What's the NeXT step in the continuing (after some pause) story of Eclipse Aviation?While we ourselves pause to contemplate that intriguing question, I'll answer the one for those wondering what the heck this cube thing is about: NeXT computers was a Steve Jobs thing back in the mid-1980's through mid-1990's. And seemingly, on into today, as (to a windows user) it appears MacOS X is evolved from the software developed for the NeXT platform. Pretty cool- I remember ogling over them "back in the day".
There does seem to be a bit of a similarity in the plot lines:
a) Computer whiz (Steve Jobs) gets rich guy (Ross Perot) to fund cutting edge (NeXT) tool for high tech breakthrough (DNA simulations).
b) Computer whiz (Vern Raburn) gets rich guy (Al Mann) to fund cutting edge (Eclipse) tool for high tech breakthrough (VLJ transportation revolution).
Take your pick, which one this applies to (hint- both):
"To avoid inventory errors, (Eclipse/NeXT) used the just in time (JIT) inventory strategy. The company contracted out for all major components such as (Wings/Motherboards) shipped to the first floor for assembly. "
Both Eclipse and NeXT featured advanced displays (pixel resolution advantage Eclipse: 1440 x 900 MFD with Avio-NG, 1120x832 for NeXT) relatively advanced processing power, and considerable attention placed on the user interface. Both wound up costing a bit more than expected, and never quite achieved the market shares anticipated, before going out of production.
And both featured some arguably advanced features, that, well, never quite caught on in their respective industries- the 2.88 MB floppy disk, which was nice, but wasn't worth the extra cost, and Friction Stir Welding, which, ah, well, you know the rest...
Reading the Wikipedia article, it amazing to consider just what heady times there were back in the Silicon Valley venture capital boom years. A dynamic environment- explosively dynamic in fact, compared to the rather staid ways of general aviation ways from the mid 1980's through mid 1990's. In that light, it is easy to see how a person familiar with both worlds, might sense the GA one was ripe for innovation and shakeup- dare I say- disruption!
The comparison is relatively shocking. Essentially, nothing was happening in personal aviation transportation during that period, aside from some "quirky" (odd similarity to the relationship to the word(?) "qwerty", which is pretty quirky compared to the Dvorac keyboard layout...) designs from Burt Rutan, etc.; while the Personal Computer/Information Technology world was, well, changing the world. (...Somewhat. Call me a Luddite -as those who use Apple computers no doubt will :) - I'm still not convinced calculators are a boon to an eight year old. But to allow a person to essentially have the world's library's at their fingertips is a flabbergasting advance. As is- almost- enabling adults, and eight year olds alike, to access our fine blog. (Although sometimes it's hard to tell the difference! Okay- just kidding again!! :). An interesting anecdote from Smart Computing, March 1999: A Brief History of Cyberspace:
"By the end of that year (1990), he (Berners-Lee ) had named the project "World Wide Web," created the first Web browser, and launched the World Wide Web on a NeXT computer at the CERN headquarters."
How did the finances work out for NeXT Computer, Inc.? I couldn't find the stock symbol, but in 1989 Canon paid $100M for 16.67%, so it was valued at about $600M. With inflation adjustments, that's about $1042M today. More or less what Eclipse probably shoulda/coulda/mighta been worth- once upon at time. When Apple bought NeXT in 1996, they shelled out $429M (about $600M in 2009 dollars), so it seems the original investors did pretty well. Steve Jobs got only stock, but at 1.5M shares, that was 1.19% of Apple. I believe it's split twice since then, at 1.5M x 2 x 2 x $170 (today's closing price), Steve-o would be sitting on about $1.020B. (Heck- he coulda bought Eclipse at it's peak! (...If he hadn't sold them...?) On the other hand, at the time of the NeXT buy out, those shares were worth around $15 x 1.5M = $22.5M, which is about what Al Mann forked out this time. Oh, the similarities are mind boggling. (So was the amount of cash Apple was burning back then!).
The NeXT adventure for Eclipse? Well, so far, it seems to be lacking some of the, ah, pizzazz, of the original (By the way, we seem to be missing some of the Karen Di Piazza's pizzazz as well):
From the same article as above, Flight Global, 13 March 2007;
"Announcing the new avionics team on 5 March (2007), Eclipse chief executive Vern Raburn said the changes would have 'absolutely no effect' on the delivery of an expected 402 aircraft this year...The Albuquerque, New Mexico-based airframer has delivered one aircraft since receiving its US Federal Aviation Administration certification in September (2006)...Raburn says Eclipse 500s delivered through the first half of the year with the Avidyne systems would be retrofitted with the Avio NG by year's end, a process he said would take less than 10 days".
Now THOSE were some pretty "heady" times as well...
* Can't Remember or Learn ?
* Can't Concentrate or Think Clearly ?
* Is Paranoid or Anxious ?
* Has Difficulty Keeping Track of Time ?
(Although I pity the fool with such afflictions- I think we all know...somebody...like that :)
So the question is, will M&M assemble the A team and succeed? While most of the Eclipse work force has probably dispersed over the months since production- and paychecks- stopped, let's hope so- I love it when a plan comes together!
(Okay, if you -really- want to see it-...the original A Team...but you'll probably wished you hadn't! :)
340 comments:
1 – 200 of 340 Newer› Newest»Have you ever wondered...
I thought 3.5 inch 1.44 MB floppies were neat when they came out. (Less impressed when they seemed to have more compatibility problems than the older 5.25 inch ones...)
But, the darned things stayed "the snearker-net" data transfer standard from 1987 until the cows came home (roughly, in 2006 or so, for me- almost two decades!).
I tried Zip drives (which were so-so/okay, once USB version was out), and CD's (never worked very well for me, again- compatibility issues).
Thankfully, the USB thumb drives -finally!- came along- although it took almost two decades.
Now, I'm looking at hard drives to build a PC. In 1998 I built a PC, with a 7,200 rpm drive. What's the standard now? 7,200 rpm. Almost 12 years later. Lots bigger, more cache memory, lower cost, blah, blah, blah. But the same spindle speed. 10K rpm, solid state disks, SCSI, yada yada yada- none have displaced the 7,200 rpm "standard" yet.
How disappointingly...UN-disruptive !
WhyTech,
I don't want to impose on anyone's privacy, but if you are willing, please drop me a line at:
aviationcritic@gmail.com
Thanks.
Ken doesn't like the fact that I've seen all sides business plans during the Chapter 7 sale.
Whereas all he's seen is the 'data' at EAC, which he's now insisting is wrong.
At least, if it's about him, it's wrong.
From where I'm sitting it must be clear to anyone with a sense of business ethics is that these plans are indeed private, and will remain so. I'm only telling the blog what's already available to those who're prepared to do a little digging.
