spent on our Taurus than the neighbor's BMW. Many of us don't want to be in the same room with people who live that way.
I could easily speak to you of the Citation Bravo we took delivery of this week, Ken. But to what end? It's not a cheap plane like yours; it's not as cheap to fly (two people plus luggage) as yours. It has no "value" to you. We get it, Brother. We'll never be you.
I suggest you let this poison go, though. Three years of it has obviously taken its toll; a couple more could be irreversible.
Rich
Hello Ken,
I'm pleased your Eclipse is continuing to work out well, and I am cautiously optimistic it will in the future as well, because I expect Eclipse to be acquired and hopefully, spares and support will be provided.
But...saying it cost $1M is like saying "investing" in the lottery was a good strategy- some get lucky- most don't, as was the case with Eclipse depositors. The Eclipse is a nice airplane at $2.5M or so, and I think, worth it. But quoting any lower price reflects subsidies by other customers who got swindled by Eclipse.
?COULD? Eclipse have delivered the 500 for less than $2M? Perhaps- but it seems there was a quote on the blog a few weeks back, that every one had been delivered at a $1 M loss, and that was before the rework. So, I'd say $2.5M is a "fair" price estimate.
Baron said,
Yes it is. It is exactly like making low volume expensive cars like Konigsegg or Lotus or Tesla.
Well ....how much has Cessna put into the RnD of the Mustang? How much has HondaJet sank into its jet? Even as I was driving around today, I couldn't help but get sucked back into what I posted earlier. For some odd reason I was wondering to myself how Vern was able to sell people like Al Mann and Bill Gates on basic IRR or ROI financials. I'd be the first one to slit my wrists before I try to figure out the "internal rate of return" for Eclipse Aviation. Regardless, the same paradox exists for Cessna and HondaJet as it did for Ecipse: can you increase your net retail price after you are forced to dump another $100 million into the RnD? Is this an inelastic demand curve?? Or would a 5% price increase cause a 10% cancellation of orders? Sticky prices takes hold cuz Cessna and others would rather lay off another 1300 people than resort to lowering their prices, but I can't say if that's what Lotus would do to their employees. I supect we don't have a glut of Lotus vehicles either... nor should they be forced to lower prices to keep their factory humming at 60+% capacity.
If I had the $$$, the real interesting development is Local Motors (www.local-motors.com). I've dreamed of building my own cars for more than 20 years and now the disruptive technology appears to be making it possible. I don't know if Local is going to make it ....but if I had the $$$ to play with, I'd be one to build an Albuquerque factory and target the $10K-$50K market. But in terms of mass-market product, GM, Ford, Chrysler are still forced to contend with newcomers like Tata from India and/or China Motors...
For the analogy to work in the GA world, HondaJet would have to COMPLETELY supplant the status quo global supply chain with one that is 100% Japanese. Everyone loves margins at the high end. But only a truly new company entering the market with a totally new supply chain -- with no ties or obligations to protect the old paradigm -- could force The Establishment to change.
Mebbe it could happen, but I don't see things ever flipping to high volume, low cost JET airplanes anytime soon. It would have to be new tech (i.e., a Warp drive) that is faster, better, and *cheaper* than a jet engine. LOL, General Electric will never allow it!!!
e.d.t.
Hi Rich,
Holee-Molee, A Bravo!
I was holding my peace, thinking a Mustang was potentially the best solution to the Epic-vs-Eclipse discussion- wowie!
Congratulations, and happy flying.
Same for Ken.
(Even though it's 4000 feet lowerer :)
(Of course, both of you guys are way above ERcoupe bug-bashing territory!...Did I mention how much less it cost than my neighbor's Taurus?? :)
Rich wrote, "You like "cheap" planes. That's why you flew a mid-air crashed Cessna 340 for years"
Prevaricating again, I see Rich. The years haven't taught you much.
Do let us know when you get your first type rating. I'm sure we'll all be interested to see that you've harnessed hot air for use somewhere other than from your mouth.
Ken
edt,
local motors... sounds like a "home built" with factory assist, perhaps?
VErn never thought he would need $2B-$3B to make his mini-jet - he probably sold very attractive predictions for IRR... etc.
Just like he said he could deliver the plane for $775,000, at one point.
Just like he said he needed to build 1500 per year at one point.
Reality sets in, eventually and everyone know they made a huge error. They believed something that was just a story.
Except Ken...
Eventually reality sets in, and one (even Al Mann, even Peter Reed...) begins to question their own judgement, beliefs and adjusts - its called learning.
Unfortunately, THIS is sometimes avoided at all cost.
Most people on this blog have the capacity to do this...
Some, sad to say, do not.
They were called "die hards" by Vern, and he needed them, used them, and they certainly have some "learning" disabilities...
That's what makes the market for the ea50 SO SMALL... THANKFULLY, THERE ARE NOT THAT MANY OF THEM AROUND.
I just found a beautiful Lear 35 for sale (there's several of course); fresh inspections; ESP; no damage; US registered; new P&I; TFE 731s on ESP; 7 pax, baggage; nearly 2000NM range, Mach .8; reliable, efficient DOCs; full after-market support worlwide; great re-sale; 135 charter programs etc, highly finance-able with strong residual value; yes, you need two pilots, but what a plane: and it looks great. Ask: $1.6MM
Why fool around with a pro forma new jet from a start up?
The Lear Jet is still the most successful LJ of all time and no one has come close to beating it in price/performance.
Deep Blue,
Ah… the Learjet 35A. In 1995 I was preparing for the type rating check ride and invited to fly left seat cross country, Florida to Michigan. We received an unrestricted climb-out and the aircraft performed just as the book predicted… sea level to 41,000 feet in 14 minutes. Then came the power reduction to stay below Mmo. From memory you can fill the seats and still have excellent range. What a machine.
EDT said...
Well ....how much has Cessna put into the RnD of the Mustang?
=======================
EDT, you are confusing LSA, GA, BizAv. These are different markets.
