The figurative Duke of Albuquerque, Mayor Marty Chavez, announced on Friday, July 31, that he was "98 percent certain that Eclipse has been saved.". Perhaps he meant, 98% certain 2% of it had been saved, as the rumored offer is $40M, for what had been a $2B investment...).
A group of investors formed Eclipse Aerospace (I believe, formerly calling themselves Eclipse Jet, when Roel Pieper was associated with them mid-year- Mr. Peiper has since moved back to Europe to carry on his pen-pal relationship with Al Mann, and perhaps avoid a different pen-pal relationship with other former Eclipse managment).
The new cast of characters:
Mason R. Holland Jr., Benefitfocus of Charleston, S.C., (Holland held a position on s/n 473-or so, and had made the 60% progress payment).
Mike Press, president and CEO of Single-Pilot Jet Management in Chesterfield, Mo.,
Raul Segredo, president and CEO of Miami-based Avionica, a provider of aircraft data communications products and services, and
John Cracken, a managing director of Cracken, Harkey & Co., a Dallas-based private equity firm.
Mason and Mike were kind enough to copy Shane on an email explaining their intentions in April- things might have changed a little, being as that was a few months ago, but I suspect the basic intent is the same. Shane kindly posted their information on April 26, 2009.
I'm not sure Raul is still with the group- his avionics experience would definitely be a strong plus for the group.
KRQE in Albuquerque has a recent "extended interview" (well, it's a 3 minute telephone call) with Mason Holland.
Time line for the court events ahead:
August 10 hearing (I believe to discuss the current offer).
August 24 hearing (Going once, going twice, ...)
There is rumor of another bid or two, possibly forthcoming- but Mayor Chavez seems to feel this one is likely to be the winner. And if anyone knows how to pick a winner... (Just Kidding!)
Not to be un-"enthusiast"-ic, I do feel an obligation to caution a certain degree of "critic"-al evaluation, particularly for those in Albuquerque, who might be expecting too much, too soon, from the new ownership. While the mayor refers to some part of a former employment level of 800 (odd, it's not 2000), and Eclipse Aerospace mentions 100-200 intially, I feel perhaps we should be discussing dozens rather than hundreds, at least for the first few months. I hope things accelerate quickly, but still, it's a tough market.
Well, that pretty much assuages my urge to issue a cautionary note. These are the things a critic frets about. But as an enthusiast, I'm happy the offices and factory and hangar doors will be unlocked. Long time blog participant Ken Meyers, an EA500 owner himself, feels this is a well-prepared group, who seem to have been doing their homework. The announced long term intention of reopening the production line and building 100-200 airplanes per year seems quite reasonable once the economy improves, and until then, everyone will welcome the near-term effort to bring updates and improvements to the existing fleet, and offer parts and training for pilots and maintenance personnel.
Good luck, Eclipse Aerospace.
(It will be interesting to see what's "just around the bend"!)
266 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 266 of 266Ken Meyer said... A broader analysis comes from looking at Flightaware data. That analysis shows that 75% of trackable Eclipse aircraft have flown in the last 2 months.
Actually that is not correct. The analysis provided by FlightAware and posted on the Eclipse Owners' website shows that the number of aircraft flown in the past 60 days was 81.5% out of the trackable fleet.
WhyTech said... Ken, only you could be proud of this sutuation.
Only you could be happy for the situation. What else would you do with your day if not for this "critical" blog.
The fact is that the situation *does* exist, there is no manufacturer currently backing the aircraft, parts are in short supply, maintenance is easily obtained through many specialty shops around the country, and the planes continue to fly. Simple.
Plane truth, I LIKE your style...
I have marvelled at the FACT that maintenance is easily available around the country... and this makes me wonder why anyone would pay anything to access providing maintenance for the EA50...
Time will tell...
Plane Truth wrote, "The analysis provided by FlightAware and posted on the Eclipse Owners' website shows that the number of aircraft flown in the past 60 days was 81.5% out of the trackable fleet."
Yes, I goofed; I used only the N-number planes (i.e. I left out the planes filing under a flight number); I didn't quite understand the report's format until your comment. Thanks!.
So, here is the corrected message:
Bubba writes, "My guess is that 99% of the Mustangs, Phenoms, and TBMs are airworthy and flying. Something that cannot be said about the Eclipse."
Well, you can't say it about Mustangs, Phenoms, or TBMs either as your comment itself admits ("My guess is..." means you don't *know*; my *guess* is you didn't think your comment through very carefully before writing it).
As for Eclipse 500 flightworthy status, the latest Owner survey of EA500 availability lists 85.7% of reported aircraft as available, but the survey's universe is small (owners who choose to report their plane's status).
A broader analysis comes from looking at Flightaware data. That analysis shows that 81.5% of trackable Eclipse aircraft have flown in the last 2 months.
And that is an amazing testament to the aircraft, given that there has been no factory support and very little ability to obtain certain parts for months.