I will, however, say the following:-
I don't think EA's plan was the best. It was not the worst, but it lacks any realistic bridge from simply supporting the existing fleet to actually generating cash within the business.
The only method of generating cash is SALES. EA have self limited their ability to sell by promising to upgrade existing owners aircraft, then the DayJet birds and finally (dim and distant future) finish the PLG (Production Line Group) aircraft currently at the factory.
Herein lies a problem for EA. The existing owners are in direct conflict for priority with the company. The owners want their upgrades, now, and the company needs to sell the DayJet birds.
Now.
Not in a year or two. Right this instant. They need cash, to pay staff. They need cash, to pay suppliers.
Without staff or suppliers, there are no upgrades.
And another thing....
The PLG went to court to secure their 'rights' to the aircraft at the factory. The BK Judge gave them a hearing, and Roel entered into an agreement with them to finish their aircraft for a further $1.37 million, each.
Clearly that agreement is worth nothing, since it made was during the Chapter 11 process.
But lawyers can be very convincing, especially when they smell a fee. I'd be very surprised if EA don't end up making some concession to the PLG to avoid (or terminate) litigation.
So, the owners want upgrades, the PLG want 'upgrades' and the company wants upgrades.
Just not for the same set of aircraft....
Now, if EA had followed the logic of Chapter 7 they'd have ignored the current owners, who've already had more than they deserve with an artificially low purchase price, and concentrated on new customers who'd already paid deposits.
There's where the future of this enterprise lies, because thats where the most cash is buried. Remember, there's about 700 committed deposits, and only 230 owners. The owners only want to pay as little as they can for upgrades. The depositors are lined up to pay a million, each. Do the maths.
It's not rocket science, its just business.
Shane
Monsieur Shane :
It's not rocket science, its just business ...
Oh true ...
methink , we are in front of a big classical in business :
"Of the Hen and the Egg , who was the first ?"
i fear that question is going to trouble the sleep of "some" owners !
KnotMPH,
Three Mile Island was a genuine commercial 'melt down' (pun intended) for the American nuclear industry.
However, there are parts of the world where the majority of national electricity production isnuclear. And, in at least one example that I've visited, the plants are co-located with major conurbations.
It might come as a surprise, but the French generate more that 80% of their requirement from 40+ modern reactors. I've visited two, which in every respect look like, well, standard power stations.
Just no CO2 emissions, at all.
It shows that nuclear power can work, and work well. Just as Cessna have shown that a VLJ program is not only practical but also profitable.
Which begs the question:-
Why are EA not moving more aggressively to get at least SOME of the EAC depositors on side?
My concern, and it is only my opinion, is that they've clearly decided to do what we call in Ireland a 'mé féin'.
It means looking after yourself, to the exclusion of all common sense.
I wish them all the best at Eclipse Aerospace, but I'm beginning to have a feeling of déjà vu.
All over again....
Shane
PS, that's a little wordplay, just for fun.
Shane says, "Ken doesn't like the fact that I've seen all sides business plans during the Chapter 7 sale."
Not so. It wouldn't bother me a bit for you or anybody else to have reviewed the business plans of the various entrants.
I think it might have been helpful to have had a more open discussion of the pros and cons of each plan.
[BTW, you didn't see "all sides' the business plans" as you stated. Some of the entrants never actually produced a business plan let alone circulate it.]
But none of that matters anymore. I think it's time to put the rancor and negativity behind us. We have a new company with some very good people and a good plan for supporting the existing fleet, upgrading the aircraft, and selling new aircraft to a flying public that wants a jet that is fun, fast, reliable, safe and cost-effective.
Do they face some hurdles? You bet. Will they overcome those hurdles? All we can do is give them a chance.
Ken
Shane,
usually, I notice some "either or" ideas, that highlight chicken and egg problems, but are resolvable, if certain decision are made ourside the "either or" mindset.
They need cash... license the bird(s) 500 (and maybe 400) to folks willing to make them, and charge a royalty.
Sell the plant, etc...
License the rights to provide the upgrades to shops around the country and world.. maybe 5 shops... charge a royalty. This is a temporary business, but includes the service rights.
- for the royalty, EA maintains the type and improves the design...
Q? will it be easier or harder for someone else to obtain/reinstate the PC... I think it will be about equal.
- I think EA has a shot, IF they begin to think like a real low cost provider, and remain flexible at all cost. I think this approach might have worked better for EAC, anyway. The last thing the world needs is another aircraft manufacturing facility...
Half baked, but ideas that might work.
Oh yeah, this does not resolve the price/value/volume issue... its just a way to get from here to there, without neglecting anyone's needs, as you described.
Hurdles?
Most people would not even consider your statement to be true...
"We have a new company with some very good people and a good plan for supporting the existing fleet, upgrading the aircraft, and selling new aircraft to a flying public that wants a jet that is fun, fast, reliable, safe and cost-effective."
...with some very good people
OK, who, from where, with what relevant experience?
... and a good plan for supporting the existing fleet,
OK, how?
...upgrading the aircraft,
OK, how?
...and selling new aircraft...
I have told you repeatedly, this should be a huge warning sign if your interest is the other two items (support and upgrades).
The increasing focus on production is the death knell for the likelihood of success IMO.
Is Al Mann going to front another $150-250M? Even if he had it to burn, would he? I bet the agreement this time around is ironclad, and M&M should understand, Mann means business after his romp with RiP. Are those two worth $20M?
If Mann doesn't do it, who will?
Lots of questions, no real answers from 'folks in the know' beyond a used car lot 'trust me' and a smile.
For those owners out there starting to get that familiar sinking feeling, I empathize; for the ones without the sinking feeling just wait, it will come - but this time around nobody can say they weren't warned.
The time for PowerPoints and good intentions is soon to be passed, once the sale closes, it is now put up or shut up time - hope M&M and crew are up to the task or this will be a very short trip.
In many ways the EA story is now a classic turnaround.
all the guys I know who do turnarounds for a living say cash is king!
It is virtually impossible to raise capital and as such the turnaround guy does everything he can do to generate cash as soon as possible.
The question here is is it best to help the existing customers or finish the present inventory and sell it. each one has its own set of problems that need to be figured out and acted on.
In fact ACTING is the most important thing. Time is of the essence and paralysis by analysis usually is a death sentence. Hiring the right people and selling stuff is absolutely necessary and making a few mistakes is much less expensive than waiting to find the right answer.
My first question to determine "will New EA be successful" is to see who they hire as CEO and do they give him the power to do what needs to be done in his view.
Coldwet writes, "Lots of questions, no real answers from 'folks in the know' beyond a used car lot 'trust me' and a smile."