LSA = enterteinment + sport thrills. Do I buy a parasail, a morotrized hangglider or an LSA plane. Remos.
GA = enterteinment + pleasure transportation. SR22
BizAv = Status + Serious Transportation. Mustang-748VIP.
What Cirrus invests in R&D of the SR22 is prob about the same or less than what Bentley or Ferrari invests. Both have about the same volume and have about the same average unit price.
Certifying an SR22 with no more difficult than certifying a car for emissions and crash standards.
There is way more electronics in those cars than the average GA plane.
So lets keep the discussion clear. LSA, GA, BizAV are different markets. There is even lots of different submarkets within each category.
GA's R&D requirements, target income group, volumes is roughly the same of high-end, high-performance automobiles. Those automobiles were once unreliable, leak beasts that required very expensive maintenance. Now, they have 5 year warranties, are completely maintenance free other than an oil change every 15Kmiles, and rarelly see the dealer for defects. They are incredibly faster, safer, etc. They are expanding their market.
GA, in the mean time, is still stuck in the past. Cirrus/Columbia/Diamond/Eclipse excepted.
Deep Blue said...I just found a beautiful Lear 35
----------------------------
Again, mixing the markets and ignoring the downsides.
As a personal transportation plane the 35A is basically a useless headache.
If Ken decides to go from his home to Aspen for the day or weekend, he spends 10 min in flight planing, drives to the airport jumps on his plane and goes.
If you own that Lear 35, what are you going to do? Keep 3 full crews of 2 on payroll year round? Yes, it takes at least 3 crews if you want to have them on stand by to fly whenever you want.
Even then, if you decide to fly, you probably have to page/call your crew or your dispatcher if you keep one on pay roll, tell them when you want to go, when you want to return, they have to book hotels, transportation, etc.
And how much does insurance on that Lear 35 will cost per year? How much maintenance? How much in fuel?
You know, there is a reason why a plane that costs $10M new is selling for $1.6M now - that should tell you about the desirability of that plane.
As for personal transportation, if you can't jump on your plane and go without talking/coordinating with a bunch of people, it is a useless pain in the ass.
Baron,
In addition to your practical considerations - Crews are advised to deplete fuel in the tip tanks before landing, especially in gusty crosswinds.
Somehow I think the result of losing an engine coming out of Aspen in a Lear 35 and an Eclipse would be two different stories. But, hey, who cares? God forbid you should have a crew on board who actually know what they are doing. Much better to have a single-pilot amateur crew of one on board with the Kenny Boy mentality.
Years of lurking and finally Baron has convinced me to post.
I happen to fly a Lear 35 for the personal transportation of the aircraft's owner, so maybe I can offer a more realistic view.
Baron said:
"If you own that Lear 35, what are you going to do? Keep 3 full crews of 2 on payroll year round? Yes, it takes at least 3 crews if you want to have them on stand by to fly whenever you want."
I am 1/2 of a crew of two that is on 24 hour standby for our owner. We don't need three crews- you probably would to be legal for part 135, but that is not what we are talking about. How much can you really fly? The time we have off between flights makes up for the constant standby situation.
"Even then, if you decide to fly, you probably have to page/call your crew or your dispatcher if you keep one on pay roll, tell them when you want to go, when you want to return, they have to book hotels, transportation, etc."
A dispatcher? For one airplane and one crew? Are you kidding me? The hard work the owner does is to call one of us and say "let's go." We do flight planning (must take all of 10 mins with internet access) and find our own hotels and transportation. Are you really saying that having to make one phone call to a crew member makes it not worth having?
And how much does insurance on that Lear 35 will cost per year? How much maintenance? How much in fuel?
Ok - insurance, fuel, and maintenance are sure to be a lot more. It is a 18,300 lb, part 25 airplane that will carry 6+ people 1800 NM at .76M. Apples and oranges. There aren't that many people who can afford one and are really qualified to crew their own jet.
"You know, there is a reason why a plane that costs $10M new is selling for $1.6M now - that should tell you about the desirability of that plane."
The reason is that it is old! Ours is 30 yrs old and has steam gauges driven by iron gyros. FADEC? Hardly. Pressurization - better check those masks twice. The 40 series has something like 1/2 as many parts. My 1966 Volvo sells for a lot less than a 2009 model.
"As for personal transportation, if you can't jump on your plane and go without talking/coordinating with a bunch of people, it is a useless pain in the ass."
So the argument is that making one phone call to a pilot is too much work to make it worth having a private jet at your disposal?
By the way, the numbers coming out of Aspen on one engine aren't pretty in the 35 either. Required climb gradients would be an issue, especially without dumping the tip tanks.
Well, there's an intriguing discussion going on here.
The Lear 35. The Lear 23. The Lear 24. The Lear 25. The Lear 30/31. The Lear 36. The Lear 55. The Lear 60.
I've flown them all. 5,000 hours and counting (including the "Widow Maker" Lear 23); I've also flown the B-18 and MU-2 as PIC, single pilot, thousands of hours.
The point? I'm bragging.
Now, back to the Lear. Hands down, still the best LJ ever, of all time. Two pilots? Yes. Necesary? No. The Falcon 10 was certified SP (I have 1,176.00 hours as PIC on that beautiful bird).
Point? Either there's something wrong with new VLJs/LJs or there's something wrong with pilots or with certification or both (I think the latter).
Let me explain: if a man can fly a MU-2 as SP, or a C-425 as SP (I did, all throughout Latin America) or a Beech Baron as SP (well, I have 233.00 hours in that one), surely one could fly a Lear Jet, SP.
But why isn't it certified as SP? But the E500 is?! Or an Epic or Piper Jet? The Cessna series? (straight wing, sub-Mach .75; really, a Piper Cherokee with jet engines, God love it).
Let's start thinking.
I leave that to the Blog.
Hint:
Pilot cert, training, standards are 50 years old and counting.
Cockpits (Avio) or other ridiculous features in the A300 series et al, do not address the fundamental pilot performance requirements for high altitude jet flight.
