Whoops!!Things are getting pretty lively!! (Time for a Moderator Interrupt).
A gentle reminder, from the upper left hand corner of the blog homepage:
"Politeness, civility and good manners are expected at a minimum..."
Thank you- we now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
729 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 729 Newer› Newest»Shane said 3 days ago...
You know it, I know it, and the Trustee knows it.
The Russians ARE coming.
Oh, and the Chinese, too.
(insults to Russian and Chinese followed)
That's the Colonel's fatal error in this. He should have waited until someone else forced the Trustee to put an actual amount forward.
All the Chinese (or the Russians) have to do now is come up with an all cash bid, and the CIFUS smokescreen Eclipse Aerospace are hiding behind will melt away like the morning dew.
Yes Ken,
I know what's going on. Probably a lot more than you'd like me to know
================
Then 1 day ago, Shane Price said...
Congratulations to Mike and Mason.
-----------------------------------
What happened Shane? What happened to the Chinese and Russian that YOU KNEW were outbidding EA?
Why are you congratulating Mike Press and EA after their
FATAL Mistake
Have you no shame sir?
Fred said...NewCo. is starting out with a capability of raising a mere $20 Millions (otherwise , they wouldn't have to use such trick as "Notes" worth about the faith you can have in them ...)
{followed by repeated confused math adding things to $25million even after it was corrected multiple times}
=================
My god - for a big "player" in the financial markets as you claim, you are a really clueless person, aren't you?
EA's job is to get the assets for as little cash upfront as possible. This way they have (hopefully) more cash left to start the business.
The market value of the assets IS 20M - that is the value that a buyer stepped to the plate. That is the mark to market value.
The $20M in notes is PROTECTION FOR THE CREDITORS and was probably their condition (through the Trustee) to accept the "sale".
Don't you guys get it?
The creditors don't lose anything if EA folds. They will have $20M in secured notes on assets that have a $20M value.
If EA runs out of cash next week, next month, next year and can't make the notes payment, the creditors simply get the assets back. I.e. they'd be in the same position.
baron :
whatever ...
i take the trustee move as this :
if you had your house on offer and the guy from real-estate agency would bring you the keys saying "sorry , no-go!"
what would you think ?
i never said i am a big-player (as you , may be ?)
but at least i never tried to show a dead cat for a race-horse !
Beedriver said...
2 - the others: talented professionals like doctor's lawyers, engineers, mechanics accountants etc. they are very useful, smart people but they have never actually created an operating company. they have basically sold only their talent for a fee and never taken any real risks.
I pay attention to the predictions of business people much more than the others
=======================
Wow???!!!!??? You beat Fred for the clueless statement of the day award.
The two people you held as examples...
Gad, with all his experience (which I greatly admire and respect) has shared that his business has failed, he had to lay off all staff and can't pay himself and family a salary.
Shane ... well, read above how clueless, embarrassingly naive he is. And he is not even sure what business he is in.
================
As for Doctors, Lawyers, etc.... you are totally clueless. Running a medical practice - even a sole practitioner small one - is RUNNING A BUSINESS. Some sole practitioners have a few to over a dozen employees. They have sophisticated accounting and insurance tracking systems, they have to secure costly insurance. If you are a bad business person, you medical, law, architecture, etc practice will go belly up in short order.
You are totally clueless.
Mann started his business with some amount of success. So he is in your "respected class".
Still he proved himself a clueless fool over and over again. Got screwed by Vern, got screwed by Pieper and likely lost the most of any individual in the Eclipse mess.
Ken, on the other hand, in your "not respect class", will probably make out pretty well. He is flying a twin jet at FL370 at 370KTS, and likely will have his jet upgraded to FIKI and NG1.5 for an additional $200K or so.
See Beedriver - be careful labeling and categorizing people.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Ken, on the other hand, in your "not respect class", will probably make out pretty well. He is flying a twin jet at FL370 at 370KTS...
So what? So is Vern...
Issue really is, how much of this whole mess was predictable, and how much was not - how much wa just dumb luck, like being one of the lucky 260 to end up with this craft and in some cases also losing a few more deposits along the way, and other money believing in EAC.
I do not think the plane cost Ken $1.anything million... and this is nothing to benchmark who's opinion should be respected regarding the business prospects of EAC...
Just a thought between flight school dispatches.
I have anothe rmoment...
I would suggest that reputation and experience are valuable insofar as the inform an opinion/theory/decision... but, the opinion/theory/decision is what matters. Anyone can remain mindful of facts and history, and come to the right conclusion... and of course there is some luck involved, as well.
Who knew a twin turboprop pusher fractional provider would be fairing well nowadays?
Gotta run...
ATM - I'm not saying any more or any less than what I said.
Mann - in Beedriver's "respected class" lost the most.
Ken - in Beedriver's "not respect class" made out better than most.
It is a RIDICULOUS statement. "I respect the judgment of people that started their business, but don't respect the ones from doctors, lawyers, blah, blah, blah"
Ridiculous, classicist and WRONG.
He is entitled to believe the above. I am entitled to point ouut how in this case and in general it is a FOOL's and probably ENVIOUS opinion.
Poor Ken - he is a clueless Doctor (I think) that flies and Eclipse. So we add Beedrive's (and other's) enviousness of him being a Dr to their enviousness of him flying something he bought for $1M +/- at FL370 and 370KTS, and we have the ultimate OUTING of the clueless critics.
I finally found it!!!! The reason for the hate. It is ENVY.
I can't believe I haven't picked up on it before.
"You couldn't be more wrong."
Careful Baron, you are in the running for top honors when it come to cluelessness!
Baron,
It's time to switch to the decaf.
Ah... back to the "hate" thing. I just love it when the defense is "boils down to hatred..."
I persoanlly do not think you did a great job of refuting BD's opinion... and his, are, about as valid as any generalization, IMO. I hate generalizations, and I think in today's day and age, we have the time and resources to not have to rely on them much...
I have many years of business experience, and I have started my own business, as well. The one I run currently, has not failed, yet!
I have found that Doctors (in geeral) make terrible business decisions, and so do pilots. Lawyers, too. That is not to say that there are no good business decisions made by Doctors and Lawyers, and that some of them are not amazingly talented business people either.
And... we all know how poor some business people's decisions can be as well. Look at MAddoff - lot's of well to do, self-starters, sophisticated bankers, etc... got burned by something that was too good to be true. Their judgement was way off.
In the case of Ken, I only have on basic issue - it did not cost him him $1.anything million to get that plane - Saying this is like saying you got a 14% return from Maddoff... or selling Citigroup at $5 when you paid $20 for some shares and $1 for others, and you only claim the $4 "gain".
I sincerely do not think there is anything to be envious of, and I cannot believe anyone would hate EAC - there's nothing really to hate, except the deception... and who likes deception?
So, have had my share of success and failure in the business world. I attribute all of it to my fault. I have missed the mark, been deceived, and also, had extraordinary positive results.
I know a couple of things here (I think)one thing - the bottom line is EAC missed the mark by a long shot with this plane - it cost Ken a lot more than $1.anything Million for his plane all things considered, and the upcoming venture to support and ressurect the EA50 is a BIG longshot. In fact, with the support claimed by the owners, and the ability for 85% of so of the fleet to be flying and flying more and more as each day goes by... I fail to really see the need for EAC-2.0.
If anyone thinks they can produce and market this plane to more than a handful of folks who have a fettish for it, per year, I think they have not been paying too much attention.
Oh yeah - and I don't hate EAC, and I don't hate anyone here... I just like the discussion when it is open and honest, and when someone tries to mask the truth with some nit, or tries to make acase for EAC or any opion based on "you just hate.."... I find it counter productive, and dare I say, childish.
Envy? Are you kidding me?
Class envy in this context only occurs in the imagination of folks who believe they are being envied. Envy has nothing to do with this.
I have worked with and for folks who where worth millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions, including a couple current clients - some are brilliant, some are average, some are not - just like everybody else.
This idea that the great unwashed masses are running around green with envy and full of bitterness is pure hokum and not worthy of discussion here, it is a demeaning and baseless accusation.
Talk about jumping the shark.
If, and I stress if M&M come through, as in close on the transaction, the check doesn't bounce, and the offer is accepted, then I for one will admit that I was wrong about my suspicion the Chinese will snipe this thing on the courthouse steps, but that in no ways eliminates the serious challenges ahead (see my earlier questions), all it does is begin to consolidate who will be facing them - but there are players who may not cooperate, there are decisions to be taken by M&M that may alienate some owners, and things will not go as planned or as promised.
This is, unfortunately, only the beginning of the next act in this passion play. Too bad this could not have begun back in March, think what might be completed and available by now.
"Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me.
Hemingway: Yes, they have more money."
Ernest Hemingway's exquisite put-down of F. Scott Fitzgerald's repulsive status-seeking and navel-gazing.
CW,
read Ken's last post... then re-read what you wrote:
"This idea that the great unwashed masses are running around green with envy and full of bitterness is pure hokum and not worthy of discussion here, it is a demeaning and baseless accusation."
I think we have our answer...
CW - the comments were not directed at measured and informed blogger/critics like you, WhyTech, Deep Blue.
Just read the extent of Shane's moral decay in the first post of this page.
Do you have an explanation as to why he would make those "I'm important and in the know claims"?
Baron,
It doesn't matter whether or not they were directed at me, and for the record I don't believe they were, it is the principal of the thing.
FWIW, I think it is premature to call this thing over, or to count out the Russians or the Chinese.
The FBI reportedly visited with the Trustee in the past 48 or so hours, and the subject was foreign investment. While I don't believe there is any tech in the Eclipse that should be under strict ITAR/EAR regulation other than the 610's (as evidenced by the approval of RiP's previous involvement and investment), it sounds as if there are issues with foreign investment/ownership at this point (if what I am hearing is true and I have no reason to doubt it).
This may become VERY important if the M&M plan includes ANY foreign investment - assuming that their offer is not vaporware which we will all have a much better feel for in about a week.
Let's face it, Shane's e-mail gets more info than we can even imagine given his position as caretaker of the blog. I get lots of info too but in the interest of maintaining the confidence and anonymity of my sources I don't typically use it immediately, if at all - it is a judgement call.
To think Shane is just making up that he gets lots of info is simply silly - sorting the wheat from the chaff is tough work, like all human beings, there are bound to be mistakes - the mark of character in my book is the ability and willingness to admit it.
To suggest he is doing it because he is somehow envious of Ken or Vern or anyone, especially when we don't really know what his economic situation is, is simply dangerous and stupid IMO.
Shane, as is the case for many critics and faithful alike, may well be in a position to have bought an EA-500 or other aircraft. Whether or not he is is none of our business really.
While I make enough to purchase any of a number of good experimental or light GA aircraft, I am not in the same class of income/net worth as say Ken or Gunner, and I am OK with that.