Excuse me, but have you asked Eclipse Aerospace your questions?
The principals of EA have been very open with owners who took the time to ask about the details of the plan.
I don't know that it's entirely appropriate to post messages that ultimately boil down to "I'm crying in my beer 'cause Mason Holland and Mike Press haven't called me to tell me how their plan will work, so I'll just say that it won't."
Ken
"a jet that is fun, fast, reliable, safe and cost-effective."
Still trying to convince youself, I see.
"good people"
What does this mean? Honest? Competent? Apprpriately qualified? Nice to be around? Good looking Articulate? Kind? ????
"As for the dataroom, how pretentious can we get here?
"
Pretty pretentious! There may be a dataroom that requires a secret code ring to enter, and maybe even a warroom. But there certainly is no wiggleroom in Eclipse Aerospaceland! Why do I feel like I am watching "Dr. Strangelove"?
Ken, it has nothing to do with whether or not I personally am involved, my plate is full as it is with much larger aircraft programs right now - I wouldn't be available until next Fall.
Nice try but your strawmen arguments simply won't work anymore - this is in no way about me, it is about representations that you made.
It has to do with 'who' is the good people you spoke of? In order to say that, you would, presumably, know who the 'good people' are, where they come from and what relevant experience they bring.
I would think given your enthusiasm for this attempt to raise the phoenix from the ashes that you would be shouting from the rooftops.
You said there were good people involved, we are asking who they are.
You said there was a plan for support, we are asking what it is.
You said there was a plan for upgrades, we are asking what is it?
Then you said producing airplanes that are blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda and I reacted to the concern I have shared with you, the EOG, and anyone else who will listen that resuming production takes more resources than is likely recognized and will IMO destroy the ability to focus on support and upgrades and forthcoming AD's or other airworthiness concerns.
There is likely to be a mountain of paperwork just to get caught up on SDR issues, to capture issues that came up while the EAC V2.0 was in limp-along mode, etc.
Given the staffing suggested by M&M, given the challenges known and suspected just to support the existing fleet, and then seeing the increasing focus on restarting production the warning klaxons are blaring, you cannot get there from here - the only question is anybody listening.
“…a jet that is fun, fast, reliable, safe and cost-effective.”
I spent time at the flight levels last week with an experienced Eclipse captain in the right seat. It sounds like the EA50 Aircraft Flight Manual is a shambles - with incomplete and contradictory information. He pointed out that if you are sitting on the ramp in light drizzle with high ceilings and the temperature is below 10 degC (50 degF), it’s no-go due to known ice limitations. He described it as a VFR aircraft.
Hopefully all this will change in the skillful hands of Eclipse Aerospace.
Let me try this another way Ken.
You said there were good people, and a good plan.
If you want to be taken seriously, you could allude to who those people are, such as, a guy from Boeing with long history in MRO to run the warranty and support organization, or a guy from Cessna with 20 years of Service Engineeing experience.
As for the plan, we are not asking for competitive details, but if you think it is a good plan, you could tell us why, for example, they identified the top 20 challenges and I agree with them, or they identified the major spares challenges, or they provided pricing that seems reasonable.
None of this puts your NDA with the courts or with M&M in jeopardy, and would go a long way to establishing some credibility for the statements you are making. Hell, you might even learn something or pick up an idea here that you can take back to M&M and be a hero to them.
Even better, you might suggest participation from M&M - they are big boys and have stepped into a hornets nest, and they did it deliberately.
While critical, I think they could expect the same treatment afforded to Peter Reed when he dropped in which was reasonably civil, had some great questions, many of which he answered.
Think of the opportunity.
ColdWet :
i think you resumed quite well ...
servicing might work (at what price remain the biggest challenge !)
production ?
unless someone throw in an other "few" hundreds of thousands into the plan = it is already cooked !
if it is Mann who is supposed to bring money (Real and Fresh cash) one aspect is to be considered :
it has to be clearly very soon !
both because EA needs it and because he is not a youngster anymore ...
at his age , long term planning is what ? 3 years ? 4 ? how many ?
(don't get me wrong : i wish him to see next century if he can ...but realities of life are what they are !)
so the Mann's deep-pocket may last only a limited time ...
hence the absolute need to make profits to be kind of independent ... or do the same than Vern :
keep on offering more and more returns and miracles to raise a bit of capital !
Black tulip, I don't want to sound confrontational as a first time post, but you are so wrong. The Eclipse that most of us have right now may not be certified for flight into known icing, but your so called experienced eclipse captain doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. The FAA has defined a clear set of rules about operating aircraft in known or forecast icing conditions. Multi engine IFR aircraft that are NOT certified for icing aka FIKI are prohibited from flying into areas of known or forecast icing of moderate or greater intensity. I believe you can find this under 91.157 but since I don't have a set of regs infront of me as I type this, I could be wrong about the regulation number.
What your "inexperienced eclipse captain" should have told you is there is a limitation that when the temps are between +10 and -40 degrees C and there is visible moisture, the use of engine anti ice is required.
However, if you did indeed operate the eclipse with this captain and you occupied the left seat and he occupied the right seat, he is in violation of the FAR's for operating the aircraft outside of the limitations. I will explain to you.
Eclipse training is tied directly to the type certification of the aircraft. The limitations state that only Eclipse approved trained pilots may operate as a required crew member, even as second in commmand. So unless you had eclipse approved training, you are not a legal flight crew member, thus making the aircraft on your flight a single pilot operation. The flight manual under the limitations manual is very specific in that it states single pilot operation of the jet requires the pilot in command to occupy the left seat.
My advice to you, is if you are going to make statements on this blog about eclipse or aviation, make sure you have all the facts before you post inaccurate or incomplete info. It might save you from looking foolish.
Flyfish, good first post anmd welcome.
Slight correction, the TCDS does not require Eclipse accepted/approved training, the FAA accepts/approves training, and there are FAA accepted/approved Eclipse training providers who have nothing to do with Eclipse itself, in operation right now.
I can put you in touch with them if you need recurrent training BTW.
FWIW, I did not take from BT's post that he was flying an Eclipse specifically, it only stated he was flying with an Eclipse Captain in the right seat, they could have been flying anything capable of achieving the FL's, a King-Air, a TBM, a PC-XII.
And perhaps FlyFish you can comment on repeated criticism of the Eclipse documentation, that is, the AFM, the AMM, the SB's, etc. We have heard from multiple sources that the documentation is poorly developed which seems to be a large part of BT's post (bad documentation causes confusion) - can you confirm or deny in comparison to other OEMs?
Flyfishdave,
Thanks for your first post and expanding on the regs. What does the AFM say about this and what de-ice or anti-ice equipment is currently operative and certified the fleet of fielded aircraft?