The FA data shows that the fleet accumulated *more* flight hours in July than in March, which indicates that there has *not* been a progressive problem with EA500's being increasingly grounded as the months pass.
Ken
thanks Ken..
"B&CA listed the price of the Eclipse as $1.1 million. They got that from Vref and used the 2008 model pricing in their aircraft comparison table."
I am lost, a little...
I thought you were discussing the cost comparison to NEW aircraft like the Mustang... so I was wondering what acquisition cost they used for the EA50.
Ken, someone here who claims to know said... you had 3 deposits...
1- your plane
2- another one (you once refered to as your wife's plane) which THIS person who claims to KNOW, says you sold...
3- the e400
How is this wrong?
Also, it has been reported on this blog, by those who scrunched the numbers from the BK docs, that MANY people had multiple deposits, including 3,4,5...
I honestly thought you were a good example... and I still think many folks had more than one deposit... help clarify all this, pls.
"It's amazing how many times a King Air pulls up and two guys with briefcases emerge. Amazing and wasteful."
the ea50 would be amazingly wasteful for this mission as well....
"Pilots are smart people."
and...
they don't generalize, either!
airtaximan said... I have marvelled at the FACT that maintenance is easily available around the country... and this makes me wonder why anyone would pay anything to access providing maintenance for the EA50...
At this point in time, no one has any plan to charge an upfront fee for access to maintenance. That was the plan of the Reed/Friedman group. The owners apparently didn't like that idea either, and made their dissatisfaction known to Reed/Friedman stating that they would park their planes until the company went under. I believe that to be true, and so did Reed/Friedman, I guess, as they are no longer looking to acquire the assets. The Eclipse Owners' Group that *was* requiring a $150K membership buy-in to the co-op, is also no longer in the running and will disband shortly. Holland/Press, the Stalking-Horse Bidder for the assets, never had any plan to charge an up front fee for maintenance access.
airtaximan said... MANY people had multiple deposits
MANY is actually just a few more than a COUPLE.
PLane Truth... please re-read.. what I wrote was..
"and this makes me wonder why anyone would pay anything to access providing maintenance for the EA50..."
"..ay anything to access PROVIDING M..."
In this industry as with many, OEMs sometimes charge "access fees" to providers...
In essence, if there IS service being provided, why on earth would anyone buy EAC assets for the priveledge of competing... they are paying a huge amount of money for the priveledge of competiing with a nice network of service providers already in place...
Capice?
plane truth... like I wrote, someone couted up all the folks with multiple deposits, and as was the case with KM... a lot of people had multiple deposits.
How many... it seemed like more than 100... which could be half of all the folks who got a plane.
If this was true, they subsidized themselves... and buying an EA50 costs them more than $1.1 (which is the number Ken is using from BCA)...
Once again, IF you have better numbers, please provide them... your remarks just poke holes, instead of filling them... and we'd all like better info, if you have it.
Interesting AOPA article:
Eclipse bidder offers $40 million
Now that the EOG has decided to stand down and back the Eclipse Aerospace, apparently only foreign bidders remain as potential competition:
"All known potential bidders have a foreign investment component.
To win approval of the court, any bid with a foreign component must pass a national security review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a part of the U.S. Treasury."
Ken
"the ea50 would be amazingly wasteful for this mission as well...."
Got the point here. Ken's argument about too much space is interesting. I thought it was one of the key ingredients distinguishing different airplanes - how much space you want to buy/afford? I guess I am not very smart because I would stay away from all such jets (Mustangs, Eclipses, etc.) for the simple reason that I would dread wearing the oxygen mask at and above FL350 and this is where you have to be to get the best economy on these airplanes. I still think that flying below FL300 is where you get best 'deal' if you are a single owner pilot and there is so much more free airspace down there to boot. I would rather have an all weather turboprop with the latest SVT avionics. And I see no appeal in flying 'fast' or competing for space with big jets. Give me the lowly Meridian and I would be on top of the world, he, he.
Nice article indeed - first time I have seen an article on AOPA with actual researched and well presented facts. Good thing Mac didn't get a hold of it.
It is the first I heard that the offer is $20M cash + $20M notes.
I really wish this group well.
Ken - question for you...
Do you know the reason why Eclipse opted to put the G400s in the panel vs using their remote GPS boxes and bringing the data into Avio? Was it lack of space or something else? Thx.
"What else would you do with your day if not for this "critical" blog. "
Actually, my days are more than full with rewarding, stimulating activity, which does not include shlepping an incomplete orphan airplane around the counrty trying to get decent support. I tune in here now and then for amusement, mostly tweaking Ken, or learning at the knee of the Master (Baron).