Just ask the military.
Hello Deep_Blue,
Wow, that's quite a credentials list!
For those not quite sure what a B-18 is...
(Beautiful airplane- looks sort of like an ERcoupe :)
In one of life's perplexing (but in this case, pleasant) coincidences (unlike say, finding out your spare tire is as flat as the right front tire...), I was looking up what a "Softflite" wing was, and I came across this COOL product summary dating from inception to 1996 (doesn't have the model 45, which must have certified just a tad bit later):
Learjet_Product_History
(The last half has a REALLY good summary of the wing aerodynamic tweaks. Interestingly, it seems like the first wings had quite a "cuff" for low speed handling- I thought of that as being a later technique, around 1970 or so.
For those who might not have ever seen one, the early Lears I remember looked like they had mutant porcupines glued to the upper wings, such was the state of vortex generators then. (Actually, I think the devices were called turbulators- about 2 inches high, dozens of little airfoils- see this pic zoom in on the right wing for a good view, albeit from a distance...)
Learjet 25
(No, it's not a test- I remember seeing the ugly things on production models- seemed even worse, to tell you the truth).
---------------------------------
Regarding the twin pilot requirements- I'd guess- ? holdover from corporate fleet operators and insurance companies, what with flying "high value cargo" (C.E.O.s) in the back?
---------------------------------
(?? Why was the first Learjet called "23", instead of, oh, say..."1" ??)
Baron wrote, "If Ken decides to go from his home to Aspen for the day or weekend, he spends 10 min in flight planing, drives to the airport jumps on his plane and goes.
If you own that Lear 35, what are you going to do?"
That's exactly right.
The Lear 35 was a great plane, but they haven't made it in over a quarter of a century. Everyone here knows that old airplanes are inexpensive to acquire (and expensive to fly); most know the reasons why.
I can fly the hypothetical flight to Aspen single pilot in my Eclipse in under 2 hours while using less than a thousand pounds of fuel.
The same flight in the Lear 35 is faster--it'll knock off 15 minutes or so off the enroute time. But I need a co-pilot to do it--Lears just aren't single pilot airplanes, and that means they're just not very good for owner-pilots.
The Lear will use over twice as much fuel and run up DOCs 3, maybe 4 times as much as what they are in the Eclipse, given the age of each plane.
As we've heard, the Lear is an old design with an old cockpit and old systems subject to the maintenance issues that any old plane has. Some of them are nuisances (like the mechanical gauges), others are safety issues (like the one that got Payne Stewart).
Does that mean the Lear 35 is not a great plane? No, of course not. It just means it's not a serious comparison if you're talking about owner-pilots flying modern cost-effective jets.
Ken
" owner-pilots flying modern cost-effective jets."
So, Ken, hows that FIKI working for you?
"Fun to follow" isn't a very apropos name for you; you obviously haven't followed the goings on very well. I submit you don't know what you're talking about. You're just spouting:
"leaking phosphorex"--that would be PhostrEx, not phosphorex. If you can't even write it correctly, how can anyone believe that you know anything about it?
"EASA approval withdrawn"--not so. It was *suspended* for administrative reasons, not withdrawn.
"1 cent on the dollar"--there are bids in excess of that.
"the company that lied and ripped off hundreds of depositors and vendors"--yep, they did. What's that got to do with the plane being good?
"Laughing and happy as hundreds of jobs were lost in Albq"--Huh? I'm not laughing at the loss of jobs. That's nuts. I said the plane was good; I didn't say anything about jobs either way.
"you are trying to feel good about yourself"--I feel real good about myself; that's why I'm able to step onto this stage with a great big target on my back for guys like you.
"You are a scam, man"--it will be interesting to see if our new moderator will follow through on his pledge to keep personal attacks off this blog. Personally, I don't think he will, but we'll use you as a test case and find out.
It's okay for you to not know what you're talking about; it is not okay for you to attack me personally in order to further highlight your lack of knowledge on the subject.
Ken
Ken:
You should have said some of what ftftgo is saying is basically true, instead of trying to dismiss it with his improper spelling...
This could have made what yu wrote regarding "personal attcks" more impactful.
But, you couldn't help yourself, could you?
I appreciate your comments here -they provide a nice view into the mind of a die-hard... a very interesting and rare species, I might add.
airsafetyman said...
Somehow I think the result of losing an engine coming out of Aspen in a Lear 35 and an Eclipse would be two different stories. But, hey, who cares? God forbid you should have a crew on board who actually know what they are doing.
=========================
Oh, I AGREE.
It is completely different losing an engine on a plane that has a rotation/V1 speed around 70kts than one that has it at 120 kts. I PERSONALLY would rather be on an Eclipse.
Lets see how many seconds between V1-5 and the end of the runway on both planes - do the math and tell me.
As to hiring a professional crew. If we have a set annual budget, and I spend less on insurance and fuel on the Eclipse, that means I can hire a better crew than I could if I owned the Lear.
Unless of course, ASM, you make all your analysis assuming unlimited money is available for everything. Then you should go talk to Fred in the playroom.
With a FIXED BUDGET there is NO WAY an owner pilot will come to the conclusion that a Lear 35 is a workable plane.
Michael said....
I am 1/2 of a crew of two that is on 24 hour standby for our owner. We don't need three crews
=================
Really???!!!????
You never get sick?
You never take vacation?
You never go out for a drink after which you CANNOT LEGALLY FLY FOR AN 8-hour window.
I'll stop here so as not to further embarrass you or get you to admit violating any FARs.
Baron-
Standby (or fill-in) crews are pretty much available on a pay-by-the-hour basis. Especially in this market.
What am I missing?
Rich
Baron, I would suggest you stop while you are ahead, but my time machine is busted and I can't go back 6 months.
How DO you find the time to know everything about everything and to know it better than the professionals who actually do it?
Very impressive.......
CW, why don't you post some useful information, which I know you are capable off, instead of trying to attack the messenger vs debating the message.