No animals were harmed in the production of this post and I've never flown, or flown in an Eclipse.
something tells me, if you know BT (and no offense, flyfishdave, if you do not) ts highly unlikely he would be flying an eclipse.
Perhaps black tulip was a little vague in his post about who was in what plane and what seat, But the fact that the captain says that he can't fly because the temp is 50 degrees and it is drizzling is ludicrous. I see no problem with the flight manual, the QRH, or other supporting documentation that was supplied to us.
I understand there are a lot of critics here that want to pick apart the Eclipse. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with are people making general statements that are not true in efforts to substantiate their points.
I have to agree with Ken that the airplane does fly great, it performs really well, and so far the airplane has proven to be very safe. I do however think there are some reliability issues with the aircraft that will need to be addressed.
Hopefully Eclipse Aerospace will rise to the challenge, address the deficiencies, and correct them. Then the Eclipse 500 will really be a fantastic aircraft.
Flyfish, what would you say are your top 5 reliability issues/concerns?
Obvious things like the tires, brakes and actuators or other stuff?
Black Tulip, I am not sure what you are asking in regards to the AFM but I will say this much. Before Eclipse aviation shut down, they did receive certification for known icing. There is a service bulletin that was approved by the FAA to modify the aircraft that would add FIKI approval to the fleet. To my knowlege, I am not aware of any aircraft that are currently flying that have had the service bulletin completed. I do know that the SB requires several things to be complied with. The center switch panel has to be modified, the windshield has to be treated with some sort of coating. Static wicks need to be added to the wings and elevator, the engines need to be better bonded (electrical) to the airframe to assist in static dissipation, and the wingtips need to be painted to help recognize the accretion of ice.
The AFM states that aircraft that have not complied with the SB need to operate with windshield heat and deice boots circuit breakers collared. Nothing I have said should be new to any of you. The service bulletin is common knowledge. I only posted here because of the remark that you can't fly the airplane if it is 50 degrees and drizzling which is flat out untrue.
The headline is "What's NeXT for Eclipse". I would suggest expansion of the scope to include the entire GA industry.
Just received notification from HBC that the Premier-II program has been delayed AGAIN, the second such notification in the past 3 months. This time its being delayed a full 2 years with cert to be at end of 2012 or early 2013. More details to come....
ColdWetMackarelofReality good question, and I don't have all the answers, but here a a few.
Tires are not an issue, the FAA signed off on a new tire and I am sure one of the first things the new Eclipse will do is to release the SB for the new tires. Brakes, they are not an issue. I operate 2 Eclipse's each has about 200 hours and the brakes have plenty of stopping power and they show no signs of wearing. The technique is a little different then on other light aircraft, but once you learn that technique the brakes are very effective. The fire suppression needs to be addressed. The aircondtioning system needs to be addressed, and the autopilot needs to be addressed. I have left out the obvious like FMS and FIKI because those are being worked on.
HBC is really hurting GR2FS, although no doubt disappointing to all customers who want the next Premier given the current situation it is not really suprising.
I am a big proponent of investing in product development and support improvement in times of economic stress (a lesson I actually learned when at Raytheon Aircraft Company, HBC's predecessor).
Money spent getting better support in place, and in developing products the market wants, pays huge dividends with time-to-market advantage as well as higher customer satisfaction.
But that was several leadership regimes ago - hard to sell in a time of cancellations and recession.
If you look around, very few development programs from existing OEMs have remained unaffected by the current climate, the new Gulfstream and perhaps Spectrum being the only programs without announced delays.
Look forward to updates though.
Thanks for the reply FlyFishDave, in line with my expectations.
Congrats BTW on not having brake issues - really seems to be related to technique (which means it is a design issue in my book).
"This time its being delayed a full 2 years "
Fundamental rule of project management: Take No Small Slips
GettingReady makes a good point:
"The headline is "What's NeXT for Eclipse". I would suggest expansion of the scope to include the entire GA industry"
Indeed: let's see, NetJets founder ousted by financial investors; the comp0any with +300MM recent loss, not including cumulative; Cessna laying off thousands and defendant in litigation involving integrity of order book; Columbius program cancelled and likley never revived under current ownershipHBC way under water financially; Cirrus et al very fragile and retracting; Piper relatively stable with backers but the enterprise is fragile and the SE jet is far from a done deal in the market; FlexJet, Flight Options, Citation Shares, operating at deep losses with a shrinking business; DayJet gone; Jet Republic's 100-Lear order cancelled; the company effectively over; regional charter operators as unstable as always and not growing; Gulfstream's pains masked by GD's defense portfolio; Dassault ditto; Embraer's Phenom program a small shadow of its declared order book over the last 4 years; their :legacy program off pro forma production/sales by 40%.
The most interesting play in GA/BizAv will be the enormous shakeout/consolidation, followed by low-cost exporters coming to market.
EA? The extant fleet of approx 230 units already represents market over-saturation. They will not sell 1 unit more.
Flyfishdave,
I’m looking at the Limitations section of the EA500 flight manual, revision 01, dated 06/25/08:
“Icing Conditions (aircraft not certified for flight in icing)
Aircraft 001 through 265 when not modified by Service Bulletin 500-99-004 (Flight Into Icing system update), the following applies:
Flight into icing conditions is prohibited. Icing conditions exist if the OAT in flight is 10 degC (50 degF) to -40 degC (-40 degF) and visible moisture in any form is present (such as clouds, rain, sleet, or ice crystals.”
It seems Eclipse has defined and prohibited operation in exactly the scenario I described. Your point about engine anti-icing operation below 10 degC (50 degF) appears later in the section but is subordinate to the limitation above.
"How disappointingly...UN-disruptive !"
Why do you care about spindle speed per se? You can now buy a terabyte drive with signifcantly higer transfer rates for under $100 street price -about 10 cents a gygabyte. It was fashionable to say a decade ago that mips and megabytes were trending to "free." This has pretty much played out enabling many advances/refinements. Seems disruptive to me.
Re the prospects for light GA turbine, lets not forget the positive developments. And I will say that the EA500 debut on the scene had something to do with some of these developments.
Prior to the EA500 deliveries... NONE of the light GA turboprops from Meridian to King Airs had integrated glass flight decks. Now ALL of them have them. Meridian, Caravan, TBM are flying with G1000s, PC12 with Apex, King Airs with Proline 21 - I think Piaggio has that also.
That is POSITIVE.
In addition, King Air rushed in performance upgrades to all three King Air Models - significant upgrades to the BE90/BE200; Pilatus and TBM did the same.
To answer CW's question.... several development programs in this class remain fully funded and on track, including Phenom 300, Lineage, HondaJet, CJ4, (G650 and other line refreshes closer to class).