"I still think that flying below FL300 is where you get best 'deal' if you are a single owner pilot "
Tried it both ways and strongly agree. Cabin volume adds so much to comfort and utility. I came within half a milimeter of buying a CJ1+, then backed out after being jerked around by Cessna (they probably arent as quick to insist on their way today)and bought a PC-12. Proved to be a superb choice. The large cabin and cargo door quickly became "cant do without" items. Only sold the airplane because I could not keep it busy enough. If I were doing it again today and with up to $10mm to spend, I'd buy a PC-12/47E, or a HB B200GT and smile all the way to the bank. (The C90GTi is also an excellent value at just under $3m.) The extra airspeed of a jet would not change my life one bit except perhaps for bragging rights.
Michal said...Give me the lowly Meridian and I would be on top of the world, he, he.
------------------------
Hummmm.....are you sure?
The Meridian as tested by AOPA's latest issue - the one with G1000 - and only one worth having - has a price of about $2.2M.
It is limited to FL280 - because it does not meet RVSM requirements.
AND
Here is the killer - it has a Vmo of 188kts. That means that ATC will place severe delayed climb and early descent on this plane in many parts of the country.
The Meridian is slower than a Baron and some piston singles down low because of the very low Vmo.
It is another example of Piper not having the resources to get the plane right. If they did the engineering/flight test to get the Vmo above 200 kts the plane would be a lot more competitive with the TBM.
As it is, $2.2M for a 188kts Vmo/FL280/250kts plane is insane.
I'd much rather buy 2 EA50s - one to fly one for spare parts. ;)
Baron asked "Do you know the reason why Eclipse opted to put the G400s in the panel vs using their remote GPS boxes and bringing the data into Avio? Was it lack of space or something else? Thx."
Baron, I do not know for sure, but there are strong indications that the problem was time and money. The plan *was* to do exactly as you described and utilize a Chelton-designed FMS within the system as the pilot interface.
But it wasn't ready on time. It was going to take more time and more money at a point in history when the company was low on both.
It wouldn't blow me away to see the new company finish the Chelton project by the time they restart production (along with a half dozen other changes that deserve to be introduced). IMHO it would produce a marginally more functional avionics package that would be hugely better accepted in the marketplace.
Ken
"It is limited to FL280 - because it does not meet RVSM requirements."
So what, didn't I say that I see no benefit being above FL300 (or FL280) in a turboprop?
Your Vmo argument is another in the series of bizarre arguments on this forum. Meridian can be at FL270 and easily get there to 260 true, can you do that in a Baron?. No Meridian is no TBM850 which costs by the way almost 50% more. Again comparing apples to oranges.
Ken.. what's with the rebutt on the contention you had 3 deposits with EAC?
1-your plane
2- shari's plane
3-400
T/F?
Epic Doors Closed as Founder Disappears
Epic Aircraft’s facility in Bend, Ore., has been locked shut and company founder, chairman and CEO Rick Schrameck seems to have disappeared. Epic usually has a large presence at the annual EAA AirVenture show in Oshkosh, Wis., but this year there was just one Epic LT single-engine turboprop on display without any company banners or signs. Rich Lucibella, an Epic LT kit buyer and builder who filed a lawsuit against Epic over failure to deliver the engine for his kit, has been monitoring the situation at Epic. According to Lucibella, “There are roughly 12 aircraft sitting at Epic unfinished. The owners [of those kits] are working with the company to [find] a solution that keeps Epic going, which may include investment from outside sources.” Meanwhile, asked whether the FAA is investigating questions about how much assistance Epic provides to Epic LT builders, an FAA spokesman responded: “All we can say is we are aware of the situation, and we are investigating.” No further details were available. No one is answering the telephone at Epic headquarters, and many employees’ voice mailboxes are full and unable to take messages.
Now, where is Gunner? I hear he was last seen "discussing" matters with Rick Schrameck. Now Rick is gone, and Gunner hasn't been around for a while. I assume Gunner has a carry permit.
AT, what you said was "Some placed 4, 5, 6 deposits... Ken for example, had 3 at one point..."
That was just incorrect. I never had 3 Eclipse deposits at any single point in time. Two is the most I had.
Ken
Epic Doors Closed as Founder Disappears
That's really quite astonishing, Plane Truth. I do feel for Rich Lucibella, who has had more than his fair share of up's and down's in trying to acquire a better plane to fly.
Ken
How to put this?!
Is designing, building, testing, manufacturing an aircraft simply a game of “ego” or brief profit? Maybe! That is all it has become of late!
The discussion has gone to levels that would be the envy of a “Submariner” (pronounced: sub-ma-REEN-er) . . . except that the medium is suppose to be the atmosphere, not the ocean.
Eclipse? . . . Let it be a fun thing to fly . . . hopefully “Safe”, and skip the fuel efficiency argument . . . it’s not a taxi, so fuel costs hardly count in the overall cost of flying it for a couple or three hundred hours per year. Do the math . . . the numbers are completely embarrassing to anyone claiming that for a private aircraft “Eclipse” is economical, even going by the original claims of the mother company. Does it need some serious help? . . . you betcha . . . but it’s like a VW “Karmann-Ghia” . . . not fast, not great, but has a following . . . and who knows! . . . maybe someone will make it complete.