Please do tell us, what an individual owner with a personal personal flying desire to go places at will needs to do to fly a Lear 35.
Yes, Gunner, I know about fill-in crews. Please tell us, how that works out when say you are spending summer in Baja, like Ken just did or when your plane is based in an out-of-the way airport.
I don't even know why we are arguing this point. A Lear 35 is so far off the mark for an individual owner with a personal flying desire. We might as well be talking a 747VIP. Yes, there are those at the beg and call of Saudi princes, what is the point?
"Please tell us, how that works out when say you are spending summer in Baja, like Ken just did or when your plane is based in an out-of-the way airport."
That's a bit too much qualification, Baron. It renders your point about as rleavent as:
- But what does an owner-operator do if he decides he wants to go somewhere after having a glass of wine with dinner?
- But what does the owner-operator do when he emergency lands at an out-of-the-way airport with an AVIO-induced throttle in firewall or idle position?
This is general aviation, guy. If you want on time, every time, at lowest cost, Go Greyhound. They even service Baha.
Rich
And CW, be careful when you defer too much to professionals. Never leave your critical thinking behind.
We have had "professionals" drive every major domestic airline in the US (save AA) into bankruptcy. Not an isolated event, not an exception - ALL OF THEM (except AA)!!!
We have had "professionals" drive 2/3 of the native auto manufacturing industry into bankruptcy.
We have had "professionals" make a mess out of the 787 program.
I've just had a "professional" tire shop mount the wide rear tires of my car on the front narrow rims and the narrow front tires overstretched over the wide rims. S$#@, I should just trust the professional.
When a "professional" arrogantly says that exactly 2 crew members on payroll is ALL it takes to crew a 2-pilot Jet 24x7x365 on a moments notice, the absurdity needs to be pointed out by "non-professionals" with common sense.
Deep Blue,
Your mention of the Beech 18 brings back pleasant memories… first the multi-engine seaplane rating in California and then a 2,000 nautical mile trip around Alaska with the family in this ship. Twenty years later it flies in Canadian registration:
Twin Beech on Floats
Baron, the answer to your question is far simpler than you make it.
a- EA50's are not relaible personal cost effective transportation. Most of the fleet is not flying, and there is no real cost effective way to remain compliant, for the planes or pilots. Finally, a lot of quality/safety issues have been cited, and many folks just dismiss this plane a one that was prematurely rushed out the door, and is not safe. There are known life limiting issues, as well as quality issues - so ANY reference to this plane as reliable, safe, cost effective personal transport, is unacceptable to most. Of course if tit is analogous to a recreation vehicle for those who are thrill seeking... or those that are blind to risk - this makes some sense.
b- the Lear 35s are professionally flown jets. Trying to compare them to the EA50 is pretty lame - -they are proven, older technology. But a uses 35 is a better value by any normal persons standard, these days. If one is type rated, you can have a left seat pilot flying with you, and have all the fun in the world. My guess is, for many missions, all things considered the 35 with the 25 year old fuel burn, is still a value compared to the ea50.
Why is this a guess? Well, we need to admit, that the costs associated with the ea50 are pretty well unknown at this point, all things considered. So, without penalizing the ea50 too much for depreciation, upgrades, fixes, etc... I would just put it in the unkknown category.
As for Ken's reference to Payne Steward, after 25 years and million of hours, we'll see how the ea50 holds up, at FL410...
Until then, he hould keep his retarded remarks regarding someone dying in an unfortunate incident, to himself.
My gess is, his plane won't be around that long, and if it is, it will have a shitty record all around.
So Baron, if I am a type rated lear 35 pilot, 2 professional pilots on tandby is redundancy, as far as I am concerned... yup - careful what you say, where you point... and of course, tire pros make mistakes all the time. Better double check those "pros" all the time...
I like your criteria for a pro.
Rich asks,
"But what does an owner-operator do if he decides he wants to go somewhere after having a glass of wine with dinner?"
He lets his co-pilot fly. Can't do that in an old Lear. Gotta have two legal pilots. Or maybe he waits a few hours--after all, an owner-operator isn't being paid to be available on short notice.
"But what does the owner-operator do when he emergency lands at an out-of-the-way airport with an AVIO-induced throttle in firewall or idle position?"
He reads the manual and resets the FADEC in seconds flat. You didn't know that?
AT says,
"EA50's are not relaible personal cost effective transportation."
Speaking from actual ownership experience, I can only think of one planned flight that had to be postponed for maintenance (we completed the flight less than 24 hours later after a simple fix).
The owner-flown fleet, according to the ongoing sampling performed by E5C, currently stands at 5% owner-grounded (i.e. the owner elected to ground his plane), 3.3% grounded awaiting servicing, and 83.3% flying. I think that's extraordinary given the current circumstances and strongly argues for the reliability of the plane.
Ken
Just remember... Ken has the single best EA50 ever produced... all other reports for the last year about nightmarish incidents and crappy quality do not apply to his plane... lucky for him.
Also, remember that the sampling of the e5c (eclipse owners) club differes from analysis done from time to time on this site, that shows far more plane on the ground than anything e5c will report.
My opinion is quite simple -- that there is no reason to compare:
a 13000+ mtow, 6 pax 2000m fast jet with a great aviation history, built by a reputable company - with the ea50 - none!
Unless of course Bombardier buys Eclipse...
There's no reason for any major OEm to toy with eclipse... or the ea50. None.
Unless some major company saves the ea50, all discussions about relaible, affordable, etc... are moot.
The thing is a relic. It presents an opportunity for risk-taking private piots to fly around and have some fun at potentially tremendous costs - all tings considered.
the fact that some my fly one, and some my not, does not change this fact. This repeated argument by Ken, is foolish. Its like saying one cannot see the Hindenburg is a dangerous craft, because one has not flown on it. once again, representative of a certain kind of thinking, required to buy an EA50, IMO.
The Beech Twin is playing the lead role in the adventure movie The Flyboys coming out this summer. B-18 fans can watch the trailer here.