Phenom 100 and C510 Mustang are firmly establishing the $3M light jet price point. CJ1+/CJ2+ and Phenom 300 are the step up jets.
What we are missing is the true VLJ class (sub 6,000 lbs MTOW). That class is wide open with Eclipse, Diamond and Cirrus as the only near term prospects, probably in this order. Near term defined as volume production in 5 years or less.
I see this class (sub 6,000 lbs MTOW fan jets) as the clear un-occupied niche in light GA.
Sadly, that is the class that fits my personal needs.
Shane said...
But lawyers can be very convincing, especially when they smell a fee. I'd be very surprised if EA don't end up making some concession to the PLG to avoid (or terminate) litigation.
--------------------
Shane - give it up. There will NEVER be any big legal battle associated with Eclipse.
What does it take to get it to you. EA has NOTHING TO DO with the old Eclipse Aviation. They are a totally new company that simply bought a bunch of assets via court liquidation auction.
No liability for past Eclipse Aviation contracts, debts, injuries, etc can be attached to them.
As to your claims that EA should update or produce new planes and sell them to generate cash FIRST and not pay attention to the existing owners....I think your a plain wrong ... and are just having a hard time accepting that Ken's plane most likely will be upgraded to very useful status in the near term. Give it up pal. Don't let hatred tint your analysis.
The PRICE that EA will be able to fetch selling any refurbs or new planes will be DETERMINED by how well they can DEMONSTRATE support for the existing fleet.
Yes, there can be some parallel activities refurbishing DJ planes with the owners. But they can't get ahead of themselves. Every owner plane they upgrade and support effectively, just raises the EA500 market value.
If I remember correctly (Ken pls correct me if wrong) EA's plan (and the other planes as well) specifically called for stabilizing and increasing the "market value" of existing EA500s before selling new planes into the market.
Makes total sense to me.
I think this is very much a crawl, walk, run thing.
Crawl = Upgrade NG planes to NG1.5 + FIKI + Tires + support them.
Walk = Upgrade DJ and other pre-NG planes, sell refurbs, etc.
Run = Start completing new in-process planes, and perhaps totally new production.
Key goal of EA should be increase EA500 fleet value. They should have a banner at in ABQ "It is the EA500 Market Value Stupid"
"They should have a banner at in ABQ "It is the EA500 Market Value Stupid"
Hard to disagree - its the only way they will be able to sell new ones at anywhere close to $2.4mm.
Baron says, "EA's plan (and the other planes as well) specifically called for stabilizing and increasing the "market value" of existing EA500s before selling new planes into the market."
Yes, that's my understanding of their plan as well. As AOPA and others have reported, EA has been buying up used Eclipse 500's for refurbishment and upgrade. Naturally, if they buy a plane languishing on the secondary market, upgrade it, refurbish it, and bring it up to full standard including warranty, then sell it for a lot more money (because it is then worth a lot more), they will be helping every single owner as well as themselves.
Ken
...then sell it for a lot more money
See how easy this is
and..
when they produce the ea50's for $1.2M and sell them for $2.5million, they will make a lot more money
and
when they do this a few hundred times a year... they will make a lot more money...
easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy
...further to GettingReady's excellent suggestion.
"Embraer has suspended operations at its Executive Jet Services facility at Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Conn., a temporary shutdown company officials say is a result of the economic downturn.
"Due to the crisis, we saw that initially we were not going to have as many planes flying in that region as we expected, so there was no sense to keep that center open," says Edson Carlos Mallaco, Embraer VP customer support and services-Executive Jets. "Our plan is to reopen that center as soon as we start delivering planes to the northeast region of the United States," he adds. "We don't have a date for that yet, but probably by sometime next year we should reopen it." The center was closed in late spring.
The 47,700-sq.-ft. center opened in October 2008, one of three new Embraer-owned executive jet centers in the U.S. dedicated to full-service support of the company's growing number of executive jet customers. U.S. operators already fly the Legacy 600, and Embraer has begun delivering its new entry-level Phenom 100 to customers, to be followed by the Phenom 300 and the Legacy 450 and 500.
The facilities at Bradley, costing an estimated $10 million, consist of a hangar, workshops and office space. The center is part of a $100-million-plus investment in infrastructure and organization by Embraer to support its executive jet customers, including a network of 45 owned and authorized centers around the world.
Besides Bradley, Embraer has company owned executive jet centers at Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Florida, and Phoenix Gateway Airport, in Mesa, Ariz.
Until it reopens Bradley, Mallaco notes there are several Legacy authorized service centers in the northeast and Phenom authorized centers so far in Montreal, Canada; Greenville, S.C.; and the midwest.
The Windsor Locks center was set to employ about 60 mechanics and administrative personnel over the next five years, and some initial employees already were hired. Mallaco says a few employees were moved to other facilities, but some were laid off; they will get preference for rehiring when the facility is reopened.
"It was an unfortunate situation, but for us, the facility was not really needed due to the reduction of deliveries there," Mallaco says. "And, of course, on the other side is a cost savings benefit to us."
My humble comment:
What a dumbshit business GA is.
Baron,
Shane - give it up. There will NEVER be any big legal battle associated with Eclipse.
What you seem determined to ignore is that there are lawyers who make a (very comfortable) living out of suing in even more improbable cases than this one.
I'd be very surprised if one (or more) of them don't, at the very least, 'have a go' at EA.
They could well be wasting their clients time/money. But since when has that stopped a lawyer, especially one with a wealthy, pissed off client...
And remember, I've no dog in this fight. In fact, I've never had a dog in this fight. I don't care who sues who, for what.
Unlike Ken.
I'm simply drawing attention to something, which in my opinion, could put a spanner in the works for EA. The PLG 'crew' are only ONE of these potential issues.
What about the conflict over the upgrades for the 28 DayJet aircraft, or these 'other' used E500's that EA are snapping up?
I fail to see why Ken thinks this is a good idea. If I was him, I'd be going around burning every other E500 to ensure his one was a) upgraded first and b) had the novelty value of being the 'only' FPJ left.
Think what his aircraft would be worth then!
One piece of advice, Ken:-
I'd let the passangers and crew exit, before lighting the touchpaper. I hear some States still do the old 'death penalty' thing, for homicide.
Shane
* Nothing in this comment should be taken as encouraging unlawful activity vis. burning other people's FPJ. Burn your own, and save Ken the hassle.
** On second thoughts, only burn your own if it's insured with AIG. They deserve to get stuffed.
*** Finally, for tonight, I hope my fellow bloggers have their 'irony detectors' set to maximum...
The results of the Pro Pilot annual Aircraft Product Support Survey are in. Pilatus took first place in the turboprop category for the EIGHTH CONSECUTIVE year. Not surprising, Gulfstream took top honors in the jet category for the fourth consecutive year. In four of the last five years, Pilatus' total score has been higher than Gulfstream's. Not bad for a company cranking out 80-100 acft per year. Gives EA something to shoot for.