How many other startups have come and gone? . . . Far more than most can name.
But for a serious sharing of technical data, this constant “put-down” of your opponent will get you no-where . . . not even a feeling of satisfaction. ‘Maybe you might have a very brief feeling of “I sure showed him!” . . . but that is short lived, and there are possibly a few hundred others, maybe even thousands . . . watching, reading, serious in attempting to design something worthy of the next generation of aircraft. (And in case you haven’t learned it yet, “Eclipse” is definitely not the next generation, for a long list of reasons . . . and I’ll not attempt to dignify that statement with further comment. And, if it will make anyone feel better, Boeing is suffering a similar problem, having boasted great things, before they ever got close to understanding their new technology of fiber re-enforced carbon composites. The “Eclipse” fiasco may be viewed as a “thumbnail sketch” of Boeing’s problems. Here’s a thing to learn: Human nature is the same no matter where you find it.)
It’s easy to make great claims . . . illustrate the future in beautiful CAD images, combined with “Adobe Photo-Shop” renditions . . . shucks, I can do that . . . “piece of cake”. And I can speak enough of the language to “prove” a new design. But to take an idea from dream to hardware, and do it honestly, is becoming a rare thing these days. So let’s stop wasting time protecting “egos” and get to the meat of the matter.
Capice?
gadfly
Please refrain from reminding Ken
Not only did he 'lose' his second EA500 deposit.
Or Shari lose her ConJet $100,000.
But he also is 'in the hole' for $53,000 (odd) of 'Jet(In)Complete'.
Plus he paid a premium to move 'up' in the queue for an FPJ.
A toyjet, for those of you who are new to us.
No, poor 'ol Ken is so committed to this program that he, well, should really be committed.
As in, locked up for his own protection, before he influences others to make his own mistakes.
Again.
And again.
And again...
Shane
Lord have mercy!
So, I was correct... Ken was like many and had multiple deposits with EAC - he did have 3 deposits with EAC... even though he refuses to admit this, and couches it as 2 deposits which he lost, PLUS the plane, for which he made another deposit.
And in the spirit of being fair, Shane is correct when he adds to the COST of Ken's EA50, the money he lost with JetIncomplete...
Was he also an investor and perhaps lost his investment in the company as well? I have no clue... how much money has he spent on lawyers, or time spent chasing Jesus number 18 to save the company? Or time spent chasing someone to fix his plane?
We need to be realistic when we compare cost of ownership... and Ken... seems to hide many salient FACTS.
Ouch...
Wasn't there some rich Indian billionaire who invested in Epic a sizable sum of money barely a year ago? All for vain?
But I definitely liked their website and looks of their aircraft.
Shane got a few of his facts wrong. The comment about Shari's deposit, paying to move up in position, and paying for JetComplete were all incorrect.
I don't really fault Shane for not having his facts straight. I think he's trying to make a case that Eclipse buyers, and one in particular, are somehow bad people. I don't think he can make that case with truthful facts.
But I *do* hold him accountable for personal slurs:
"Ken is so committed to this program that he, well, should really be committed."
As a former moderator, Shane knows the rules and he's breaking one premeditatively: No personal attacks. Since Shane cannot make his point with accurate facts, I guess he's going to try to do it with personal slurs. A valid argument needs neither incorrect "facts" nor personal slurs, yet Shane feels the need to employ both.
Whatever.
Phil--will you be so kind as to exercise your moderator's delete button on the offensive posting?
Ken
"I think he's trying to make a case that Eclipse buyers, and one in particular, are somehow bad people. I don't think he can make that case with truthful facts. "
Ken, I dont think that this is Shane's point at all. I think he is trying to make the case that Eclipse buyers are inclined to be folks who are not particularly discerning when it comes to spending their money. And if this is his point, I would be inclined to strongly agree.
Shane said... Not only did he 'lose' his second EA500 deposit. Or Shari lose her ConJet $100,000. But he also is 'in the hole' for $53,000 (odd) of 'Jet(In)Complete'. Plus he paid a premium to move 'up' in the queue for an FPJ. A toyjet, for those of you who are new to us.
Shane, how wrong can you be, and why do you really care? But since it appear you to care...
For the record, as I recall it, when Ken took delivery on his aircraft, he also had a deposit on a second much later position. The thought was to get a late model aircraft and sell the original one delivered, should they decide to. He had no reason to even request an earlier position, no less pay for one, since he *wanted* a later production aircraft.
He later placed a deposit on the EA400, and received a return of his EA500 deposit. The EA400 deposit was lost when Eclipse tanked. The ONLY thing you got right.
Ken had always been quite vocal as to the lack of clear advantage of the JetComplete program versus the standard new purchase warranty, and therefore NEVER signed an agreement or paid for anything JetComplete hours.
Now, as for it being a toy jet... Well maybe when compared to a business-class corporate aircraft, but that is not the market. It is not a toy when compared to prop-twins, single or twin turboprops, or the Mustang. But then again, the closest you have ever been to one is this blog, so I forgive you for not knowing that either.