Oh my, I've brought on the wrath of the Baron. I've got to say, he keeps me coming back!
"When a "professional" arrogantly says that exactly 2 crew members on payroll is ALL it takes to crew a 2-pilot Jet 24x7x365 on a moments notice, the absurdity needs to be pointed out by "non-professionals" with common sense."
I didn't say that. Read my comment, I said that you don't need three full crews for part 91. Yes, for one flight in the last 18 months we needed a fill-in guy. Better put that jet up for sale!
I'm not arguing the point of Eclipse vs. Lear 35 for owner-flown transportation. I was disputing your statement:
"As a personal transportation plane the 35A is basically a useless headache."
I'm sure the owner of our plane (no, it isn't the king of Saudi Arabia) would disagree as well. After all, the bills keep getting paid.
"With a FIXED BUDGET there is NO WAY an owner pilot will come to the conclusion that a Lear 35 is a workable plane."
Then why are so many Lears being flown? I'm quite sure there are many owner/pilots who are qualified in the airplane who get a lot of time in it. Other times they may sit in the back or dispatch the airplane with crew for other trips. Fairly standard procedure, and I'm sure most operations adhere to a budget. If I were qualified in the airplane I would not hesitate to hop in a well-maintained Lear 35 and go to Aspen. There is no way I would ever get in an Eclipse in the first place much less try to go to Aspen.
By the way, the Lear 35 pilot said he was on call 24/7 not 24/7/365 and I'm sure they are not required to be on call when the aircraft in in for maintenance, or after a long duty day, or in many other instances. All owners are not idiots.
airtaximan said...
So Baron, if I am a type rated lear 35 pilot, 2 professional pilots on tandby is redundancy, as far as I am concerned... yup - careful what you say
Michael said... I am 1/2 of a crew of two that is on 24 hour standby for our owner.
============================
Having problems reading ATM? :)
Michael clearly stated that they crew the entire cockpit (2 professional crew) FOR THE OWNER.
The owner can ONLY fly IF, neither of the 2 is sick. Neither of the two is on vacation, neither of the two is indisposed due to alcohol consumption in the past 8 hours, neither of the two is unreachable, etc, etc, etc....or, as Rich mentions, alternate arrangements have been made with yet another source of crews.
On top of that, you are taking the whole show on the road, whatever you go.
Now, if you'd like to discuss the case of an L35 owner who also happens to be a type rated, legal and competent L35 pilot, and needs just one other pilot, I'll be glad to discuss that.
Or maybe not. Since it is pointless.
Lear 35 is probably the least likely jet at or under its MTOW to be selected by an owner with a personal flying desire. The absolute last choice, probably.
And the more you try to argue the point, the more ridiculous it gets.
"We have had "professionals" drive every major domestic airline in the US (save AA) into bankruptcy."
What is Southwest, a cruise line?
ATM said... Its like saying one cannot see the Hindenburg is a dangerous craft, because one has not flown on it.
Perhaps that is true, but it flew beautifully up until the last mooring :). But how would you know? You still just fly a desk in Florida. How would you know about the flying qualities of the Eclipse? How would you know about the reliability of the Eclipse from recliner at your desk? The only information at your disposal is the biased speculation of this blog.
The most utilized EA50 that I know of is operated by Labquest. They love the plane and typically fly 4 to 7 missions an evening with it. The plane is currently in maintenance since they have reached a 2000 cycle rebuild requirement of the flap actuators. Yes, 2000 missions flown. That is the only reason the plane is currently down. In about a 60 day period from the end March to the beginning May they put 260 flights on the plane with no issues. That high reliability, and high cycle usage.
Ken, leave Gunner alone. He'll never see that he has no magic business sense either. OK, perhaps he leased a Bravo. It's probably the best thing for him since he was never able to achieve his commercial rating. He's better off flying in the back seats. He ran from Eclipse right to Diamond. Placed THREE orders for their eternally delayed "speed demon" that has a 240kt LRC to get the range spec. Hell, that almost what his Baron will do. Great jet! Then he paid almost $2 Million for an experimental turboprop, less an engine and FIKI, and sues the company. All the while claiming Eclipse's non-FIKI existence to be so flawed, yet that is just what he bought, a non-FIKI experimental turboprop. Tell me Rich, of all of your aircraft investment, how many actually fly???
Somehow, me thinks there is a connection between “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World”, the Beech D-18, the “paper thin billboard” in the movie, the B-25 that filmed some of the shots, the connection with “Tallmantz Aviation” (that provided the $10K D-18, with re-enforced wings to fly through the “billboard”), and the beginning shots of “Jimmy Durante” (who produced this farce, literally “kicking a bucket” in the opening scenes), and the final demise of the Eclipse . . . but I have yet to put it all together.
In the mean time, the silly dialogue between both sides of the issue (which issue? . . . doesn’t seem to matter much . . . lately, the “Learjet” seems to be the one in black), as to the merits or demerits of the little jet, that thought it could . . . but didn’t, seems like a replay of the script from that famous movie. The thin “paper” used in the billboard fly-through scene was almost the fatal end of the movie. Beware that “paper thin” accusations may destroy personalities, in all the diatribe . . . with silly attempts to prove who is the “more right”. Does it really matter that much?
gadfly
(Nostalgia: I thought I’d gone back in time to a third-grade “food fight” in the school cafeteria! But, No, that sort of behavior was not tolerated “back then”, in olden times, when even the principal of the school used a paddle on stupid kids that refused to learn. Did I ever tell you about the time that a couple survivors of the Civil War visited our “grammar school”? . . . Good thing they died, long ago, before all this “nonsense”, . . . things in their days had a serious value.)
This is a very interesting mea culpa blog post written by a CEO who started a business in an industry in which he had no experience, introduced a game changing revolutionary product concept, then let the PR, media frenzy and the fund raising take precedence over actually delivering a product.
He humbly talks about the lessons he learned from the experience of running his company into the ground.