This is a strawman argument, and historically here on the blog has been indicative of someone else having been insulted by something hitting a little too close to home - when a critique or comment has been painful for someone else to hear, the attacks go personal rather than fact/opinion based.
Now how about someone attempts to answer the programmatic risk questions I posed and leaves Shane and/or Ken alone?
AT asks, ""a good design" based on what criteria? Fun to fly? Saves a few pennies on fuel?"
Well, it *isn't* just a "few pennies" on fuel.
The Eclipse 500 cruises faster than the Mustang but has about 40% more fuel efficiency.
It cruises about the same speed as the Phenom 100 with about 65% better fuel efficiency.
It cruises a bit slower than the CJ1 but has nearly twice as much fuel efficiency.
Any of those savings would pocket the Eclipse owner enough to put a desk jockey like *you* on their payroll for free!
What are the criteria of a good design? Ask the 260 owners of a "good design." They'll tell you:
*Reliable--we know that 81.5% of trackable Eclipse 500's flew in the last two months despite the absence of parts; now that's reliability!
*Affordable--you can put a guy like you on the payroll with what you save in operating costs.
*Fun--any plane is "fun," but those who have flown the Eclipse 500 quite commonly remark how much more fun it is than larger, clunkier jets.
*Fast--the plane cruises at over 400 MPH
*Safe--the plane does dozens of things to keep new jet pilots out of trouble, and the design has established an unusually good safety record.
Fast, fun, reliable, safe and cost-effective are the hallmarks of a good design. Like the Eclipse 500.
Those, like you, who fly a desk need not apply.
Ken
For the record, I don't consider this EA acquisition of assets anything like a done deal.
I was actually shocked by the premature congratulatory notices from both sides (e.g. Ken and Shane).
Until the deal is closed and the plan goes into the implementation phase, to me, it is no more and no less than just one of many possible outcomes.
I still would rather see an EADS or HB or Pilatus pick this up.
Second choice is a reasonably well financed group associated with a service center that is already up and running doing meaningful EA500 work - something like EA, assuming they have access to capital.
It would be wonderful if they truly could hit the ground running at least on some items, like NG1.5 upgrades.
Incidentally, I hope everyone realizes, that the proper way to offer upgrades and update the fleet is last-out, first-in - the reverse of EAC's originally proposed SN sequential update.
Why?
Obvious. The latter planes are closest in configuration and better in documentation and quality than the first ones. They can be updated faster, at lower cost, and can be a powerful indication of early success.
If I were EA, I would not even touch ETT upgrades and anything pre Avio NG for quite some time.
Get FIKI and AvioNG into Avio-equipped planes FIRST. Get that latest config properly documented and support them with gold service.
Time permitting, do pre-AvioNG planes and pre-ETT planes.
I sincerely hope that low SN owners don't have any delusions of getting priority or being first.
I also hope that EA has some common sense and use a last-out, first-in approach resisting owners protestations.
Still Baron ...
in your "done deal" there is something totally weird :
IF assets are worth something =
why no other bidders ? i do not know for you , but $25 Millions would take me only a phone call to my banker ...by the way : i NEVER buy anything on credit ...
if by some weird scheme i would find some attraction in this ...
(this is where Envy is really such an hilarious word ...even at a single $ , i wouldn't pick-up the challenge )
but i must admit that for a PR specialist you're doing quite a good job ...
still trying to confuse peoples between apples and oranges !
as ColdWet stated , this "Bid" is NOT making any sens !
about the fact that $20M in notes would be to preserve the cash of M&M :
it would be wonderful for creditors = after being reamed for such a long time , they would re-sign to wait for an other indefinite time ? with about the same probabilities of return than with Vern the great ?
to me it would ONLY mean they NEVER heard of the KAIZEN concept :
no problem to make mistake ... as you take a lesson from it and avoid to do it twice ...!
at same time , since creditors would have ZIP from cash (shared between trustee and Mann )
what would it mean for their business ?
nothing else than handcuffing themselves to the need of NewCo. if , by any chances or blindness , they hope to see any of their money in future ...
Here you miss 2 aspects : Kaizen + a real weird concept = NO Business is ALWAYS better than BAD business !
(sometimes it pay more [by loosing less] to seat idle at home than to get out and get ripped-off again !)
still , your idea about saving as much as possible cash is weird =
EA500 isn't exactly a virgin-start-up , you know ...
so what about confidence for potential money-lenders ?
what such a history , would you trust a firm having such a discussed product while KNOWING that the first thing they do is to have the same of Roel's trick done again ?
(Promissory Notes payable to the bearer in year 3000ad , if firm still around ...)
at same time ; there isn't any bidders declared and who MADE a move to pick-up such a wonderful opportunity ??????
ask your self a question : WHY ?
Lack of credibility ?
Bad Economic times ? (what was the name of last one ? ah yes "Colonial" !)
No Confidence in money-peoples ?
too many weird aspects in this story to make it work ...
the NewCo would still have to face the challenges :
make profits + remain cheap + raise enough to restart + make ROI a reality =
Almost Unfeasible !! even if the story would be spotless , which is very far from being the case ...
so i think ColdWet may be right :
this is VaporWare ...
may a last attempt to FORCE a potential out-bidder to declare his interest in the matter ...
unfortunately , there were NONE !
ps: could you please put your money where your mouth is ?
if assets and NewCo. is such an enviable opportunity = what are you waiting for ???
baron95,
you blame Ken for "congratulation" and now you "advise" M&M how to deal with tasks that might start in months....
Perhaps M&M will think in terms of "only a sound company can deliver a sound and sustainable support to their customers" - something out of your mind!
Make a good offer to M&M and they will offer you a job as full time adviser!
I do not know what are the scope or objective of the hearing (on the 20th), if M&M will have passed the first hurdle. Let's wait!
BTW: AOG's are nothing you think of - just bad luck!
Only one bidder - or M&M are just traders/strawmen for someone else?
Julius
I also hope that EA has some common sense and use a last-out, first-in approach resisting owners protestations. ...
this is where it is so comical ...
THEY CANNOT AFFORD such !
let's see : 260 units produced
minus 19 units (was it 19 units used by Call-a-scam-flying [Djet])
241 ...
take out the ones who may have enough brain cells to "Wait and See" before committing (again) big $ ...
let's say a third of owners (pure speculation !) = 80 units
241 - 80 = 161 units !
IF they do what you advise = How many of the "willing to try" are going to see service-competitors ? (freeing themselves of this hostage-situation )
let's say : none (completely dubious )
ok , so $20M cash + $20M notes = $40M divided by 161 = $248 447 of profits to be made out of EVERY plane to arrive at a ZERO point !
WITHOUT talking about staff , tax , provisions and all normal expenses for doing business ...
so WHAT is the point of spending NORTH (remember 1/4$M was only the margin to be made) of a quarter Million Dollars to maintain something which has a value of around ONE Million ?
we are still at the same point :
this plane is going to fly , or make profits or being cheap ...
but unfortunately NONE of those together at any time !!
if the calculation is made on the whole lot :
$40 Millions / 260 = $153 846 ...
damn expensive for something owners ALREADY paid for !
add fuel , insurance and other petty expenses ...
nothing come for cheap !!! ;-)
Someone help me. I dont get it. As I examine the business rationale for acquiring the assets and completing the current fleet, its hard to see how the numbers are going to work without making heroic assumptions. The market size is tiny- at most 260 acft, and for sure not all 260 owners will elect to peform all the upgrades. Some will elect to perform none, and some will defer these for possibly years. Lets be optimistic and assume that 200 acft will eventually be upgraded and this will take five years from the point at which EA is ready to so serious work - I make that to be at least 2 years from now, so seven years to upgrade the fleet.
My bet is that, AT MOST, owners will be willing to spend no more than $250,000 on upgrades, or a total of 200 x $250,000 = $50mm, or an average of $7-8 mm over the next seven years. This amount has to cover parts, labor, overhead, and all other expense associated with opertaing an acft modification business, including some unique expenses associated with this partticular venture. Parts and labor will chew up a large fraction of this amount.
So, if all this is anywhere near close, why would any "investor" put a dollar into this deal? One answer is that restarting production will create a larger market, but this also escalates the capital requirements dramatically. If one does a sensitivity analysis to see what the numbers have to be to make economic sense, it quickly become apparent that these numbers are most unlikely to be attained. So, perhaps one of the faithful can "splain" how all this evolves into a sustainable business.
EXACTLY Whytech !
i fear some of the faithful is going to come with some fuzzy New-Internet-Economy theories ...
unfortunately :
one item sold at NO profit X all that can be humanly sold = No Profit at ALL ! ;-)
Whytech,
“It’s hard to see how the numbers are going to work without making heroic assumptions.”
You’ve put your finger on it. Eclipse now transcends financial analysis or any possibility of measurable return. Instead one or more individuals want to be a ‘hero’. As the number of used Mustangs grows, not to mention used ‘heavier’ light jets, the Eclipse will continue to diminish in attractiveness.
There will always be the true believers including those whose measure Jet-A by the teaspoon, knots in tenths and altitude in inches.
Baron said... I still would rather see an EADS or HB or Pilatus pick this up.
How do you know that they haven't??? You don't know what deals or discussions Mason may have had with anyone.
Baron said... Just read the extent of Shane's moral decay in the first post of this page.
Do you have an explanation as to why he would make those "I'm important and in the know claims"?
Shane had his 15 seconds of fame during the bankruptcy not because he knew anything but because he was the moderator of the blog. Now he is just no longer of any interest. He wants to be noticed. The only way for anyone to look in his direction again is for him to claim, "You don't know what I know." The only thing is, what he knows is all unreliable conjecture.
fred,
bonjour!
baron95 will teach us, that there is some material - perhaps parts for one of the fpj versions - that could be sold....
If you keep in mind, that the fpj should cost about $2.14M, then most owners (apart form the first 30 or 50) would or should accept a "donation" or "contribution" north of 50% of the delta (real cost minus paid $$). M&M have expenses for TC holder tasks, buliding up TC holder capabilities etc.
It will be very interesting to learn who will take the responsibility for any AVIO (NG) changes. I think the FAA will also like to know who tested and how the tests were perfomed etc... as tough as the FAD?
Your point is still valid ("fred's fpj law"):
we are still at the same point :
this plane is going to fly , or make profits or being cheap ...
but unfortunately NONE of those together at any time !!
Julius
Cold&Wet said... Shane, as is the case for many critics and faithful alike, may well be in a position to have bought an EA-500 or other aircraft. Whether or not he is is none of our business really.
But the discussion of Ken's finances is necessary on the blog? Hmmm?
Baron said... I also hope that EA has some common sense and use a last-out, first-in approach resisting owners protestations.
That's already taking place out of necessity. The FIKI mods require the rudder spring cartridge that are only available on later production aircraft. Without the company support or supplier PMA the springs are not available at the moment to be installed on aircraft without them. This is why the asset sale is needed, and a company to support the supply of parts.