And, stop the insults when you have no supporting fact. And stop the un-truths as well.
"And stop the un-truths as well."
This works both ways. As primarily a lurker and sometimes a participant on this blog for a couple of years, Ken has caused me to consider him to be a bit of a prevaricator (second definition) in his careflly crafted and parsed disclosures of the "truth." If your most recenet post is accurate, Ken did indeed have three distinct deposits on Eclipse aircraft, but with no more than two in effect concurrently. Ken is not obligated to disclose any personal information here, and this is the policy I would advocate that he follow. When he dicloses selective truths, and is discovered in this, soon it is difficult to believe anything he says.
pre⋅var⋅i⋅ca⋅tor /prɪˈværɪˌkeɪtÉ™r/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pri-var-i-key-ter] Show IPA
Use prevaricator in a Sentence
–noun 1. a person who speaks falsely; liar.
2. a person who speaks so as to avoid the precise truth; quibbler; equivocator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
"It is not a toy when compared to prop-twins, single or twin turboprops, or the Mustang."
Is the aircraft able to legally conduct an ILS-guided autopilot-coupled approach to minimums in a known ice environment?
Ken,
Shari lost, not just the $100k on the ConJet, but her legal fees in attempting to recover same as well.
You are listed as creditor, in the court documents for your second, $150k deposit and $53k (odd) of Jet(In)Complete.
Congratulations if both of you managed to sell on these losses.
If you have, I'll be happy to correct my 'committed' comment by adding 'completely'.
Shane
Why Tech,
Accuracy is a fundamental of flying. You don't fly to the missed approach holding fix thinking it is the same as the missed approach point, do you?
When AT said, "Some placed 4, 5, 6 deposits... Ken for example, had 3 at one point," he was just incorrect. I do not now have 3 deposits; I never did have 3 deposits.
When Shane wrote the things he wrote, he was just incorrect.
Why not strive for accurate writing here as everywhere else in aviation?
Ken
"Why not strive for accurate writing here as everywhere else in aviation?"
Yes, why not, Ken?
BT asks, "Is the aircraft able to legally conduct an ILS-guided autopilot-coupled approach to minimums in a known ice environment?"
Sure, as long as the plane has the already-approved FIKI/Avio NG 1.5 upgrade.
That's one reason many owners are happy to see Eclipse Aerospace emerge as the likely winner of the EAC assets; they are committed to the swift, cost-effective implementation of FIKI/1.5 to the fleet.
Ken
Plain Truth,
If you need a copy of the court documents, I'd be happy to oblige.
But be aware that, like a lot of stuff surrounding EAC, they are verbose, intended to mislead and very hard (for simple minded folk) to understand.
If you feel up to the task, I'd be happy to share...
It's about 260Mb, so be prepared for about two weeks. Ken might be able to help out, seeing as he has so much time on his hands.
Shane
"Sure, as long as the plane has the already-approved FIKI/Avio NG 1.5 upgrade."
See definition of "prevaricator" above. I am coming to understand that Ken cant help it.
Black Tulip said... Is the aircraft able to legally conduct an ILS-guided autopilot-coupled approach to minimums in a known ice environment?
That may make it ill-equipped, I think we all agree there, it does not make it a toy. Go back to writing fiction.
Shane Price said... Plain Truth, If you need a copy of the court documents, I'd be happy to oblige.
No need, I have an original copy ofmy own. As we both know the document ARE NOT that specific as to the exact debt, and nowhere is JetComplete even mentioned.
You can fool those here that do not have the documents, I;m sure Fred will believe anything at this point, but we both know you are not just incorrect on this fact, you are now lying.
For the sake of 'truth' in blogging
Ken Meyer only had whatever Ken Meyer THOUGHT he had invested in EAC.
His wife, or any other person called 'Ken Meyer' (address(s) supplied from court documents, if required) who also had money 'committed' to Eclipse Aviation Corporation (or any other entity with a similar name) at any time, has NO CONNECTION with our Ken.
Ken, in fact, does not own an EA500.
He has a 'Fisher Price Jet', as defined by our former blogs. It will, like all infantile fascinations, be discarded in time for more adult equipment.
Something like an entry level Ford.
Ooops, Shane is wrong again!
Ken only buys stuff from companies that are about to go out of business...
Shane
Double 'Ooops'...
Ken only buys stuff from companies that ARE out of business.
Ford Motor Company stand an excellent chance of a third century.
I have two examples parked outside my home as I write.
As well as two exceptional Mercedes...
Shane
You gotta love this:
"clear advantage of the JetComplete program versus the standard new purchase warranty, and therefore NEVER signed an agreement or paid for anything JetComplete hours.:
OK, so how much was the warantee worth when it was lost?
When someone buys a plane from a real OEM, they obtain a warantee, and it is worth something - KEn lost his... how much should we add to the losses/cost, compared to say the Mustang, where the warantee is still holding?