As you probably suspect, this post was not written by Vern...
"The plane is currently in maintenance since they have reached a 2000 cycle rebuild requirement of the flap actuators."
They have grounded the airplane because they can't exchange out the flap actuators and are rebuilding them? Sounds like a wonderful airplane for that high cyclic usage.
airsafetyman said...
"We have had "professionals" drive every major domestic airline in the US (save AA) into bankruptcy."
What is Southwest, a cruise line?
=====================
Sorry, my mistake. Should have said US Legacy Major or US Network Carrier. That would include Eastern, PanAm, TWA, United, USAir, Northwest, Delta, American, Continental.
Other than AA, all of the others have liquidated OR liquidated their shareholder value (some more than once). While others have merged to exit BK.
And yes, WN (and even B6) have earned their place (IMHO) as major US airlines. Though some will disagree because they are not network carriers with significant international presence, etc.
What is the point? That the "professionals" at WN and B6 are doing a good job while the "professionals" at UA, DL, US, CO, PA, TW, EA, have wiped out shareholder value?
Or that we have a phone company guy and a plane company guy teaching the professionals at GM and F how to run their businesses?
Or that two mathematicians at Google are teaching the entire publishing industry how to make money?
Sometimes, being a "professional" can blind you big time.
Michael may be a professional flight crew member. And deserves respect for that. But he (prob) has never been on the other side, as a jet plane buyer/owner balancing the trade-offs between owning a Lear 35 or Mustang for personal transportation. He sees his side, and mistakenly believes that is providing full time, on-demand, short notice services with no reserve crew members, which is a total impossibility and patently wrong.
And you are trying to argue about it. I can't figure out why.
EWS said....Tell me Rich, of all of your aircraft investment, how many actually fly???
===========================
OK. Not to laugh at another persons fate, but this is ONE HECK OF A ONE LINER!!!
Just shows that humility is needed. No one is immune from voluntarily placing oneself in a bad position, particularly in GA and light BizAv. Don't be so quick to judge and believe that you are above making the same mistakes.
I repeat again. As of now, Ken and others that bought the EA50 at the intro prices and are flying are in a better position than those who have tied money into Epic, Adam and all other speculative turbine ventures.
The only thing we can say, is that, Ken et al have an uncertain and probably difficult road ahead to support their planes.
But flying still beats seeing your $2M in pieces at a hangar of an insolvent company.
Flight Center referred to something that had at least three great comments . . . the first is enough for the moment: “Believing your own BS is toxic” . . . and I would add, “habit forming and addictive”.
As is my normal procedure, I tune in to late-night radio on my “head set”, and awake in the morning with a look at the latest news, and commentary. The other night, the host of some silly show was pronouncing “life on Mars”, based on evidence from a single meteorite, with a unique pattern in the “rock”. What he didn’t say was that the “artifact” was too small to allow certain necessary cells to pass through the openings in the so-called “artifact of life”, but simply an anomaly of crystal formation, as molten rock becomes solid, and sometimes “mimics” things that remind a fertile mind of other things.
The “fertile minds” of proponents of the little jet continue to express “faith” in a continued life . . . but the “DNA” does not exist for reproduction . . . it’s all gone . . . it never really existed from “day one”. For some, they continue to hope for something . . . anything, to keep the thing producing evidence of life . . . and for a time, they’ll succeed. But “reproduction”, like sex, is all important. And the little jet is a “mule” . . . no, that’s not correct, it’s a “hinny” (or “jenney” . . . or “jennet”) . . . backwards.
gadfly
(If you don’t understand, look it up. At any rate, there is no “second generation” . . . but then I’ve been saying that for the last few years . . . and still, not a single complete product, comments of some not withstanding.)
airsafetyman said... They have grounded the airplane because they can't exchange out the flap actuators and are rebuilding them? Sounds like a wonderful airplane for that high cyclic usage.
AS-Man, now you how your ignorance. Name an airplane that after 2000 cycle does not have to have an actuator, starter/generator, or some other item overhauled or maintained. Yes, the reality is that these parts cannot just be swapped out today, and parts availability is also a factor with the company's non-existence. But, 2000 cycles in a year's period is high usage, and scheduled maintenance is expected. This is not unscheduled maintenance. Show some intellegance.
"EWS said....Tell me Rich, of all of your aircraft investment, how many actually fly???"
This sheds some light on a very importnat fact - just because is might be able to fly, does not mean its a worthy investment.
Baron is correct... one must be himble, and one must understand the risks associated with buyine any new plane from any new company...
But the wishful thinking and mischaracterizations that are part of ea50 ownership and a differet story.
The Hindenberg flew beautifully... until... according to somoene with a new name on this blog...
Smart comment.
Baron rightfully illuminates one key FACT - we do not know the cost associated with flying/continued airworthiness/mainteance/upgrades/depreciation/LEP etc... with the EA50.
So the reason for buying one - the idea that is it so much less expensive to own and operate than an alternative, is pure fantasy.
Its wishful thinking... plain and simple.
Ken says its fun...
Some guy here says it flown without issue for 2000 hours...
Wonderful attributes. Fun and one reportedly flew 2,000 hours...
But these are not the only planes that are fun, and that have a record of one plane flying 2000 without major issues.
I do not think this is the value propositon offered to the revolutionary market that would demand 750 or more ea50s for years and years...
Ken has the best ever produced ea50 - and all things considered, its perfect for him...
I sincerely do not think he would have paid $2.7 millon for the plane; he would not have touched it at normal service rates... no way.
Its just not a value compared to what is out there, all things considered.
This is the ultimate point.
Yes - Ken received the best-ever Ea50... it has no issues, AND he got it by 3-10 other folks losing all their money subsidizing it, so it was a cheaply acquired plane for him.
In the end, we do not know what it will cost him, to own, upgrade, maintain, or operate... but yes, he did achieve his goal of buying a cheap to acquire jet.
*** the plane will never be what it was sold as, did not achieve its market / business goals and is mired in uncertainty about cost of operation.