Plane Truth,
How do you know that they haven't??? You don't know what deals or discussions Mason may have had with anyone.
good point, like Ken's: "the fpj is a niche product"!
If M&M sell EA, are they going to lose any money?
Some aviation people are crazy - look at Boeing! So let's wait!
Julius
" Instead one or more individuals want to be a ‘hero’."
We are told that Col Mike is already a hero, so it must be someone else.
Whytech asks, "perhaps one of the faithful can "splain" how all this evolves into a sustainable business."
"Faithful?"
While the critics once used that term disparagingly for those of us who liked the old company and wished them well, it's hard to know what that means in today's context.
"Faithful" to the airplane? Sure, we are; it's a real nice plane.
"Faithful" to the new company? Hard to say; they haven't done anything yet.
But it's a loaded word in any event. You're using language intended to belittle a minority of readers at the very same time you're admitting that you don't understand something and would like help having it explained to you--the business plan of Eclipse Aerospace.
Well, you're not going to get your explanation that way. Not from me anyway. Make your request in a different, less divisive tone, and I'll see what I can do.
Ken
"Make your request in a different, less divisive tone, and I'll see what I can do."
Perhaps another of the faithful will explain. Actually, Ken, I really dont give a rip about the business plan as I dont have anything at risk in this situation. Its the faithful that should care and be probing these issues, especially in light of recent history. And, its only derisive if you think it is - no inherrent negative in this word. Used only as a convenient and well understood shorthand for the group that has trouble coming to grips with reality.
Whytech says, "Used only as a convenient and well understood shorthand for the group that has trouible coming to grips with reality."
Well, here's a reality for you that *you're* having trouble coming to grips with:
While you're flying a single engine prop plane, we Eclipse drivers are having fun flying faster, higher, quieter, and more affordably.
That's reality. There are only a handful of guys who don't get that reality.
Ken
"While you're flying a single engine prop plane, we Eclipse drivers are having fun flying faster, higher, quieter, and more affordably. "
Hows that FIKI and lav working for you, Ken? As for me, I am not currently flying a single engine prop plane, but a turbine helicopter. When I was flying a PC-12, it was complete, fun, went fast enough to get me anywhere in the US in daylight, and could actually carry real world pax and baggage loads in great comfort over meaningful distances. And, I wasnt obsessed primarily with cheap.
"There are only a handful of guys who don't get reality."
Certainly no more than about 260.
Baron,
I've been wrong, plenty of times. I'm sure I'll be wrong, plenty more times.
But I'll never, ever match Vern, or Ken, or the some of the other 'Faithful'....
When I posted that the 'Russians and Chinese' were 'coming' that was the information I had. Within a few days it became clear to me that the M&M bid was the only game in town.
It would have been churlish not to congratulate them on a successful bid, so I did. I also sincerely wish them the best, while pointing out that they face, if anything, more serious difficulties than EAC did this time last year.
You remember, after they'd fired Vern, and just before they withdrew that idiotic legal assault on us.
At about the same time there was the price increase to $2.2 million, which triggered a refund event. Those depositors who sought a refund were hung out to dry, and of course were subsequently consigned to the dustbin along with the rest of EAC.
So, I've been wrong. But in the 'game' that is this failed GA program, there's many more serious criminals than your humble correspondent.
That would be me, by the way...
You'll like me to shut up, as I've been able to ferret out details which would tend to illuminate some of the darker corners of this saga.
Like Vern wanting the ConJet, rather than the FPJ.
When I ask, not unreasonably, why this might be the case, I'm 'attacked' over the contents of my profile.
But my question is unanswered....
Vern likes the ConJet more than the FPJ.
Why?
I think I know the answer. I think the FPJ is compromised in the market, as it's price/performance ratio is uncompetitive against a Mustang or a Phenom. Ken keeps banging on about fuel economy, which frankly cracks me up.
Here's a guy who's cost per FPJ flying hour is north of THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS, which would have bought him a vast amount of fuel.
But no, all you want to do is shoot the messenger.
Well, you keep firing blanks, and I'll keep an eye on Vern.
He's much more interesting, in a 'billon dollar cash arsonist' kinda way....
Shane
Danke schön , Herr Julius ...
this just remind me of the why i just hate anything going with Stock-markets :
a crowd of hairy monkeys beating their breast to impress one an other , while oversimplifying anything and everything until it bears no more meaning !
Black Tulip resumed very well the situation ...
time passing by , soon used Mustangs will be a lot more cheaper than Ea500 ...
may be not in term of money ...
at least in term of sleepless nights , nightmares and worries !
they should get a grip with reality : 99,99% of times something sold for cheap end-up costing a lot more in the long run !
fred said ...by the way : i NEVER buy anything on credit ...
---------------
Yes, Fred we know, we know, you make a couple of trips to some other country and return with a suitcase of cash.
Still, most business people know that when you want to fund a high risk speculative venture, the best options are (in order):
1 - Use OPM (other people's money) as capitalized not loaned.
2 - Use OPM in the form of loans, guaranteed by the business or assets.
3 - Use OPM in the form of loans guaranteed by you/your assets personally.
4 - Use your own cash money.
With 3 and 4 being usually not good ideas.
As to your question, I don't think it is a good idea for the investors on EA putting up the money. I think they will lose money on this deal.
But I could care less about them.
It is a POTENTIALLY good development for the EA500 and its owners. Certainly better than a scattering of the assets in a piece meal auction.
I'm saying no more and no less. If this deal closes and EA does EVEN 25% of what they are set out to do, it will be a VAST improvement on the support situation for the EA500.
For THAT REASON, I'm hoping the deal closes quickly and they go about trying it.
You guys can yell as much as you want. Compared to the alternative (piece meal scattering of assets), this deal is POSITIVE for the EA500 and owners.
WhyTech said...Someone help me. I dont get it...its hard to see how the numbers are going to work without making heroic assumptions.
=================
WhyTech - short answer - the deal will not work and EA will lose money - this is the most likely scenario.
But lets play along.
I though (maybe I am wrong) that the assets include 28 day jet planes. Internal cost (not price) to upgrade those, could be something like $3M total. Result? 28 Jets that you can sell for lets say $40M. That alone is a $37M profit that can be realized year one, right?
"Use OPM (other people's money) as capitalized not loaned."
One catch to this: you've got to find OP dumb enough to do this. It is certainly possible - commonly known as (no surprise) "dumb money" - but will be a real struggle if investors do any due diligence at all. My guess is that the faithful will be the source of much of the OPM, in a replay of Act I.
"That alone is a $37M profit that can be realized year one, right?"
Not so fast, pardner. Nothing much is going to happen in year one beyond posturing, preparing, and fund raising. Then, each of these acft will likely need substantial work beyond upgrades - probably been used a parts donors. Then you have to find 28 willing buyers - no piece of cake. If in fact these planes are included in the assets, this is potentially a plus for EA, but no slam dunk.
Shane said...You'll like me to shut up, as I've been able to ferret out details which would tend to illuminate some of the darker corners of this saga.
------------------------
Shane - thanks for responding.
Quite the contrary. I don't want you to shut up. I want you to provide reasonably informed information or opinions.
You said YOU KNEW. You could have said... "I got an email from some guy telling me that a Chinese may bid - but I couldn't confirm it".
Believe it or not, I DO value the info and opinions you post.
I don't want you to shut up.
I'd prefer if instead of making categorical affirmations as fact when they are at best rumors and posting the "If you knew what I know" and "I know more than you" BS, you simply provided the info with the source (in as disguised or precise a form that you can while respecting that source).
Simple as that.
Nice try Baron,
Given that it would take time to get EA up an running, and the DayJet planes are (mostly? All?) Avidyne equipped, combined with the fact that ISS walked, I think the probability of EA doing what you suggest in one year is close to 0.
WhyTech said...
"Use OPM (other people's money) as capitalized not loaned."
One catch to this: you've got to find OP dumb enough to do this.
---------------------
Yep. You have to find your Al Mann.
Yes, Fred we know, we know, you make a couple of trips to some other country and return with a suitcase of cash. ...
no !
i started about 18 years ago trying to understand why peoples get ripped off ...
simple life , hard work and getting to understand ALL sides of a said problem brought me where i am now !
off-course i never bought AMG to impress anybody , in fact i don't care ...
at the end of the day , who is right ?
PS: unless you didn't understand i NEVER worked in Stocks ...
and i stick to a very simple rule :
if i cannot buy cash , i do not buy ! (this is where we are probably very different ... and why i love 2CV citroen !)
Shane said...But my question is unanswered....
Vern likes the ConJet more than the FPJ.
Why?
=======================
It is not un-answered. I provide a list of reasons, which are quite obvious, in this very thread a couple of posts ago.
And your statement is incorrect.
What may be correct is that Vern in 2009 likes the EA400 SEJ more than the EA500 twin-jet for the personal jet mission.
He launched the EA500 project a decade ago Shane. He has learned things and the marked has moved. You can read more in my detailed answer on this thread.
He probably liked the EA500 concept a lot in 1999 and in 2009 after there is a Mustang and the price of twin VLJs escalated, he likes SEJs more. What is wrong with that?
It simply means he is a smart observer who is unafraid to adjust his positions.
i forgot to add :
my OWN firm which i created to do my job pushed me to travel a lot !
no vacations into this ...
"You have to find your Al Mann."
Ten years ago, when the VLJ concept was fresh and being touted by many breathless apostles, this was doable. Today, with the VLJ concept pretty much discredited ( and in a highly visible soap opera style)it will be challenging at best.
Dude everybody keeps saying ISS walked this and that but they came back on like months ago. There was a press release and everything. It was posted on e5c as well as I made a post here about it...
That post was made on the 6th of April.
Baron,
No one is disputing Vern changed his mind... now, the EA50 is obsolete, in his opinion.
He probably knows there's no large market for it... because it cannot be sold cheap enough.
Do you think he would go as far as to say "they got stuck with the 50?"
"Then you have to find 28 willing buyers - no piece of cake"
Why not, the Plane is FUN to fly and SIPS fuel!!!
Should be very easy, just ask Ken.
"You guys can yell as much as you want. Compared to the alternative (piece meal scattering of assets), this deal is POSITIVE for the EA500 and owners."
But, you keep asking how they will make money on the support without porking the owners, and how they willr essurect the model-50 and make any money... so, while it might "sound" like a good thing... its just a mystery.
Is it better than scattering the assets? I am not sure. The shorter route to owning an inexpensive jet of vlue, might actually be when someone tackles the con-jet. If they get it right, and provide affordable support, this model will eclipse the model-50.
Ken keeps banging on about fuel economy, which frankly cracks me up.
man, thanks for this LAUGH!
Shane,
remember one fact...
you need to obtain $1Billon to burn $1Billion.
I sincerely think if this guy would have concentrated on what he was good at, the whole story could have worked.