Such a sad state when this discussion is turned to ridiculous levels...
-and-
"Accuracy is a fundamental of flying. You don't fly to the missed approach holding fix thinking it is the same as the missed approach point, do you?"
- plus the following GEM:
"I never did have 3 deposits"
really?
ARE YOU INSANE?
Here's Ken's entire post, which I am sure he will try to erase...
"Why Tech,
Accuracy is a fundamental of flying. You don't fly to the missed approach holding fix thinking it is the same as the missed approach point, do you?
When AT said, "Some placed 4, 5, 6 deposits... Ken for example, had 3 at one point," he was just incorrect. I do not now have 3 deposits; I never did have 3 deposits.
When Shane wrote the things he wrote, he was just incorrect.
Why not strive for accurate writing here as everywhere else in aviation?
Ken"
"I never did have 3 deposits."
of course you did, Ken.. remember... you had:
1- on the plane you received
1- on a plane for Shari
1- on an E400...
That makes 3.
You did in fact place 3 deposits with EAC...
I have listened to you on this blog for a few years, trying to couch the realities best you can with rosey glasses and as some have put it here... and you make insults and call people liars... you say we should be more accurate, while you act as low as Mr.Raburn himself did for a long time.
You try to spin a tall tale for how smart you are, and what a marvelous decision you made... all the while besmerching companies like Cessna and HB with your BS comparisons.
I sincerely wish you would just enojy flying your plane, which is obviously the best EA50 ever producded, and is perfect for all your missions, and you and Shari... this would be fine...
BUT, every time there is some reson to come back and start the BIG BS all over again, such as now, when someone is perhaps going to begin to help you with your (problem) aircraft... or worse, they will try to begin producing this contraption again and take more folks for a ride... you become the ECLIPSE BS-artist cheerleader again... and blow tons of smoke.
I hope everyone remembers this little hissy fit you had over the FACT that you placed 3 deposits with EAC... I know it hurts, but man, YOUR cost, the one BARON feels so complelled to defend is way more than you lead on...
Keep sipping fuel... and forget the REAL cost.
Shane why don't you just post the exact section of the documents? These docs are not copyright protected and can be pasted at will.
Just say, on doc xxxx, page yyyy there is the following text "aaa bbb cccc".
It is very easy. You don't need to hide behind "I have the docs, I have email, if you could know what I know".
That is so silly and childish and insulting to the readers.
If you have info post the source and post the info or a link. Else QUIT.
"I never did have 3 deposits"
Ken Meyer... Aug 6 2009...
Plain Truth,
You don't have the documents I have.
Or you are (like Ken) choosing to ignore fact.
Whatever....
I know trawling through these papers is a pain, but it's worthwhile. There are loads of interesting details.
I'm saving most of them for the book.
Want to reserve an advance copy?
Send me a 10% deposit, non refundable.
Within 6 months of an imaginary publication date, I'll demand a further 60% progress payment.
And, after all of that...
I won't send you a thing!
Can you think of a more perfect scam?
I can...
Shane
Baron, I am truly ashamed of you...
If you think Shane is lying, compared to Ken... you need to re-think.
You will fall into the mindless class of "die-hard" really quickly, and I thought more of you for a long time...
Perhaps shame on me.
Ken says he did not place 3 deposits with EAC...
What a sad state of affairs...
You defend his cost numbers, and use him as an example of a real cost (perhaps) of an EA50... his real cost is likely closer to $2M than $1.1 (his number)... and you claim he made a smart choice. I bet his cost is about to go up regarding support as well... stay tuned....
What a farce.
Ken, what is the BCA comparison number for an EAC new vs new Mustang?
This WAS the discussion.
As for BT's question can Eclipse do coupled ILS in FIKI conditions...
1 - Ken's answer is accurate - Yes, if equipped. We know that there is at least one (but I think there 2 or 3) so equipped. The plane used for EASA/FIKI certification.
2 - Furthermore, it is a silly question to begin with. Having autopilot coupled to minimums in icing conditions is a questionable practice at the very least. If I'm carrying ice I'm hand flying or at least will get off AP periodically to check handling. I certainly don't want to risk an AP disconnect with an out of trim plane returned to me at 250 AGL due to an icing out-of-limit condition.
So were all the ATRs from American Eagle that were prohibited to flying into known icing after fatal accidents made into "toys"?
Was the Mustang a toy jet for the few months it was delivered (IIRC) before they got FIKI?
That is so silly - many new turbine types got/get delivered before FIKI is secured. The only thing unusual in the Eclipse is that it took a lot longer than usual - 18 months or so instead of 2-6 months.
That doesn't make it a toy jet. It is simply a jet with operating limitations that range from severe (if you are based in New England in the winter) to a non-issue if you are based in New Mexico in the summer.
YES. It is a limitation. There is no need to exaggerate, make derogatory comments to the plane or concoct scenarios to try to prove the plane is a toy.