I sincerely do not think anyone (even Ken) is OK with this... but for now, we'll obfuscate the issue, and say it ws cheap to buy and fun to fly.
I think I am OK with that, considering some people are thrill seekers, and do not see risk.
Sorry to say I'm not crazy about the direction or tone the new blog is taking........ Gentlemen I think we can clean this up so it is an educational site not a pissing match. If it continues down this path I believe it to be doomed.
My dad taught me a long time ago to never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience every time. You can decide what side of that your on.......
KnotMPH
Somewhere in my stuff, I have an old “B&W” photo that I took of that B25, with the modified large window nose (for the three-camera shots, flying under the bridge in San Francisco Bay, and down through “Bryce Canyon” (as I recall), etc., for Cinerama), parked up near the fence at Santa Ana airport . . . circa 1959. And, I believe, the side “gun turrets” were also modified with large single curve “Plexiglas” windows, for side shots.
gadfly
(In those days, “Santa Ana Airport” was changing from being known as a “drag strip” to being the center hub of one of the richest pieces of real estate in the world, with the Irvine family making their typical 99 year leases, and the City of Santa Ana missing a golden opportunity of property taxes when Irvine became a city.
Much further back in history, many famous aircraft designers/manufacturers got their start in or near Santa Ana, among the "orange groves". And, for what it's worth, I was born there. Who knows! . . . maybe it has something to do with the fog and avocados.)
"AS-Man, now you how your ignorance. Name an airplane that after 2000 cycle does not have to have an actuator, starter/generator, or some other item overhauled or maintained."
Tell me, do they also leave the airplane on jacks for a few weeks while they send out the tires to be recapped? That pharmaceutical company must have quite a backlog of specimens by now. I know, buy another Eclipse - one with low time flap actuators! Col. Mike just might be able to find them one.
Like I said, you show your ignorance.
AT wrote, "Fun and one reportedly flew 2,000 hours"
Yep, fun, reliable, cost-effective transportation.
I think maybe you're beginning to get it.
The plane is nearly twice as fast as my last plane--a nice, but old, twin piston. Mile-for-mile, the Eclipse costs me the same money as that old Cessna but is a whole lot safer and nicer. For an owner-pilot, the Eclipse is a slam-dunk good deal.
Will the skies be darkened by Eclipse 500 air taxis? Beats me, probably not. But for an owner-operator, it's an irrelevant discussion. The plane is an almost-perfect design for many owner-operators.
Ken
uglytruth said... Sorry to say I'm not crazy about the direction or tone the new blog is taking........ Gentlemen I think we can clean this up so it is an educational site not a pissing match.
===============
I agree. My apologies to the blog for my tone in the last few posts. And personal apologies to Michael, ATM, ASM, Gunner, and DeepBlue.
Even though we talk past each other sometimes, I think there is actually quite a bit of consensus on this blog.
And I think the common thread, is that we all here (I think) would like to see more successful GA and light BizAv planes and companies in the market place.
In particularly, I think the $1M-$2.5M GA/BizAv market is devoid of compelling products. There is only the G58Baron and the PA-46-Meridian in that huge price spectrum. And that is NOT meeting the needs of owner/pilots in that price range.
Maybe we should turn this negative discussion into a positive one.
What would it take for a company and plane to meet the needs of that market? It has to be a plane that is more capable than the plane just below that price range (Piper PA-46-Mirage - 1,000NM, 6 pax, cabin class, 215KTS), and cost less than the plane just above that range (Cessna 510 Mustang).
Of all the proposed designs, I thought the EA-400 had the best chance of filling that role.
What do you think?
KnotMPH
With so many common memories, it could be that we went to different schools together (although not at the same time and not the same places).
gadfly
(And don't forget, for better or worse, Von Karman Blvd through the center of Irvine.)
Meanwhile, the "professionals" at UA, just managed to raise $175M in new financing to stay afloat.
Yeah for UA!!!! (it rimes)
Oh, no. Wait!!!
They are paying a 17% annual interest rate. And they had to use as collateral $600M worth of engines and spare parts.
Only professionals!!!!
Only true professionals, borrow money at 17% interest rate to finance a business with a NEGATIVE rate of return. Or a business that in the BEST OF TIMES has had a 4% return.
Brilliant.
Lets hear for the professionals!!!!
For the non professionals, is there any doubt on how this will end up?
Yep. You guessed it.
Another bailout.
It will give a new meaning to US-air.
What's a guy to do, in stressful times like these? Folks squabling, bickering, name calling- and we're not even at Eclipse !!
:)
Sooo, I asked myself,
what would Shane do in this situation...
Jolly good advice, suggested there!
I do believe the summer heat got to us today- a bit of feistiness and contentiousness.
Ken, I deleted a post to which you took offense.
And, now I repost it (less the more irksome parts :)
Fun_To_Follow_These_Things_Going_On, said (well, I bet he thought it anyway...on a cooler day :)
Dear Dr. Meyer,
"I greatly admire your skills as an eye surgeon, and your personal integrity and honesty". (Well, he would have said that after a couple of pints, I bet).
"How about the leaking corrosive phosphorex scam?
"How about the crap avionics (less advances than the G1000 on a 172 or DA-40)?
"How about the jet who's EASA approval was withdrawn? (Must be a fantastic aircraft!))
"Or the one made by a company that can't even get 1 cent on the dollar in bankruptcy for the billions lost by vern-the-crook and roel-the-scam-man?
"Or the one made by the company that lied and ripped off hundreds of depositors and vendors?
...And then the stuff I cut out. Fun_To_Follow brought up some good points (which Ken posted some good responses to), and some others, which I think were intended as humor, and I did not find offensive per se; but rather, I believe could be misleading even if said in jest- which would be a disservice to Ken, and to the blog.
Ken did not cheer when anyone was laid off at Eclipse, nor celebrate vendors and suppliers getting swindled, nor his fellow depositors getting fleeced.