Most people think its impossible to produce a +/- $1M twin jet - I don't. I just think they got the design wrong for the market, and BS'ed their way out of a true low cost offering. All of this, I think was spurred on by Vern and hos desire to revolutionize jet-making with BS technology.
KEn continues...
"While you're flying a single engine prop plane, we Eclipse drivers are having fun flying faster, higher, quieter, and more affordably."
Ken, for many missions it takes 2 of your planes to do what his does, and your isn't even finsihed yet.
If you ever have a competed plane, you will have paid EAC and the various other entities surviving it, around $2.5 for the pleasure.
Your operating costs are a lot higher than his... all things considered. The per-seat operating costs is A LOT HIGHER than his.
Perhaps you should just continue saying your plane is FUN. No one can refute this, because its just your idea of "fun"... so no one cares.
Ken said:
"...But it's a loaded word in any event. You're using language intended to belittle a minority of readers..."
How do you know its a "minortiy" of readers?
This is a pretty strange thing to post.
BT,
"the Eclipse will continue to diminish in attractiveness."
THIS IS FALSE, sorry to tell you.
Ken says the EA50 is fun to fly and sips fuel...
Shane now I get it. You're afraid to let everyone in on the inside info because it usually turn out to be bullshit when reality happens a few days after your inside sources pull your chain.
The Eclipse episode still reminds me of a business motto I saw in Anchorage:
“We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you.”
You know, it has taken a lot of hard work on Shane's part to get to the point when Ken's posts are more credible than Shane's, but he has done it. Leaving no one left to point out Ken's BS because people are quite reasonably jumping on Shane's BS.
Meanwhile, people are talking about Ken as the representitive of the Eclipse owners, which he is not, and asking him to explain Eclipse Aerospace's business plan, which he cannot (the latter problem being first that EA's plan is a deep dark secret, second that when Ken "the EA shill" finds out what the plan is he will have to hide from the angry owners).
EA is either goig to sell out to the Chinese or they are going to fail. Or both.
But for the record, we are not all as easily fooled as Ken, and although we hope EA suceeds, we also hope for free beer.
I have a question for Ken ... when he is admiring Yosemite from FL360 is he wearing an oxygen mask? If he has a EA500 rated copilot of course he doesn't have to. Anyway, at FL360 there is no one to verify compliance with this FAA regulation and I wonder how many single EA500 pilots violate this regulation. But for me wearing the full oxygen mask would certainly remove a lot of "fun".
"asking him to explain Eclipse Aerospace's business plan,"
No one asked Ken to explain it - he volunteered, but only if we show him some respect.
airtaximan said...
Baron,
Do you think he would go as far as to say "they got stuck with the 50?"
=================
Who Vern? I don't know. But he clearly saw in 2008 that:
A - Mustangs were being sold at $2.8M vs $4.8M for the CJ1, which was previously the lowest cost light GA Jet.
B - Diamond looked like they'd actually managed to get something certified in the $1.xM range.
C - The wide acceptance of TBMs and PC12 and even SR22s for the Charter and fractional market.
So he tried to launch the EA400, to hold on to customers and move lower in price again.
Obviously he ran out of money.
But if he had yet another $1B to burn, it is conceivable that an EA400 at 300/year @ $1.5M and an EA50 at 150/year @ $2.5M would have been a sustainable market for Eclipse. Not enough to pay the investors, but enough to cleanse in Ch11 and move on with Pilatus/Piper-level profits (i.e. slight losses on most years).
How is that a negative that he adjusted his position?
Yes, they were stuck with the EA50 until they got the EA40 off the ground. In a sense, Eclipse and EA now ha a legacy plane the EA50 that they are stuck with.
When you take 11 years and still are not finished with a product, funny things usually happen - as in the market changes.
If the Chevy Volt and the Tesla S were on sale now, they'd be leaders. If it takes them 4 years to come to market, no one will care.
"If the Chevy Volt and the Tesla S were on sale now, they'd be leaders. If it takes them 4 years to come to market, no one will care."
Actually, IMHO, few if any care today. These are science experiments which are several generations away from practical, refined everyday vehicles. Who except the Kens of the world would hand over hard earned cash for this "stuff?"
"Ken's wife is also type rated in the Eclipse 500 (and the Citation 525)."
While I could never envy Ken for his EA50, I might envy him for his wife!
WhyTech,
I get what you just said. But you are still a pig. That is BS pulling someone's wife in for a cheap shot. I know what you said, and I am sure most also do as well, but it looks shitty big guy.
" but it looks shitty big guy."
Whats your problem, pal? I'd be thrilled if my wife had an ATP - shes is scared to death of anything that flies, including 747's. Thats all - whats the big deal? Was a response to RonRoe's post re Ken's wife's pilot credentials, and intended as a compliment to both Ken and his wife. He is a most fortunate fellow in this respect.
I can see that the faithful are uniformly hyper sensitive.
Yes, I too took Whytech's comment as a compliment to the Meyer's. I too think it is very cool that they seem to be good partners flying the jet and admire them for it.
I have to do with my 11 and 12 year olds as partners in flying. They are pretty good at getting under the plane to sample fuel from the drains ;)
Baron,
"It is conceivable that an EA400 at 300/year @ $1.5M and an EA50 at 150/year @ $2.5M would have been a sustainable market for Eclipse."
The demand would never have been there, even without the economic collapse or Obama.
Whytech,
My wife has her private ticket but not current (solo) for a long time. Current ATP type-rated wife... nice.
"My wife has her private ticket but not current (solo) for a long time. Current ATP type-rated wife... nice."
My wife had a "to die for" opportunity - an offer from a close family friend who was an instructor captain on 747's and a CFII to teach her to fly in our acft. She declined. I still dont get it! (However her aversion to flying is her only flaw!)
from my new favorite blogger:
?Meanwhile, people are talking about Ken as the representitive of the Eclipse owners, which he is not, and asking him to explain Eclipse Aerospace's business plan, which he cannot (the latter problem being first that EA's plan is a deep dark secret, second that when Ken "the EA shill" finds out what the plan is he will have to hide from the angry owners).
EA is either goig to sell out to the Chinese or they are going to fail. Or both.
But for the record, we are not all as easily fooled as Ken, and although we hope EA suceeds, we also hope for free beer."
I LOVE this guy!
I would bet that most of the 260 "owners" feel BURNED... really burned.
And KEN takes solace in the fact that he can burn less fuel... compared to some other planes... and his plane is "fun"...
keep posting.... I have heard a lot of stories of owners who actually feel they were duped, and they are really sorry they bought this contraption compared to what else is out there...
one quote:
"many other pilots consider it a dysfunctional mass of parts flying in loose formation"
-and-
"When I have to fly the Eclipse, I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the next disaster to take place. For instance, I've been flying for over 30 years and have never had to go on emergency oxygen, except during routine training. Since flying the Eclipse, I've had to go on emergency oxygen twice now due to fumes in the cockpit and in the cabin. Eclipse seemingly has no idea how to fix these aircraft problems. Flying at 41,000 feet, you don't have much time to deal with these continuous, on-going, very serious issues. All I know is that every time I've had to fly the Eclipse, I'm truly scared"
but it sips fuel and is fun to fly, according to some(one)
AirTaxiMan said... Ken, for many missions it takes 2 of your planes to do what his does, and your isn't even finsihed yet.
Taxiguy, you're stuck in transmit. WhyTech already said he now flies a copter. If you can't keep up with the fact, what's your opinion worth. Have lunch with Shane.
Odds and ends:
WhyTech writes, "Hows that FIKI and lav working for you, Ken?"
The FIKI is good, thanks, though honestly you really don't see much icing in the thirties. It's turboprop and pressurized piston twin pilots who really get the icing; it's a real benefit of the EA500 that you can blow right through the icing layer and cruise above it.
The lav makes no sense in a plane that does 1000 nm hops cruising at 370 knots.
"Nothing much is going to happen [with Eclipse Aerospace] in year one beyond posturing, preparing, and fund raising."
Based on your comments, I believe you don't have any idea what their business plan is, therefore it is difficult to put much credence in your predictions.
I think the EA business plan is very clever; it's the reason I elected to support them early on when some owners were enthusiastic to buy the assets and turn support over to an owner-led co-op.
Baron was a lot closer in his analysis than WhyTech.
AirTaximan writes, "Ken keeps banging on about fuel economy, which frankly cracks me up."
That's understandable. You're obviously not an owner/operator. You must be on a salary, right? You don't pay your own way.
For an owner/operator, DOCs are everything. The whole idea of the Eclipse is to provide high quality jet transportation at a much lower upfront and ongoing cost than it was previously available at. The plane does that. It does it very well. Case closed. It is also a blast to fly compared to other jets, but that's bonus points.
Shane--the "Vern likes the EA400 better" is gobbledegook. He may have thought he could acquire the EA400 rights and make something (he still could--he'll have to deal with EA now). But you're flatout lying that he doesn't like the Eclipse 500. That's just bullshit from an "expert" who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Michal writes, "I have a question for Ken ... when he is admiring Yosemite from FL360 is he wearing an oxygen mask? If he has a EA500 rated copilot of course he doesn't have to."
Actually, that's not what FAR 91.211 says. You do *not* have to have a second type-rated pilot to avoid wearing a mask above FL350.
Ken
michal said... I have a question for Ken ... when he is admiring Yosemite from FL360 is he wearing an oxygen mask? If he has a EA500 rated copilot of course he doesn't have to. Anyway, at FL360 there is no one to verify compliance with this FAA regulation and I wonder how many single EA500 pilots violate this regulation. But for me wearing the full oxygen mask would certainly remove a lot of "fun".
That's just "plane" stupid. The same regulation applies to all aircraft, not just the Eclipse.
"For an owner/operator, DOCs are everything"
Not really, Ken. Only for a few are these costs paramount - those wanting jets on the cheap. Why do you think there is a waiting list for 7X's and 550's despite the economy?
"it's a real benefit of the EA500 that you can blow right through the icing layer and cruise above it."
Come fly your FIKIless jet in the Northeast in the winter time and you'll be persuaded otherwise probably on your first flight.
"Actually, that's not what FAR 91.211 says. You do *not* have to have a second type-rated pilot to avoid wearing a mask above FL350."
Ken, you are playing with words again.
AT issue:
"It is conceivable that an EA400 at 300/year @ $1.5M and an EA50 at 150/year @ $2.5M would have been a sustainable market for Eclipse."
I am not sure this is right or wrong, but it may be in the ball park.
actually, I think single jet performance at $1.5 Million could yield a NEW-EA a market share of 20% over 15 years, and at this may be 200 per year max for 15 years. I just do not think the EA concept for design and assembly would make any money on a single at $1.5M. They were nowhere near a low cost shop.
The EA50 is a relic. No one will buy this plane for over $2M in the future... and I sincerely believe no one in their right mind would have ever bought one IF they knew the real cost, all things considered.