It is a plane people. Don't be so invested in its demise that you need to lie and/or exaggerate.
It is A PLANE. With known limitations and an uncertain support prospect.
There is A PLAN, that may get off the ground to address both the limitations and the support.
Why isn't that enough?
Oh wait - lets talk about the $3B, about 100 ppl that have multiple deposits, about pyramids, blah, blah, blah, blah....freaking broken record.
The discussion should be - will this venture IMPROVE the support situation? Will it IMPROVE the chances of having the planes upgraded faster and at lower costs. Will it ultimately result in firming up the plane resale?
Oh no - wait - lets talk some more about $3B, blah, blah, blah.
Shane Price said... PlaneTruth, You don't have the documents I have.
Shane I have ALL of the court documents, and document as supplied to the courts by Eclipse. I stand by my statements. You however seem to think simply stating, "well you don't have what I have" is going to carry any weight. Lie on...
ATM - I never said Shane is lying. But he doesn't seem to have a critical ability to extract relevant facts. For a long time he used to hide behind his "Eclipse Professional Pilot" - himself an embarrassing clueless person, and he frequently hides behind the "if you had the docs I have". And he is most often completely wrong in his facts.
These docs are not confidential and they are not protected by copyright.
Just post doc/page/text and stop the silliness.
In any event I could care less how many deposits Ken had. He paid x+d+m and has a jet. He is flying his jet. He can't change his acquisition or sunk costs. Neither can the other owners.
I'm only interested in knowing if this venture will get the assets, if they will have a capacity to upgrade 1,2,3,4 or 5 or whatever planes per month, how much it will cost, and how much the upgraded planes will sell for in the secondary market and how good the support will be.
If there is a large upgraded fleet with good support 2 years from now, the used/upgraded EA50 WILL BE THE LOW COST ANCHOR TO GA FAN JET MARKET.
That IS RELEVANT to me and to many prospective personal jet owners.
A lot of Jet owners were flying CJ1s because there was nothing simpler/smaller/cheaper/more economical. That was the LOW COST ANCHOR - $4.5M.
Now the low cost anchor is the used Mustang - a $3M (new) or $2.5M (used).
I think having a $1.5M anchor in the form of a used/upgraded/supported EA50 is a good thing.
I want to know and discuss the prospects of getting there.
Oh, no, wait - there is the matter of the $3B and the matter of Shane's inbox.
That may be good to impress Fred - but it is embarrassingly ridiculous.
Baron, be a realist. It ain't going to happen on this blog. Too many small mind that want the discussion to only go as far as $3B, no FIKI, no maintenance, blah, blah blah. Try the Eclipse Owners website.
Yeah - I know. I should be a missionary. It's probably easier to turn a pagan into a Bishop.
"Try the Eclipse Owners website"
Which is pretty much as dead as a doornail. But i can imagine there is a lot going on in the "members only" section.
I can't believe you guys are criticizing Ken for buying an Eclipse, when he actually ended up with a flying airplane.
What about St. Gunner the Wise? Can his Epic LT shoot a coupled approach to minimums in icing condition? Actually, all he can do is sit in the shell on sawhorses and make turboprop noises. Even were it finished, it would not be certified for FIKI.
Of Ken and Rich, who would you said made the better investment?
Of course, Gunner may someday get his D-Jet, aka the "FOD Hoover". Someday.
Ken said: "And that is an amazing testament to the aircraft, given that there has been no factory support and very little ability to obtain certain parts for months."
It's the "Ugly Baby" syndrome with Ken. Everyone who sees his baby knows it is ugly. Because he is the proud father he can't admit the fact to himself. This group keeps trying to tell him his baby isn't a pretty baby but he refuses to see it for himself.
Actually I did see an E500 on the ramp the other day. I was surprised to see one. We get up to 150 biz jet flights per day at our little airport and we rarely see an Eclipse. I was reminded once again how ugly they really are! They are short and squatty and just plain hideous! But then so is a Cirrus Jet (and so was the Eclipse 400).
I also saw my first Phenom on the same ramp. Now THERE is a beautiful ship!
Shane proclaims, "Ken, in fact, does not own an EA500."
Well, I guess that about sums up Shane Price pretty well.
The EA500 that Shane says I do not own now has just over 100,000 trouble-free statute miles on it, and is easily one of the best purchases I have ever made. Solid, reliable, fun, fast and affordable jet transport. Just about perfect for an owner/operator.
Shane's just bent out of shape that the Eclipse outlasted him without even breaking a sweat :)
Bubba--what "beautiful" jet do you personally own? You'll forgive us if we're not anxious to take the word of a guy who names himself "Bubba" as to what looks beautiful, okay?