WhyTech, third time's a charm.
Shane ignorantly posted... I'd be very surprised if one (or more) of them don't, at the very least, 'have a go' at EA.
While they're at it, I'll bet you also think someone will also sue Eclipse Aerospace for 9/11.
This is why your opinions no longer carry any credibility or substance. How's your comic book coming along?
"WhyTech, third time's a charm."
If this freakin blog software allowed editing/spell checking, it wouldnt take three tries.
PT, are you always a PITA, or just at a certain time of the month?
Just something I excel at.
"Just something I excel at."
World class, I'd say.
My dog ate my homework, and then my laptop, (so that's my excuse)- but...
!!? Where's Gadfly ??!
Baron--
Shane's function is to create controversy. Most readers knows that. He points to the PLG and suggests their lawsuit is critically important and will sideline Eclipse Aerospace.
Of course he did not tell the blog that the PLG attorney presented his group's demands at the August 20 hearing. The judge allowed some of them and denied some of them.
Ho hum.
The process moved forward unimpeded. The judge approved the sale, and the new company takes over in a few days. That's the bottom line.
Ken
Hi Gad,
A lot of B.S. flying at times, for sure. But after we've watching Eclipse- sometimes the B.S. didn't fly!
(Glad you're well!:)
Is this suppose to be funny? It isn't!
gadfly
Shane Price said... And remember, I've no dog in this fight. In fact, I've never had a dog in this fight.
--------------------------
Yes you do. You are personally and emotionally invested in being proven right on this. You probably also crave and miss the attention, status and occasional interview.
I do not consider you an unbiased disinterested party at all.
WhyTech said... Not bad for a company cranking out 80-100 acft per year.
-----------------
Not bad indeed. Congrats to Pilatus.
Time for the world's smartest man to answer some of aviation's perplexing mysteries.
Unfortunately, he wasn't available, so I'm substituting:
Baron,
Re: your comments about the Mustang's aero fixes from previous posting:
"With that out of the way, Cessna MISSED THE MARK on the Mustang's aerodynamic design. They left the door open. There is no polite way of putting it. Compared to the EA500 and the Phenom, even adjusting for cabin size, and fuel burn, the Mustang cruises substantially slower.
"The Mustang also needed a number of "after thought" aero mods to be certifiable. It grew wing boot vortex generators, tail strakes and vertical stabilizer rubber boots - all as band-aids to meet FIKI certification.
"If it were not for leaving this performance gap door wide open, I'd say the case FOR the Mustang would be open and shut."
---------------------------------
Well...hmmm.
I don't think the Mustang is all that pokey, but I'll concede, 30 knots-ish is tangible, and sometimes significant (esp. the strong headwind example).
You were mostly concerned with speed, but I was considering payload efficiency- the Mustang MTOW is 8645 lbs, the Eclipse is 6000 lbs, so Mustang weighs 44% more, and that's in line with the fuel consumption comparison Ken kindly posted:
"40,000: 317 knots on 468 pph (Mustang) vs 351 knots on 345 pph (Mustang is 35 knots slower and burns 50% more fuel per mile)
"35,000: 340 knots on 609 pph (Mustang) vs 369 knots on 459 pph (Mustang is 29 knots slower and burns 44% more per mile)
"30,000: 342 knots on 713 pph (Mustang) vs 371 knots on 553 pph (Mustang is 31 knots slower and burns 40% more per mile)
--------------------------------
The Mustang probably is a little draggier, for the reasons you mentioned, but also because of the constant- diameter fuselage, which will lend itself to future growth better than Eclipse's complex curvature.
Another thing to consider is, how does the Mustang line up with other Citations, rather than other VLJs? (How much better would Cessna want the Mustang to be, before it started competing with other Citations?).
This, and the comments about the Embraer Phenom 100, shed some light on apples and oranges and bananas.
Cessna Mustang:
MTOW: 8645
Speed: 340 KTAS
Range: 1167 nm
Garmin 1000
about $3M
Embraer Phenom 100
MTOW: 10472 lbs
Speed: 390 KTAS
Range 1178 nm
Garmin 1000
about $4M
Cessna CJ1+ (TC June 17, 2005)
MTOW: 10700 lbs
Speed: 392 KTAS
Range: 1285 nm
Collins ProLine 21
($4M in 2005)
about $4.5-5M now
Seems like Cessna has positioned the Mustang fairly well, and it might be more appropriate to compare the Phenom 100 to the CJ1+ rather than Mustang. That's what Embraer did:
"Embraer benchmarked larger and more capable aircraft (than Eclipse) such as Cessna's CJ1+ to guide the 100's definition".
The Mustang falls nicely between the Eclipse and Phenom 100/CJ1+.
--------------------------------
But, one might say, use price rather than weight, to group comparisons? I agree- that's a pretty good real-world parameter.
Which leads me to a rather troubling observation. Since the MTOW's are about the same for Phenom 100 and CJ1+ (10472 vs 10700, respectively, about 2%), why does the Phenom 100 then cost 20-25% less? Especially when most of the most expensive components are equally outsourced? Labor is lower in Brazil- but I wonder- is Embraer "dumping" just to gain market penetration?
(That was one of my concerns about Eclipse- they were damaging the industry with below-cost sales).
--------------------------------
Phenom 100
Cessna CJ1+
Re: engine costs.
Seems like $450K had been discussed back during BK filing- glad Shane brought that up- guess I remembered right.
Also, about airplane pricing being about x4 to x5 engine costs, which would put the sustainable price for an Eclipse at about $1.8 to $2.0M. But I guess that would be based on post-learning curve and reasonable volume (200 per year).
(Although, $2.2-2.4M would seem more appropriate...)
BEG said...The Mustang falls nicely between the Eclipse and Phenom 100/CJ1+.
--------------
No it doesn't. The Eclipse, Mustang and Phenom 100 have basically the same payload and the same range.
The Mustang sticks out as a sore thumb being 30-40KTS slower than the other two. In addition, it needs vertical stab boots, strakes, boot VGs just to meet basic FIKI stability requirements.
It is a sad, sad aero design. Very poor attempt on your part to explain it away.
The person who attempted to take my identity at 7:43 and 7:49, this evening, went to a lot of trouble . . . and has sunk to a low level of dishonesty. There's a verse that says, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."
gadfly
BEG said...Seems like Cessna has positioned the Mustang fairly well,
-------------------
Yes, if they ignore the competition and think only about how it fits in their range. That worked really well for the 182 vis-a-vis the SR22, right?