Maybe I am wrong and there are some folks who can justify the real cost based on sipping fuel and "its fun" to fly... but, I doubt this is a large enough market to sustain anything.
I coined the phrase DOA... becasue the plane was obsolete along time ago, and the real cost numbers are illuminating - even Ken who says the plane cost him $1.1M, is justifying the lousy decision to himself - the dealings with EAC will cost him north of $2M to end up with a finished EA50.
This represents the reality. For guys like him, who care about some fuel savings over all else, it might be OK... and its fun... but it is not a value, by any stretch. All things considered, the cost associated with owning and operating this kluge is indefensable.
The engine MRO regime at 150 hours a year (which is what Ken is experiencing) could approach $600-$800 per hour, average.
The capital loss and depreciation could easily be $300,000 in just year one. Per hour, this cost is $2,000 (this is not a typo) TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR...
Fun to fly... sips fuel... and I can employ ATMan for free... UH, I don't think so, and I would NEVER trust anyone with this sort of mathematical ineptitude, to pay me.
A true Doctor at work goculating business costs?
A shill?
A dreamer?
OK, a guy who thinks this financial disaster is "fun to fly" and concentrates on fuel burn at altitude to justify operating costs... die-hard?
"fun" is anyone's opinion, I guess....
Ken,
“Honestly you really don't see much icing in the thirties. It's turboprop and pressurized piston twin pilots who really get the icing.”
Naivety at its best or worst. The ‘thirties’ have never been an issue unless you fly into a thunderstorm.
Departure and arrival airports tend to be less than thirty-thousand feet in the air.
Whytech thinks Owner/Operators buy G550's.
Uh huh. Whatever.
Owner/Operators buy Barons, Bonanzas, TBMs, a few PC-12's and lots and lots of Cirrus SR22's. They don't buy G550's. I'll bet you can't find me a *single* guy who owns a G550 and flies it himself. Can you?
I think you just don't get it. The reason the Eclipse is so good is that an ordinary guy can buy an Eclipse 500 jet for about the price of the cheapest single engine turboprop. When he buys it, he gets fast, fun affordable, safe, reliable jet transportation for about the ongoing expense of a piston twin.
It's a simple equation, really. But some people just don't get it.
Ken
"For an owner/operator, DOCs are everything."
this is OLD thinking Ken... there's a lot more that goes into a realistic cost function for jet owners. Alot of people who thought they were lever got burned this way... but, you are just behind the curve.
your true costs are different than what you would have anyone think, becasue its just plane stupid to buy one of these planes. Either you know this and are just tolling for more idiots, or you are still in the shade.
"It's a simple equation, really. But some people just don't get it."
Yes, Vern was saying this exact same thing regarding how he was going to deliver the $1M twin jet, how air taxis would revolutionsize GA, and the transport system, and how come he was smarter than everyone else...
I the end, none of it was true, just like your pathetic justifications are untrue when one considers what is really fundamentally important on all these issues.
"I'll bet you can't find me a *single* guy who owns a G550 and flies it himself. "
Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, is said to own and be type rated in a 550. Obviously he would fly this acft with a second pilot. (I havent been able to quickly find independent confirmation of this, but perhaps others will be able to confirm or refute this assertion.) I have heard of other technology co. CEO's who own and personally fly similar acft. They are sometimes BILLIONAIRES, Ken, and dont really care what it costs.
"They are sometimes BILLIONAIRES, Ken, and dont really care what it costs."
See, I told you... I have a jet... tey have a jet -- I fly it myself, they fly it themself.
I save a ton on fuel compared to a G550, and I am therefore smarter than Eric Schmidt.
See how this works....
Whytech, I think you are screwed..
Ken ment "unmarried"....
"Owner/Operators buy Barons, Bonanzas, TBMs, a few PC-12's "
The last data I saw from Pilatus indicated that about one third to one half of PC-12's are owner flown. Thats around 400-500 acft, to put a number on "a few."
"Owner/Operators buy Barons, Bonanzas, TBMs, a few PC-12's and lots and lots of Cirrus SR22's."
And CJ's, CJ1's, CJ2's, CJ3's, Citation I's, Citation II's, Premier I & IA's, not to mention C90's, and B200's of all variants, and many others.
"Owner/Operators buy Barons, Bonanzas, TBMs, a few PC-12's and lots and lots of Cirrus SR22's"
Ken, you did say "owner/operators." It is my understanding that the term "operator" does not strictly mean "pilot." Are losing your touch at obfuscation?
Whytech says, "The last data I saw from Pilatus indicated that about one third to one half of PC-12's are owner flown. Thats around 400-500 acft, to put a number on "a few.""
There are a TOTAL of just 580 PC-12's registered in the U.S., according to the FAA registry.
I really don't think one-third of 580 adds up to 400, but maybe that's the "new math."
Here's a photo for those interested in how the Eclipse compares to a turboprop like the PC-12. I shot it a couple of hours ago.
We were cruising at FL280 and going 350 knots when I decided to put the Eclipse in "turboprop mode." A PC-12 cruises at about 280 knots. That turned out to be a little slower than I wanted to go, even for this short experiment. But I did manage to slow us down to 299 knots at FL 280 while burning less than 59 GPH.
Often overlooked by non-Eclipse pilots is that the plane has a very useful "turboprop mode" whereby you can slow to turboprop speeds and turboprop fuel burns when the situation demands.
Cool, eh?
Ken
From an interview with Eric Schmidt:
You own a Gulfstream G-550 for your personal use. Is that what you take when you travel overseas?
Well, it's very important to say that I fly with a professional crew, with a professional pilot, and I'm licensed as a crew member.
Sounds like fun. How often do you take the controls? A lot. It's my hobby.
"There are a TOTAL of just 580 PC-12's registered in the U.S., according to the FAA registry."
Who said anything about the US registry? PC-12's are sold world wide and about 1200 have been delivered to date.
Baron,
"I have to do with have to do with my 11 and 12 year olds as partners in flying. They are pretty good at getting under the plane to sample fuel from the drains ; my 11 and 12 year olds as partners in flying. They are pretty good at getting under the plane to sample fuel from the drains."
In our case the daughters were separated in age by 3.5 years and ‘grew up’ in-and-around Beech Barons, Piper Cheyennes, Turbo Commanders and Cessna Citations. Enjoy your children now and forever as they will fly the nest. If you are lucky, grandchildren are in your future.
WhyTech wrote, "PC-12's are sold world wide and about 1200 have been delivered to date."
I'm afraid that's not right either. You're on a bit of a losing streak WhyGuess.
According to Pilatus, the 900th PC-12 was delivered just over 3 months ago. I really don't think they produced 300 airplanes in the last 3 months, do you?
Ken
"According to Pilatus, the 900th PC-12 was delivered just over 3 months ago."
Got me, Ken! I was thinking serial numbers and forgot that there was a gap of about 200 SN's when the 12/47E came online and Pilatus decided to start these SN's at 1000.
So my apology for being horribly wrong: 1/3 to 1/2 of 900 is only 300-450, not 400-500 - destroys my point completely!
"That's just "plane" stupid. The same regulation applies to all aircraft, not just the Eclipse."
And who said I was singling out the Eclipse, I was pointing out this one disadvantage of flying a jet in high FL-s single pilot. Not for me.
"Cool, eh?"
No, it ain't.
Ken, clearly this is very cool to you but your comparisons are simply laughable, you really twist fuel numbers like Soviet political commissars used to twist history. Your "turboprop" mode works only when you compare fuel flows with turboprops which are much larger than your tiny EA500, the PC-12 that you used in this example is TWICE the size of your Eclipse. You keep doing it over and over again - using much larger airplanes to make your EA500's fuel economy look good.
Michael,
Remember, Ken's 'paying' north of $3,000 per FPJ flying hour for his 'fun'.
So it's vital for him to economize on fuel.
Now if he'd bought something with slightly higher fuel specifics, he'd probably be better off.
But of course, Ken's only concern in life is fuel.
Nothing else matters....
Shane
Monsieur Shane :
$3000 per hour ?
it might sound very sweet memories to ken soon ...
do not forget that Col.M will have to make an AVERAGE PROFIT PER EVERY PLANE of $153 846 ...
ONLY to make it even on Assets Buying ...
considering a 25% margin (which has to be LESS because of Service-Competitors ...)
what is the Price to be charged ?
you see the drift ...
$3000 per hour will seems to be a bargain !
Michal said... the PC-12 that you used in this example is TWICE the size of your Eclipse. You keep doing it over and over again - using much larger airplanes to make your EA500's fuel economy look good.
The PC-12, or any plane, is only "twice the size of your Eclipse" if the mission calls for filling it up. If the PC-12 is not flying at a higher occupancy than the Eclipse, it make absolutely no difference other than the PC-12 hauling around a lot of extra aluminum.
"it's a real benefit of the EA500 that you can blow right through the icing layer and cruise above it."
Unless ATC has a problem and holds you at the freezing level. At which time you can ice up, crash, and burn yourself and family members down to the size of small hams.
AirSafetyman says, "Unless ATC has a problem and holds you at the freezing level. At which time you can ice up, crash, and burn yourself and family members down to the size of small hams."
I think you missed the memo. While even aircraft certificated for flight into known icing can be brought down in icing conditions (as the recent Colgan crash and a long list of others demonostrate), the Eclipse 500 has received certification for flight into known icing. Those who have been in icing in the aircraft report the equipment works quite well.
Your scenario that "ATC has a problem and holds you at the freezing level," suggests to me that you may not be a pilot. No competent pilot would permit his aircraft to ice up to the point where safety is endangered solely in order to accommodate ATC's priorities.
Ken
Shane says, "Remember, Ken's 'paying' north of $3,000 per FPJ flying hour for his 'fun'."
Shane, that's incorrect. I just calculated the actual cost for flying my Eclipse 500 since 11/25/08 (when I assumed the maintenance costs). I included everything I actually paid out to support operation of my Eclipse including charts, cleaning, fuel, hangar cost, hangar insurance, aircraft insurance, maintenance (parts & labor), parking, supplies, and weather service. The actual amount I paid since 11/25/08 was $553.45 per hour.
I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm starting to believe that you don't either.
Ken
"No competent pilot would permit his aircraft to ice up to the point where safety is endangered solely in order to accommodate ATC's priorities."
How would you know what a competent pilot would do?
Ken, normally, people calculate reserves, for things like MRO.... big money events that comes with owning such a piece of equipemnt. In your case, perhaps you should include all the "free" upgrades that are needed?
PT,
correct, so compare it to a Cirrus SR22..............
It was not HIS comparison, it was someone else trying to make a point about cost. It was a dumb point, but one, nonetheless that makes someon feel good about themselves.
We've been through these silly comparisons many times. They are almost always started by someone looking to justify their EA50.
AirSafetyHack said... How would you know what a competent pilot would do?
Oooo, it's getting ugly. Great rebuttal. Nothing left?
Airtaximan said... PT, correct, so compare it to a Cirrus SR22
Why stop at a SR-22??? This was on AvWeb this morning...