In fact, Ken made a significant endowment to the School of Economic Disruption as well, with the unfortunate ill-executed EA-400 ConJet adventure.
So, I would say, his EA-500 purchase HELPED the employees, and vendors, and suppliers- not hurt them- and I truly believe his intention was never to do the later, nor to mislead other potential depostors. Some accuse him of being "overenthusiastic" about the airplane, and extrapolate that into a manipulative endorsement of the product, which I do not believe was his overt intention*.
(Although, like many, he might have sincerely thought "if they just bring in a few more orders, Eclipse can pull through". And, he put his deposit down on an EA-400, perhaps to help with that, so I don't think we can expect any more sincerity than that).
*I don't believe that is the case, anymore than saying some on the blog could be accused of hoping the company would fail, with the desire to see employees, vendors, suppliers hurt; NEITHER accusation of ill-will is correct- we just have various, and sometimes (?frequently? :) opposing, strong opinions on the quality of the aircraft and ethics of the company. (More disagreement on the former, than the later :)
FWIW, my position is:
The airplane is good, probably the best new small-capacity airplane on the market for $2.2~2.5+ M dollars.
You can pay less and get more capacity and range, with a little less speed, which is the better solution for folks hauling a lot and/or going longer distances; or pay more, and get more of everything, including operating expense, which is the best solution for folks wanting to haul a lot, far, fast.
What's the best airplane? It depends on the mission- and really, for personal transportation, most folks can "adapt" their missions to use the equipment they have (including lack of FIKI)- and fly commercial or charter for everything else.
Or even as Rich suggests:
"This is general aviation, guy. If you want on time, every time, at lowest cost, Go Greyhound. They even service Baja."
(That's my vote for quote of the thread :)
New headline post coming up shortly (early Tuesday AM).
We'll be having a special guest, so please be on "good behavior". (With any luck, we might be able to fool him, for a while! :)
funny...
Ken says
"The plane is an almost-perfect design for many owner-operators".
This based on ownership economics that are completely unknown... then again, this group thinks that have all the unknowns under control.
What's it cost to buy?
- anyone know? NO.
What's it cost to make?
- anyone know? NO.
What's it cost to support?
- anyone know - NO.
Ah... perfect.
Beware the Icon. It is not a seaplane it is only good on fair weather days with litle wind and no big waves around.
I own a seabee and have flown a lake before I bought the seabee and have friends with lakes.
one friend of mine hit a 1.5 foot wake with his lake, which has a flat bottom, on take off and porpoised it in. he only lost the windshield and one float and filled the cockpit up to his waist with water. luckily, the engine was still running and he managed to beach it before it sank.
If you talk to Icon ask how big a wave it is designed for. I hear the biggest it has handled is 9 inches. it has a very flat hull like the lake and will have very big problems with bigger waves pounding it apart. FYI my seabee is certified for 3 foot waves. I have only hit 2 footers and it handled them well. a good seaplane needs lots of bow out front also, as a big wave can even force you to dive it in and flip it. I Know of two people who were killed in another light sport amphibian that way. This other light sport amphibian has a very similar looking hull
The Icon is being sold as the answer to all seaplane needs. I would only fly it, according to what I know now, on flat water with no big boats making big wakes on the lake. It is very easy, with any wind or with boats around, to generate wakes bigger than 9 inches.
The Icon, I think, is also going to have a huge difficulty meeting light sport specifications with the folding wings (which are probably a good idea) and still have any useful load.
It will be interesting, if they have the Icon flying at OSH, if they take off on the lake when it is wavy.
Beedriver
'Memories of watching our "chief pilot", firing up the six cylinder Franklin engine, and taking off to the southwest on our longest grass turf strip at Moody Airport (about 1,800 feet), barely clearing the trees, and flying the old Republic Seabee("old", even then, in the early 1960's) to its new owner. At the time, I marveled that this great collection of sheet-metal could actually fly, from a bumpy (and I mean, "really" bumpy), grass strip, and not become a permanent monument in "downtown" Wood Dale, Illinois, somewhere along Irving Park Blvd . . . maybe next to the "Road Pilot" gas station and convenience store. It demonstrated an ability to fly, which I did not think possible . . . but it didn't belong at "Moody" . . . it was truly a duck out of water (on land). And concerning construction, had a strange similarity to our submarine.
gadfly
The Seabee is about versitilty and fun and not going very far very fast.
The original Franklin Bee suffered from a lack of power and an engine locked in 1948 technology. The engine is not that different in reliability etc compared to most of its brethren built at that time but it never had the chance to have the problems fixed like the Lycomings or Contentials. It flies very well if you like heavy ponderous airplanes and climbs well if you put an engine like the GO480 with 270 hp. It is great on the water with the deep v hull and the reversing prop. The original Franklin of 500 cuin actually put out 250 hp I hear but in order to meet certification numbers, it was derated by low compression pistons to 215 hp. with that engine and especially if the old valves and rings are leaking, taking off on a hot day can be real interesting. It also had a habit of eating exhaust valves (I learned first hand) as they were undersized and suffered from valve guide problems. Do not fly a Franklin Bee unless you first pull the cylinders and make sure it has good valves.
but with 270 hp it performs well. Putting more hp on it is futile. other than having a shorter take off run, it just cannot go any faster. there is a Bee out there with a PT 6 on it that manages to do 125 mph. as standard,95 to 105 mph is all you will get from a Bee no matter what. the fat high lift wing and fat part of the fuslage that mounts the engine plus gear that is always out in the wind, guarantees that it will not go fast.
It is one of those old airplanes that is lots of fun and is good for going somewhere if you have a month or two.
There are people with stc's out there to cure its problems like installing modern brakes or the GO470.
For more info go to www.republicseabee.com/
There is even a modern version of it certified with retractable tricycle gear, the Trigull, that is just waiting for someone with a lot of money to put it into production.
http://home.c2i.net/otter32/trigull/trigull.htm
New Headline is Posted-
Post a Comment