BEG said...Which leads me to a rather troubling observation. Since the MTOW's are about the same for Phenom 100 and CJ1+ (10472 vs 10700, respectively, about 2%), why does the Phenom 100 then cost 20-25% less? Especially when most of the most expensive components are equally outsourced? Labor is lower in Brazil- but I wonder- is Embraer "dumping" just to gain market penetration?
----------------------
Troubling?!!???!!! Since when is a better jet at a lower cost trouble?
Oh, I get it, for the union guys wanting to preserve artificially high prices that can justify artificially high wages. I get it.
You are right. Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes assembling cars in the south and selling them for lower cost with higher quality than Chevy, Chrysler, Lincoln and Cadillac is "TROUBLING" for the Michigan UAW. I get it.
Labor costs in Brazil, all in, are only marginally (15% or so Sao Paulo state vs Kansas), all else, electricity, taxes, transportation, fuel (for flight testing) etc is much much higher, as much as 300% higher. And no, Embraer is not selling Phenoms below cost.
Engines on the CJ1+ cost at least another $200K (for the pair more). Pro Line 21 costs at least $150K more than G1000. Phenom 100 is a newer design by almost 20 years from the CJ1, that alone should account for much lower assembly costs. CJ1 has a mix of bleed air and boot deicing, Phenom has a much simpler de-ice and bleed/air pressurization system.
Phenom is simply more value for the money. Embraer is hungry to crack the BizJet market. Their board has mandated a better mix of Airline/Military/BizAv. They are executing. Cessna is confy. So far it is working for them. BRL currency is very high, Eclipse tanked. But sooner or later they will face real competition at the entry level. Just like Diamond and Cirrus decimated their piston line, someone will sooner or later crash their light jet party.
I'm glad you mentioned that Gadfly. I thought it was uncharacteristic of you to use curse words and profanity.
Some people just have a lot of time in their hands. Oh well.
Also from the previous post, there was discussion of manhours.
Time for:
FUN WITH NUMBERS !!
1) IF: Eclipse had about 300-500 people before production began
2) IF: Eclipse had about 2000 people during the boom period of 2008, when 160 airplanes were delivered in the first 8 months (pretty darned good!)
3) THEN: 2000-500=1500 were devoted exclusively to production.
4) IF: each production person worked no overtime, that's 40 hours per week, for 8 months
5) SO: the production-related manhours in 2008 were (?about?):
1500 people x 40 hours per week x 8 months x 4 weeks per month (with a holidays, etc)
= 1,920,000 manhours / 160 airplanes
=12,000 manhours per airplane.
Remember, there's already 500 people doing other stuff NOT billing production, but let's say only 2/3 of that 12,000 MH was directly associated with building the airplane, or 8,000 MH. Now, let's say everyone was working 10 hours per week overtime, or 25%, so now the manhours per plane is back to 10,000.
In our (much) previous discussions, hourly rates of $50, 60, 75, 100 were used for "burdened" rates, so that figures out to around $500K-$1M per airplane. Seems kinda high for a 6000 lb airplane. But then, it's a pretty sophisticated 6000 lb airplane...
With a solidified design, and mature processes, and seasoned assembly line personel (post learning curve), I would expect the manhours pwr plane would have been cut in half, or so- maybe even a little more.
I would think this would be old hat for a manufacturing engineer and there must surely be some industry rule-of-thumbs for "twin jet, glass cockpit, X passenger" labor estimations. Maybe someone (who knows what they're talking about instead of my WAG's ! :) will enlighten us on "standard estimates". (Please do!)
Thanks, Baron!
gadfly
(The rest of this discussion is outside my expertice, at the moment, so I'll continue to just "listen". And having once worked for a union against my will, and having been threatened by them, I will keep those thoughts to myself.)
"Their (Embraer} board has mandated a better mix of Airline/Military/BizAv."
Cessna has very little "airline" business if you discount the rapidly aging 402 fleet. The rest of their airline business would be the Caravan cargo fleet. Cessna also has very little military mix with the T-37 being withdrawn from USAF service. Would a Cessna/Hawker Beechcraft merger make sense? The Hawker Beech debt holders exchange debt for Hawker stock and then swap the Hawker stock for Textron stock. Cessna gets a military market and some high end biz jets.
Hi Gadfly,
Can you elaborate on what happened? (I'm worried that it might happen to any of us, and would like to know what to look out for).
Some weird email phishing/spyware thing accidentally get downloaded from email, or do you think it was somehow done "within" the blog?
Thanks Baron-I hadn't quite caught on- things seemed a little puzzling to me too.
Gadfly- it sounds like today's 7:49PM post was a "hack", and the 8:31 post is authentic?
"Oh, I get it, for the union guys wanting to preserve artificially high prices that can justify artificially high wages. I get it."
No Baron, you don't get it at all.
You are the most obsessed person I have ever conversed with.
Unions have NOTHING to do with my concern. (And you yourself told us that Embraer is more unionized than Cessna).
My concern is:
1) The loss of manufacturing jobs
2) and subsequent erosion of the US tax base.
Your weird obsession with either unions or cheap goods has completely blinded you to ill consequences.
It's not a consequence free world.
Hi Baron,
"And no, Embraer is not selling Phenoms below cost."
"Embraer is hungry to crack the BizJet market."
Um, you were saying... ??
:)
airsafetyman said...
Cessna also has very little military mix
-----------------
Hi ASM....perhaps you forgot that Cessna is part of Textron. Textron has a sizable military business. Cessna (an Lycoming) IS the Textron GA diversification play.
Most GA players are very well diversified:Textron/Cessna, GD/Gulfstream, Bombardier/Lear, EADS/Socata, etc.
HBC was too up until they were sold by Raytheon - now they are struggling as a (mostly) pure play, though they still make money servicing those 1900s ;) ;).
Piper has died again and been sold again. Cirrus may go soon.
Cessna and HBC can't merge per se...but Textron could acquire HBC. My sense is that it makes little sense. The Jet lines, which is where the money is, completely overlap. I suppose the King-Airs are complementary, but we all know what Cessna things about passenger TPs - read their ads ;)
I say there is little chance. HBC needs to be part of a diversified group. What makes sense? Sale to Embraer, EADS, General Dynamics and the likes.
GED said...My concern is:
1) The loss of manufacturing jobs
2) and subsequent erosion of the US tax base.
-----------------
Well, the US has been losing manufacturing jobs for decades and our tax base continues to increase.
What makes you think loss of manufacturing jobs are connected to tax base.
I already posted to you in another thread, that a single wall street firm Goldman pays more taxes than the entire GA manufacturing industry.