Ken
This forum is ironicly enough starting to smell like a corpse too. I have followed the "Critic" blogs very closely for years now, but never posted anything because of my employment with EAC.. Stan did a great job of bringing the truth to light. Shane did a great job of picking up the torch. The jury is still out on Phil's version, but that is of no fault of his own. In the past few weeks this blog has turned straight-up ugly. What was once a forum of very bright and decent exchange, has now turned into a crazy rant, with no bearing on anything other than impressing your friends by attacking others.
Ken, You must be a glutton for punishment! but the fact that you're still here and standing behind what you believe in certainly has my respect. without the current owners perspective something would be missing.
Shane, I'm quite disappointed to see your true self, without the constraints of being the moderator. I for one was very disappointed to see you hand over the blog torch. I had become quite addicted to your "snippets" and insight, which at times were so accurate that i would find myself sitting in meetings at EAC looking around to see if I could pick you out.
As for the rest of the EA500 haters.. I think we all know who you are! EAC IS DEAD! Is it really that productive to hash out a past that has already been captured in the old Critic blogs?
Is it really fair to be doggin a company "EA" that hasen't failed yet? Yes, I know that Press switched horses mid stream! but only the future can truly tell us if that was a bad move.
Final question...
Can we move on now? There are so many things to be discussed in a more productive manner..
How did they manage to get the windshield coating to work in Chicago?... What could Newco do, to have a chance to succeed?.... What is the word from EOG?... Does a productive dialog have to be moved to Justintime's blog?.... I wish I knew..
SP11-Prod-Guy
Hi Ken,
I was on the verge of yielding to your well considered parliamentary point of proper blog conduct...
But yielding to a literal interpretation of that- or any- postings here, would set a dangerous precedent.
I sincerely believe post in question is a pointed "zinger", rather than a personal insult.
New headline post is up!
(Whew! Just in a nick of time !! :)
the used/upgraded EA50 WILL BE THE LOW COST ANCHOR TO GA FAN JET MARKET.
compared with
Now the low cost anchor is the used Mustang - a $3M (new) or $2.5M (used).
My point has been, while many folks may dump their ea50's for logical reasons, the low cost reasonable decision might really be your description of door number 2...
I think this is the point we are discussing, and THAT's why the discussion of cost, all inclusive REAL, risk adjusted cost.... involves the discussion of all the things we've been considering.
It really will matter what the EA50's NEW selling price will be, if ever, and this WILL impact what you are concerned with... what will be the lowest cost option, all things considered.
The PASt as you put it, IS mportant, trying to see what the plane would cost new... how it will compare, and if there's a market at that price. Will the market drive the low cost UP... will the market be sizeavble and drive service cost down... what will happen...
some predicted EAC demise, some kept the dream alive... who was right?
Ken said: Bubba--what "beautiful" jet do you personally own?
I own one that is the same year model as yours (2007?). It cost me roughly $6.5M more than your plane. It is owned and operated by my corporation. I also have a number of aircraft that I own personally.
Just goes to prove even a Bubba can do OK in life.
With regard to the moniker it can easily be changed to something like "Ken" or PlaneTruth. They seem to be one and the same to me. Tell me Ken, did you also have an imaginary friend as a child?
The one thing that bothers me with people like Ken is that I'm afraid he will influence other people to make a poor decision. There are poor, uneducated fools out there who know nothing about airplanes. Some corporate business schmuck will ask Ken how he likes his plane and Ken will give him his Eclipse Fan Boy speech and the guy will rush out and buy a piece of crap airplane. This is the same dummy that buys a Lear 25 because it said "Lear" on the side of the plane and only cost $700K. Now he owns a jet - an outdated POS, but a jet.
That same dummy will hire some young, time-building, hotshot, 1500 hour pilot to fly left seat and that guy will end up killing the corporate dummy's family in an unsafe airplane.
I've flown the Eclipse. Even though I considered the plane short, squatty, ugly and seriously unsafe I briefly considered buying one. I wasn't until I had a chance to fly one that I realized what the plane was really like. Unfortunately Ken did not have the opportunity to fly the E500 before plopping down the full purchase price. Had he been able to do so I suspect he would not have purchased the Eclipse. He would be flying a King Air, TBM, PC12, Mustang or something else. He IS a smart guy; but he made a mistake. A mistake that he now refuses to admit. I hope his Eclipse Fan Boy attitude doesn't influence someone else to make the same mistake.
In the end I bought something larger and more expensive from Cessna. It was clear the E500 wasn't ready to deliver to the general flying public. It should have been (and still should be) classed as an experimental aircraft. I suppose in Europe it IS classed as something akin to experimental now that the type certificate has been pulled.
If people wish to buy an Eclipse based upon the fact that it really is an experimental aircraft I have no problem with that. Just don't go around telling people it is a real live biz jet that is capable of competing with the likes of Cessna, Lear, HB, and the others. It really is nothing more than an advanced pilot's toy - something akin to a warbird!
I think the FAA will someday look back upon the E500 certification process and decide it was their single greatest regulatory blunder. I think the pilot who fly them will be look upon by fellow aviators as something of a daredevil!
Post a Comment