16,000 MPG
A number of years ago, Karl Striedick was launched on several out and return glider flights of over 1,000 miles. He was launched from his ridge-top field at Eagles Nest, Pa. using a Jeep driven by his wife. As I understand it, they used a pulley system to shorten the Jeep run. He just had to lift over the trees into the wind.
So they maybe used a cup of gasoline to go over a 1,000 miles. That comes out to something like 16,000 mpg. The problems are that there are only a few days a year you can do that and you have to launch from the right place.
Airtaximan said... We've been through these silly comparisons many times. They are almost always started by someone looking to justify their EA50.
And they're always countered by someone with little else to say.
you should include all the "free" upgrades that are needed? ...
you 're cracking me up ! ;-)
The engine MRO regime at 150 hours a year (which is what Ken is experiencing) could approach $600-$800 per hour, average.
The capital loss and depreciation could easily be $300,000 in just year one. Per hour, this cost is $2,000 (this is not a typo) TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR...
yes, PT, you are on a roll....
Actually Karl's flight was a 1000 mile "out-and-return", so he didn't really go anywhere.
Airtaximan said... The capital loss and depreciation could easily be $300,000 in just year one. Per hour, this cost is $2,000 (this is not a typo) TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR...
Actually, the Eclipse could just as easily be considered part of a business, and therefore depreciated as capital equipment, so you would actually get a tax credit. Therefore using ATM's logic the real DOC's are less than what Ken and ATM claim.
If this conversation ever captures the ball again and returns to the real issues and challegnes at hand, AND gets away from imagined cases of penis envy as well as the same drunken optimism we saw the last time that we 'almost' had victory snatched from the jaws defeat (hello, anyone having 363 deja-vu), you can find me working two and a half projects.
Until then, congrats to Phil for his first thread over 400 posts, too bad most of it schoolyard namecalling and duelling Google Factoid battles.
PT, DOC has nothing to do with this... that woudl stand for DIRECT Operating Costs.
Its the ownershi/operating cost all tings considered, and if Ken is a business... yes he can deduct this. He can also deduct all of his business travel expenses... and what does this have to do with anything? NOTHING...
You are missing something: in this post and in pretty much every other comment you seem to make, here.
AT says, "The engine MRO regime at 150 hours a year (which is what Ken is experiencing) could approach $600-$800 per hour, average."
Obviously you haven't checked out the Pratt and Whitney Eagle Service Plan for the Eclipse 500. Full coverage for HSI and overhaul, including life limited parts, unscheduled maintenance, shop labor, service bulletins, etc etc is $85 per engine, $77 per engine if you sign up before 200 hrs TT.
Ken
ATM forgot that HE said... The capital loss and depreciation could easily be $300,000 in just year one. Per hour, this cost is $2,000 (this is not a typo) TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR...
PT, DOC has nothing to do with this... that would stand for DIRECT Operating Costs.
OK, Operating Costs. If you can add $2000 per hour for capital loss, I can deduct it just as easily for a tax depreciation. Who cares. It's a ridiculous hypothetical argument.
"The PC-12, or any plane, is only "twice the size of your Eclipse" if the mission calls for filling it up."
I thought the size of aircraft was one of its assets - I see I was wrong. I wonder how often Ken carries too much aluminum by flying alone or with his wife or perhaps then he switches to Lancair Turboprop IV-P to get these "turboprop" prices.
Ken, I think you should go back and read the contract... there are MRO requirements even if your plane sits on the ground or has few flight hours. The way you are going, my numbers will be more realistic than yours.
PT, try and get past yourself, on this simple phrase...
"total ownership and operating cost"
Then perhaps you'll comprehend. Otherwise, perhaps you should consider changing your name to Plain instead of Plane... this is a simple concept.
OK, Operating Costs. If you can add $2000 per hour for capital loss, I can deduct it just as easily for a tax depreciation ...
i predicted it !!!
we are back with internet-bubble and New-economy ...
or , when NOTHING produce SOMETHING ... ;-)
i should call Obama to have him distribute Fpj to all US citizen ...
the way this thread is going , soon OWNING is going to MAKE income ...!!
i can almost hear it from here ...
Joe and Jim meet ten after graduating :
*Hi joe
*Hi jim
joe : What do you do for a living ?
jim : I own a Fpj ...
joe : Lucky bastard , was it not enough to get Queen-prom's bra ?
jim : what do want ? some peoples have definitely more "Classsss" than others !
Suddenly , the word ENVY has a whole new meaning ...!
Puke !
michal said... "The PC-12, or any plane, is only "twice the size of your Eclipse" if the mission calls for filling it up." I thought the size of aircraft was one of its assets - I see I was wrong. I wonder how often Ken carries too much aluminum by flying alone or with his wife or perhaps then he switches to Lancair Turboprop IV-P to get these "turboprop" prices.
If I'm flying alone or with Ken's wife, I'd rather be carry the excess aluminum of the Eclipse than a PC-12.
airtaximan said... PT, try and get past yourself, on this simple phrase... "total ownership and operating cost"
Hey, it's your silly hypothetical. I'm just pointing out that in the scheme of things, we can add and subtract anything we want based on your assumptions.
OK, I'll bite... what is hypothetical?
PULL UP! PULL UP! TERRAIN! TERRAIN!
The blog has entered a dangerous dive. The Faithful are encouraging us to buy expensive airplanes and hope they become worthless. We thereby have enormous depreciation and a gargantuan tax write-off. The more we lose, the more we save. Is this a new program sponsored by the Democratic Administration?
plus... and I admit, this is a nuance - but an importnant one for the nit picking, fuel sipping, fun-flying bunch we have here...
They want to call it a Direct Operating Cost.
Redefining Aviation, once again...
Ken wrote:
The FIKI is good, thanks, though honestly you really don't see much icing in the thirties. It's turboprop and pressurized piston twin pilots who really get the icing; it's a real benefit of the EA500 that you can blow right through the icing layer and cruise above it.
Thanks for sending us bait in the form of a photo of an iced EA5 leading edge, which was taken during the known icing certification flights. We wouldn't want anyone to think that Ken would enter known icing conditions in his non-FIKI equipped A/C, as that is both dumb and illegal.
it's a real benefit of the EA500 that you can blow right through the icing layer and cruise above it.
Is of course also a reference to all those lucky Eturd owners who already have FIKI installed. I believe is, ummm, ONE!... and that plane is locked in the Ecorpse flight test hangar.
Ken would not enter known icing, even to "blow right through" it.
Ken says....
>>>> Whytech thinks Owner/Operators buy G550's.
Uh huh. Whatever.
Owner/Operators buy Barons, Bonanzas, TBMs, a few PC-12's and lots and lots of Cirrus SR22's. They don't buy G550's. I'll bet you can't find me a *single* guy who owns a G550 and flies it himself. Can you?
>>>>
Reply:
I'm not Whytech, but I'll jump in...
Yes Ken, I have flown with a personal friend who is an owner-operator of a G550. My last flight with him was out of Savannah, GA (after Flight Safety recurrent with his SIC) to Eagle, CO. He is single, he is a guy - and he owns the Gulfstream outright.
I could give his name but it wouldn't be appropriate. He has been a friend since 1981.
Kevin
If EA gets the "assets", they will assume the responsibilities of a TC holder.
Since Ecorpse went TU, no-one has been performing the 21.3 responsibilities, therefore the FAA has been largely starved of data on unsafe conditions.
Now this could either be because all Eturds are a perfectly reliable as Kens, or it could be because no one is reporting them, despite the FAA issuing the CYA safety bulletin for all Eturds operators to report directly to them.
The FAA can live fine with the three monkeys system of 21.3 ---> as long as no one kills themselves with it, and the NTSB sticks it to the FAA as usual.
Luckily no one has killed themselves in one, so the FAA heard no evil, saw no evil and spoke no AD.
21.3 is going to force the flow of evil again (except for Kens Eturd, which is perfect).
Back to another dream world!
Are there any news from the trustee?
The hearing will take place on August 20th?
Julius
airtaximan said...
The capital loss and depreciation could easily be $300,000 in just year one.
-----------------
Well, well, well....assuming that Ken got his plane for something around $1M, IF (I know it is still a big if) EA gets his plane updated to latest config, manages to set up a good support structure, etc....
It is conceivable that Ken's plane may be worth $1.5M or more a year or two from now.
So ATM, Ken and the other early EA500 owners may be holding the only turbine airplanes that actually are appreciating instead of depreciating.
And if you were to insist on counting that as DOC (which it shouldn't) Ken's hourly cost may be ZERO.
So be careful there claiming doom and gloom.
Baron said... And if you were to insist on counting that as DOC (which it shouldn't) Ken's hourly cost may be ZERO.
Well, in that case, ATM will just redefine what he is including in operating costs.
FreedomFarts said... Is of course also a reference to all those lucky Eturd owners who already have FIKI installed. I believe is, ummm, ONE!... and that plane is locked in the Ecorpse flight test hangar.
Actually I know of at least 6 that have been completed, and several more in-work.
that's funny... no one is claiming doom and gloom, here...
Ken's plane cost him WAY more than $1M, all things considered regarding money spent at EAC and to be spent finishing the plane (hopefully) at the "lucky-winner-behind-door-number-three" aircraft company.. my friend.
One of the points here is to be honest, and Ken spent a lot more than $1M at EAC, and got only his partially completed aeroplane.
We need to add 2 lost deposits which subsidized his plane... and we are told is also typical of the EAC-supporter/ea50 buyer.
He will have spent more than $2M for his plane, in all liklihood, including free warantee work now paid for, upgrades, and the deposits.
And, if YOU think your math is correct, you should go buy one - Something tells me you really COULD BUY ONE FOR UNDER $1M right about now...
Get serious... and the hourly cost less than zero is about what PT would have you think.
I just say 2 things:
1- he is out a lot more than $1 million
2- his total ownership and operating costs make this bird a lame duck... hiding behind "sipping fuel and fun to fly" and claiming its a real bargain compared to a Mustang, is crazy.
Back to Maddoff economics: I made a14% return... until I lost all my money. My DOC is ZERO!!!
Baron, next, someone here is going to suggest adding back all the money he is saving on fuel (nothing else considered, mind you) compared to some other plane, and considering it INCOME - oh wait, someone already did this....
michal said...
I thought the size of aircraft was one of its assets - I see I was wrong.
--------------------------
Yes. You were/are wrong. Size can just as easily be a liability as an asset. An A380 would have CASM - cost per available seat mile - much lower than a smaller plane with similar range like a 77E.
So, conclusion (according to your logic) is that every long haul airline should be flying A380s.
But wait???!!!!???? What happens if you can't fill the seats?????
Well, that is where the other little tiny figure that airlines look at comes in - trip costs.
It costs a ton of money to fly an A380 with 250 pax from JFK to LHR, and it only costs 1/2 a ton of money to fly the 772 with the same number of pax.
So if Ken's mission is to fly at most his family of 4 800nm or less, anything bigger, heavier (for longer range) etc, just needlessly increase his cost while providing no benefit.
Baron,
I would hope that someone who has enough coin to buy a $1 million+ airplane could also figure out what specific model(s) would fit his typical mission. I think most PC-12 owner/pilots actually need the capability of the PC-12 and not something else (i.e. Eclipse 500). Or just maybe they wanted an aircraft cabin that didn't have the circumference of a Hartz hamster tube. Whatever the reason, they determined that the PC-12, not the Eclipse 500, met their mission profile. Get over the fact that the Eclipse 500 isn't the perfect airplane for everyone, no matter how much you, Ken, PlaneTruth and the other church of flyantology members try to jam the tiny jet down their throats.
"He is single, he is a guy - and he owns the Gulfstream outright."
folks, if you are paying attention, this is one funny post!!!
Shadow said... Get over the fact that the Eclipse 500 isn't the perfect airplane for everyone
Get over the fact that just because the PC-12 is bigger, doesn't make it the right plane for everyone or every mission.
The inmates are running the asylum!!!
I do not have to re-define anything... DOC is a well defined term in aviation, and your contention we can use depreciation as part of DOC... is a mistake not many here would make.
Bottom line, hiding the real risks and costs behind "sips fule" and "is fun to fly" is about as sophisticated as applying depreciation tax credits to DOC.
There is a real cost to owning and operating this plane, all things consdiered. If someone likes masking the true cost and risk, by stating $1.1M when in fact ending up with the plane cost them a lot more... or if they choose leave major service items off the list in a cost gonculation... I guess they are the type to overlook a lot of BIG issues, in favor of concentrating on some little issues.
-end-
Sorry ATM....I have made a decision that my next plane will have a fully integrated flight deck, simple operating procedures for a single pilot that is flying less frequently.
As of today, only the Phenom and SR22 meet my flight deck requirements. The SR22 is too slow and has one seat too few for my mission requirements, plus if I'm flying behind a single engine, it better have an in flight shutdown of 100K hrs+.
The Phenom is a bit over my budget, no delivered ones are for sale and I'm disappointed with its climb performance in the upper FLs and/or high temps AND I have heard that it is cruising more in the 370Kts range rather than 390.
If I flew as frequently as Ken flies and had a type rated pilot (wife) with me on most trips, I could consider an EA500 NG1.5/Garmin.
So different situations call for different planes.
P.S. I have reviewed the normal operating procedures for the Phenom and I can do ALL of them by memory and use a shirt pocket-sized 2-sided card as a "post-do" check.
To me, that is what a single pilot jet for owner/operators must have. I think Vern CORRECTLY thought that too, and that is why he set out to get AVIO fully integrated.
Shadow said...Get over the fact that the Eclipse 500 isn't the perfect airplane for everyone
------------------
I have no problem in that deptmt. The problem are the blind critics that want to claim that the EA500 is note the perfect plane for ANYONE.
Read above, and you'll see what plane would be perfect for me.
"Or just maybe they wanted an aircraft cabin that didn't have the circumference of a Hartz hamster tube"
BINGO - finally someone who gets it! Average pax load on my PC-12 was less than 2.0, and never more than 4. I actually took two seats out semi-permanently. Lots of room in the cabin, relatively large private lav, and room for whatever I wanted to carry was a great luxury. Turns out you cant increase max seats or cabin volume just for those flights when you want/need more. Economics were compelling compared to a twin jet of similar cabin volume (most twin jets, in fact, except the fuel sipping, hamster tube EA50).
Yes, Whytech, But....
For that privilege, you had to accept a cruising speed of 100KTS less and inability to climb past FL280.
Flying westbound against 60 kts headwind in the weather, meant your passenger really needed that lav.
PC12 = great plane. But for $4M in 2009 I'd rather buy a Phenom 100 (and put money in the bank) or in 201 a Phenom 300, which will be more than 150kts faster for the same money with a cabin of the same size.
I'm sorry, but that plane has an overly complicated flight deck and a serious speed/altitude deficit compared with the latest light jets coming on-line.
Unless you want to avoid a TR or need to carry a lot of bulky items or use short/unimproved rwys, I can't see an owner pilot choosing it vs something like the Phenoms in 2010+.
Sales will decline once the initial bump of NGs clear.
My prediction.
meant in 2010 not 201.
Although the focus seems to be on name calling, and a general “put-down” of anyone who has an opinion on anything related to the Eclipse, the blog-site still carries the rather broad title of “aviationcriticenthusiast” which would seem to imply that other subjects might be included in the discussion. And as how some of us still make a living in things related to other aircraft . . . in our case, the manufacture of engines for such minor players as Boeing, etc., I find a keen interest in the future of a small aircraft called the “787" . . . as we had a rather lively discussion, recently, about the attachment of accessories (such as “wings”) to the rows of seats, occupied by paying travelers, in a contraption called the “fuselage” . . . a rather pleasant place to spend a few hours in transit from point A to point B.
Now, I realize that such minor subjects pale in comparison to someone flying into known icing conditions in an un-finished VLJ, but maybe someone else besides myself has noticed that Boeing is being “squeezed” rather severely, of late, to own up to things they have tended to hide, in their quest to successfully attach said wings to said temporary domicile, herewith called a fuselage, and have shut down further manufacture of said components, until a “band-aid” patch of suitable strength might be found to keep said components flying in close and intimate formation.
gadfly
(But then, only such minor things would interest a “gadfly”, who still is able to pay the bills . . . contrary to the opinion of some . . . because of machines that still pump out product, unattended 24/7, to make tooling that makes slots that provide a method of joining little pieces of nickel alloy that makes big rings that surround all those “whirly things” that are inside the front of those engine thingies, that hang under the wings that people see, when they look out the windows, and wonder how all that stuff pushes them from point A to point B.)
"Unless you want to avoid a TR or need to carry a lot of bulky items or use short/unimproved rwys, I can't see an owner pilot choosing it vs something like the Phenoms in 2010+."
Still doesnt get it!
Gad, no I have not missed that, but according to Boeing that is a "minor" issue. I don't know what Boeing considers major anymore on the 787 program.
The issue, I'm told happened when Alenia switched processes from SN6 and on.
---------------------
So that is Boeing's position.
Now comes my completely uninformed and speculative take....
SN6 and on being the first non-flight test article planes, were where the initial batch of weight savings were supposed to cut in, in order to try to save the plane's performance from a serious overweight condition. (I've heard figures ranging from 6K to 20K lbs overweight!!!).
So, my take, is that they removed too much material and/or the taping process/spacing, etc, causing the fuselage wrinkles.
Or as Vern and Scott would say.... no big deal - gives us an opportunity to prove how easily composites can be repaired.
Lets hope Scott gets fired earlier in the downfall cycle than Vern was.
WhyTech said...
"Unless you want to avoid a TR or need to carry a lot of bulky items or use short/unimproved rwys, I can't see an owner pilot choosing it vs something like the Phenoms in 2010+."
Still doesnt get it!
-----------------------
OK Whytech... enlighten me (truly - I must be missing your point). If large door for bulky items, short/unimproved runways and type-rating aversion are not factors, why in 2010 would an owner operator choose a PC-12 vs a similar sized-cabin, similarly priced Phenom 300, that has a much simpler flight deck and op procedures and cruises 150kts faster and 3 miles higher?
Oooops... Sorry, I haven't kept pace with the Phenom 300 pricing. It looks like it will be about 50% more expensive than the PC-12NG. Sorry.
"inability to climb past FL280."
Actually FL300. Except for thunderstorm avoidance, virtually never had a need to go higher, and even FL410 wont top many of them. Try it before you condemn it.
Phenom 100 looks great. Should be debugged and with reaonably convenient support in about 5 years if it is continued in production for that long. However, to get cabin volume on a twin jet close to the 12/47, you would need to be in the Hawker 800 or G150 range.
Pilatus builds about 80-100 PC-12's per year and has been capacity limited for years (except perhaps for the current downturn). I doubt that they will have much trouble producing at this rate given the unique capabilities of this acft. Its not for everyone, but hard to match if you want what it can do.
"It looks like it will be about 50% more expensive than the PC-12NG"
Any more questions? Just wondering if you have experience owning and operating a turbine acft in the flight levels? It not totally about speed and altitude.
Phenom 300 is $7M... better question might be why not by an almost new Lear 60 for $4.x million?
;)
except the fuel sipping, hamster tube EA50)....
I think you mean the flying MRI Machine... right?
Only real question is "face up or face down?"
"type-rating aversion"
Not really a factor. Insurance companies today require Part 142 sim based initial and recurrent training that is substantially equivalent to type rating training for an acft of similar complesity.
from Baron:
"Sorry ATM....I have made a decision that my next plane will have a fully integrated flight deck, simple operating procedures for a single pilot that is flying less frequently..."
can you link this to anything I have ever written? Help me out here....
All things aside, one of the serious issues I had with the Eclipse was the 1980s Chrysler K-car interior. I'm not sure if later models had an improved interior but the one I test flew was really crappy. Lots of cheap, imitation leather and poorly fitted plastic pieces. One of the guys with me couldn't get over how poorly the plane appeared. He was a non-aviation guy but he commented that if the interior was so poorly crafted he wouldn't place any faith in the rest of the plane. In hindsight I would have to say he was correct.
One of the things that impressed me with the Mustang was that it had the traditional Cessna quality. I've yet to see the inside of a Phenom but I hear it is very well done.
Whytech,
Had the opportunity to get current in a PC-12/45 with three takeoffs and landings. Very nice plane. Heavy control force required in roll which I understand has been fixed in the PC-12 NG.
"Heavy control force required in roll which I understand has been fixed in the PC-12 NG."
Yes - A Flettner tab was added to the ailerons with the introduction of the 12/47 which predated the 12/47E (aka NG) by several years. I have never flown a 47 with these tabs. Some who have say its an improvement and others, who like the heavier control forces, disagree. I found that one adjusted quickly to the forces required and these made the acft feel more stable in turbulence and IMC maneuvering.
AT writes, "except the fuel sipping, hamster tube EA50)....
I think you mean the flying MRI Machine... right?"
Actually, the EA500 is really quite comfortable for passengers:
A big guy and his girlfriend stretch out in an Eclipse
And the production interior is very nice. Bubba's idea that it's imitation leather isn't correct. I don't think the Phenom 100 has a lot on it in terms of quality. But judge for yourself how much better the interior is when you pay twice as much:
Phenom 100 sales photo of interior
Eclipse 500 actual photo of interior
Whytech says, ""type-rating aversion" i
Not really a factor. Insurance companies today require Part 142 sim based initial and recurrent training..."
Except that a turboprop pilot doesn't have to pass an ATP checkride. I've lost count of how many guys are literally *afraid* to fly the Eclipse 'cause they'd have to pass an ATP checkride. It's amazing really. Guys actually fly single-engine prop planes instead of twin-engine jets so they don't have to take a checkride. When I trained, we had lots of guys brave enough to take the plunge and 95% or more of them passed the checkride. It just makes no sense to put yourself in a lesser aircraft because of fear of the checkride.
AT: "DOC is a well defined term in aviation, and your contention we can use depreciation as part of DOC... is a mistake not many here would make."
Then, why in the Hell do you insist on including supposed value depreciation in your own calculation of DOC? One moment you're including made-up depreciation to make an artifically high hourly operating cost for the Eclipse; the next moment you're deriding somebody else for doing the same thing when the number comes out better!
I think it's because you can't counter the argument that the Eclipse 500 has, by far, the lowest DOCs of any jet on the market today. It does. That's a fact. And it is a critically important fact for guys like me who actually own and fly a jet rather than guys like you who fly a desk.
Ken
"I've lost count of how many guys are literally *afraid* to fly the Eclipse 'cause they'd have to pass an ATP checkride"
I can think of many reasons why one might be afraid to fly the Eclipse, but this is not one of them.
WhyTech said... I found that one adjusted quickly to the forces required and these made the acft feel more stable in turbulence and IMC maneuvering.
Yes, that's a "feature" known as a "stable IFR platform", when the manufacturer is unable to reduce the control forces of their flawed design.
Whytech wrote, "I can think of many reasons why one might be afraid to fly the Eclipse, but this is not one of them."
I'm happy to enlighten you that having to pass a jet type rating is an issue for some turboprop pilots; I suspect it is for you.
Some guys actually say silly stuff like, "I'd rather fly slow in my turboprop, and I think a single prop is really a lot safer than two jet engines!"
:)
Ken
So PT, that PC-XII, a failed design according to you, who designed that plane? A failed design that outnumbers the Eclipse early 4 to 1 and is still being delivered, supported by a factory, still under warranty (for those delivered over te past say 2-3 years) and still benefitting from factory upgrades.
This from a factory that has been in business for seventy years, including an aircraft that has been in continuous production for 50 years (PC-6).
Let me help you out, the PC-XII was designed by the same guy who designed the EA-500, the very same guy.
The ignorance and disdain for fellow human beings on display here is truly and utterly pathetic.
Enough about flying desks, being able to 'buy' other people, and fabricated crap about guys being scared of checkrides and other veiled jet-jockey demands for ego stroking - F-15 Eagle pilots are easier to get along with and more respectful of others than this latest BS.
Is there an interest in discussing the myriad of technical, programmatic and economic challenges facing Eclipse owners whether or not M&M pull off their 'rescue' on Thursday or are people too busy comparing pee pees.
PlaneTruth,
Get over the fact that I was using the PC-12 as an example since it was being discussed already. Insert whatever airplane type you'd prefer for PC-12. But the Hartz hamster tube reference was specific to the Eclipse 500.
P.S.--I hope you have a better attitude in real person. Your Internet persona is less than pleasant.
The EA-500 owners should be so lucky that their orphaned jet remains in service as long as the Pilatus aircraft, and that it enjoys even half the level of support.
At realistic production numbers (~50/yr) the Eclipse will never catch the PC-XII, assuming it ever makes it back into production.
Will there be EA-500's in service 50 years from now like the PC-6 or the Bonanza?
Will there be EA-500's still in service 40 years from now like the Lear 23?
Will there still be EA-500's in service 30 years from now like the Citations?
Will there still be EA-500's in service 20 years from now like the CJ's?
Will there still be EA-500's in service ten years from now like the Premier?
Not without a significant effort to extend the expiration date that puts the majority of the existing fleet out of service in only 8 years.
Wonder how that will happen?
Wonder who will pay for that?
ColdWet said... Let me help you out, the PC-XII was designed by the same guy who designed the EA-500, the very same guy.
So according to you, Eclipse was just two guys... Vern and Oliver. And I never said the PC-12 was flawed. You jumped on that one.
Tell me again, how's that Epic fiasco working out. Does the FBI know you're hiding Rick in your attic?
ColdWet said... The ignorance and disdain for fellow human beings on display here is truly and utterly pathetic.
Right back at you, and this blog.
Shadow... But the Hartz hamster tube reference was specific to the Eclipse 500. P.S.--I hope you have a better attitude in real person. Your Internet persona is less than pleasant.
Ouch, no Christmas card for you this year.
PlaneTruth said:
"Yes, that's a "feature" known as a "stable IFR platform", when the manufacturer is unable to reduce the control forces of their flawed design."
Then PT said:
"And I never said the PC-12 was flawed."
So which PT are we to believe?
As for Epic, I owned up to my misjudging of the leadership there, no obfuscation, no parsing, no qualifications, no equivocation - nice try though, it will take a lot more than that, maybe you can repost what someone else said five or six times.
ColdWetRemedialReader said... "Yes, that's a "feature" known as a "stable IFR platform", when the manufacturer is unable to reduce the control forces of their flawed design."
Yup, NO mention of a specific manufacturer. Pilatus is YOUR interpretation.
ColdWetPoorJudgeOfCharacter said... As for Epic, I owned up to my misjudging of the leadership there
Sure, what makes you so right about everything else. Forgive me if I don't hang onto your every word.
"The ignorance and disdain for fellow human beings on display here is truly and utterly pathetic."
Pot meet kettle. For the record, I'm what you "faithful" critics (yes, it goes both ways)call a drive-by poster, but a reader of the blog since day one.
From your past behavior (critics) I realize it's easier for you to minimize your hypocrisy by pointing out your short-comings.
ColdWetPoorJudgeOfCharacter said... As for Epic, I owned up to my misjudging of the leadership there
I suspect the Cool-Aid finally wore off. Whis is it that they actually drank there?
Somehow I just knew you would parse like that, there was only one context in which to take that, only one subject of the post to which you replied, only one context in which it was written. This is vaguely remeniscent of a couple of other poster, I mean posters.
So in addition to being a serial plagiarist of others posts, you are also a coward, unwilling to to back up what you clearly said.
And of course with the name calling we can all see the true character revealed - as if there were any doubt.
Yes, as a man I am willing and able to admit when I have made a mistake or error in judgement. If you want to discard everything which I have ever said because I was honest and admitted a mistake that is your prerogative - I guess if I just lied and obfuscated and rewrote history like some others then I could regain your confidence, maybe even sell you or a significant other an incomplete aircraft, but that is not my objective.
ColdWetPoorJudgeOfCharacter said... As for Epic, I owned up to my misjudging of the leadership there
John, how's the plan to scrap the EA50 fuselage and stick the recycled PW610's on one of Rick latest design flaws? That one had a lot of traction. NOT. Gee John, you're full of good ideas. Did you get any good consulting leads for that great idea? Joke. I'm sure your clients are as impressed as we are.
ColdWet said... And of course with the name calling we can all see the true character revealed - as if there were any doubt.
you have GOT to be kidding.
ColdWet said... So in addition to being a serial plagiarist of others posts, you are also a coward, unwilling to to back up what you clearly said.
You've really got nothing left, have you.
The was NO plagiarism involved. I gave credit to the author.
Coward? Name calling? There you go.
Unwilling to back up what I clearly said. Yes, it was clearly said. No manufacturer was specified.
Interesting that the faithful are coming out in full force right before the Chapter 7 sale. Keep your eye on the ball, folks. Don't fall for these diversions.
Will M&M come up with the funds to complete the transaction?
Will Eclipse v2.1 last more than a couple months if they do?
Will Roel, Vern or Mike make a surprise reprisal?
Stay tuned. This is about to get much more interesting.
Shadow, stay tuned. Shane will be here any minute to let us know what secrets are in the Inbox.
Blogs new slogan...
If you fly an Eclipse then fuck you!
CW,
The Phenom 100 and the Mustang combined will outsell the PC12 and TBM850 combined. Furthermore they will displace sales of those two types. And further, they will depress the used price of those types.
It was great the TBM and Pilatus had the $3M/6-seats and $4M/8-seats low fuel consumption market to themselves all these years.
I salute them for having identified a niche and filled it expertly.
But just like Citations killed ALL twin TPs save the King-Airs and Piaggio, so will the Phenom 100 and Mustang kill take most of the wind from the the TBM850 and PC12.
And if single-engine jets ever get produced in numbers, they will be further squeezed.
I do not like TBMs position, and while Pilatus has a lot more going for it with the huge cabin and payload, it too will suffer.
So no, it will not be the EA500 that will do them in (for obvious reason), but they will be done in by fan-jets.
Not my point Baron but I think you are essentially on track.
Pilatus and TBM will survive and continue to deliver aircraft, there are folks who prefer turboprops to fanjets, not because they can't pass Type Rating checkrides, not because they don't think they have the skills of Ace of the Base Steve Canyon, but because they have short/soft field requirements, or payload requirements, or range/economy requirements, or, and here is an innovative concept, because they need a combination of all those requirements that is not yet found in any turbofan aircraft.
My point was not that the EA-500 will do in the PC-XII, it was that the Eclipse has a very, very long way to go in order to be legitimately compared to these successful designs, and specifically to point out the freshness date issue which is a significant challenge.
ColdWetMackarelofReality said...
Will there be EA-500's in service 50 years from now like the PC-6 or the Bonanza?
======================
I sincerely hope that this is not the main standard by which we judge success of airplane designs. Yes that is A factor, but should not be THE factor.
For example, how many people has the Bonanza needless killed because of well documented design shortcomings?
The fact that the GA average fleet age is several decades is a testament to the inability of this industry to innovate. For a host of reasons from regulatory to lack of design talent to lack of new pilots coming in, this industry is stuck in the 50s.
90% of the piston fleet is being delivered with engines designed in the 50s with freaking magnetos that that need to be timed and engines that need to be serviced every 50-hours. That is insane. There is absolutely no excuse for it other than a general failing of the industry to meet customer needs through innovation.
Even the PT-6, as good as it is, is a relic approaching 5 decades.
There has been no mass innovation in piston of TP engine design in decades.
Fan-jets in the mean time have evolved at a break neck pace.
We now have fan-jets ranging from 900 lbs to 115,000 lbs, with SFCs going down by 10-20% every generation.
If you want to advance GA, you have to move it to fan-jet. Why? Because that is the only propulsion technology that is not stuck in the 50s. The only one that is evolving.
Simple as that.
Eclipse had trouble in two major areas. Avionics and Engines. Those two problems are solved by competitive COTS.
Now let there be innovation.
For crying out loud. Lets get off each other's throats.
All this vitriol because it looks like someone "MAY" buy the assets?
Rats.
What will happen when someone ACTUALLY BUYS them ad does something? You guys will fly your planes into each others houses?
It is just a plane people. And it is just a plan to support that plane.
Nobody is raping your mothers, daughters, wives.
Lets lighten it up a bit.
Post a Comment