If you look at living standards in the US vs % of manufacturing as economic activity, you will see that the highest per capta income and highest tax base in the US is from places with little manufacturing.
What tax base do you like better Detroit or Manhattan?
BEG said... bill e. goat said...
Um, you were saying... ??
--------------
On this ONE particular point would you please take that at face value from my "in-box/dataroom-access"? ;) ;)
I won't blame you or be upset if you don't, but on this one item, I can't give you the source of info, but if there is available and linkable info I'll post it here.
BEG said...Your weird obsession with either unions or cheap goods has completely blinded you to ill consequences.
-------------------
Well if ANYONE can point out the ill consequences for an American mother of three to pay $3 for shirts at Walmart vs $30 she had to pay 2 decades ago....
Or the ill consequences for me to be able to buy an American built R-class for the price of a Jeep...
Or the ill consequences...of the Phenom 100 keeping Light Jets prices in check...
Then I'll be glad to consider them.
I really can't think of ANY ill consequences for Americans paying less for higher quality goods.
Can you?
Can you really go to a mother of 3 at the Walmart checkout and make the case to her for why she really should understand the "ill consequences" and pay $30 for a $3 shirt?
Can you?
But I'd love nothing more than to have these things assembled in the US - and I know we willhttp://boeingblogs.com/randy/images/787-AP-2-taxi_ip.jpg.
By the way...that was ZA002 and she has been up to 115MPH and has stopped from that speed using brakes alone and 1/2 of the runway.
She was designed expertly by SPEEA members and put together nicely IAM members - and I know in time, those smart and experienced folks will choose to right size their demands to keep working on those beautiful and effective machines, rather than watch their jobs go south and across the Pacific.
So I am totally optimistic for the future of US manufacturing as a small but important component of our diversified economy.
Baron,
"Well, the US has been losing manufacturing jobs for decades and our tax base continues to increase"
??!!??
Yes, we're doing quite well since manufacturing jobs started being exported in the 1980's. How silly of me to think otherwise.
"I already posted to you in another thread, that a single wall street firm Goldman pays more taxes than the entire GA manufacturing industry."
Yes, and as a response then, and now:
"Bloomberg news reports that Goldman Sachs, while getting billions of dollars from the government, paid only 1% in taxes in 2008 -- and they did so by shifting things around so most of their income would appear to have been made in other countries with lower corporate tax rates."
One Percent Solution
"If you look at living standards in the US vs % of manufacturing as economic activity, you will see that the highest per capta income and highest tax base in the US is from places with little manufacturing."
Yes, that is true of the most despotic regime's on earth, as well.
"What tax base do you like better Detroit or Manhattan?"
"The census's profile of poverty is especially revealing in big American cities like New York and Chicago. With their wealthy families living side by side with a larger than average number of the poor, New York and Chicago often appear in press accounts as damning examples of our society's inequities. Places like Manhattan, above all, seem the embodiment of former vice presidential candidate John Edwards' "Two Americas," with both a poverty rate and an average household income higher than the national average".
Chicago Sun-Times, Feb 4, 2007
With some work, Detroit can again become a place where average citizens can have an average living. As I see it, Manhattan has structural flaws which will keep it a city of haves and have-nots. Which it has had since the manufacturing jobs left it. Which is EXACTLY what I see happening to the rest of the country- becoming a land of haves, and have-nots.
Not becasue of economic necessity, but because of apathetic mismanagement and willful exploitation. And the unfathomable calculus of "our expanding tax base".
Baron said,
"Well if ANYONE can point out the ill consequences for an American mother of three to pay $3 for shirts at Walmart vs $30 she had to pay 2 decades ago...."
Sure- without even trying, I bet there's a million people that could.
"Or the ill consequences for me to be able to buy an American built R-class for the price of a Jeep..."
Sure- I bet there's several hundred thousand unemployed auto workers in Detroit that could.
"Or the ill consequences...of the Phenom 100 keeping Light Jets prices in check..."
(Oh, the horror of exploitation).
I bet there's 10,000 unemployed aerospace workers in Wichita that could.
"Then I'll be glad to consider them."
If you don't already know there story, it's because you don't want to.
"I really can't think of ANY ill consequences for Americans paying less for higher quality goods. Can you?"
Whoo- hoo, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Buying oil from Iran.
Buying nuclear material from North Korea.
Buying aircraft from Russia.
Buying electronics made in China.
I don't know how many times I've said it. But I'm going to say it again:
1) Jobs go overseas.
2) Personal income goes down.
3) Families suffer.
4) Tax revenues go down.
5) Society suffers.
That is really quite simple.
And really quite obvious.
"Can you really go to a mother of 3 at the Walmart checkout and make the case to her for why she really should understand the "ill consequences" and pay $30 for a $3 shirt?"
Easily.
Just ask the cashier at the checkout stand to do it for you.
The person who used to have a $30/hour telecom job, with benefits, that was offshored to India.
Or the person who used to have a $20/hour manufacturing job, with benefits, that was sent to Mexico.
Or the person over 65, who wouldn't have to work if their company had continued the pension plan.
A dollar can be spent wisely for one's own benefit, as well as spent wisely for the benefit of the society they live in.
baron95,
I think this is very much a crawl, walk, run thing.
nice picture - but where are we now?
Do you know the birthdate?
EA will be the parent of the newco - how long will EA be willing to give the breast to the newco?
M&M said the the newco should be profitable within 90 days. About that time the new CEO should be found...What type of CEO are they looking for? An "all inclusive" guy for $xxM p.a.?
For me "run" means: new CEO, new exec team, profitable, good and competent TC-holder, accepted and competent maintenance shop (this includes the upgrades up to the "repair" of the work-in-process parts).
That should be achieved in about one year.
How much money is needed to be keep and maintain the infrastructure for the production at ABQ?
You don't mind if EA and the newco are TU in 100 days if it doesn't harm the owners (ohhh they did well from May to August!)!
I do not believe that there is any serious person who claims that he will get investors and will develop a new "EAC" which produces fpjs, frankensteins, etc. and is profitable from the beginning or within a few months after the corresponding step!
Julius
B.E.G. Excellent post. Seems like we have two sides to look at. Both liberals and conseratives are happy allowing illegals to come into the country to work at jobs that pay below living costs. The result is that the taxpayer has to pick up the difference for housing, medical care, clothing, education, ect., of the illegals. At the same time the good jobs are going offshore so that there is a diminishing tax base to support societal needs as a whole, including those of the illegals, and those who are thrown out of work. The result is massive national deficits and a collapse of the system if something is not done.
Who let the Goat out of his cage? ;-)
Phil,
interesting post ("what's NeXT for Eclipse?")!
Some people still believe that someone - a rich uncle in "America"
(my European view) - will buy EAC and repair the fpjs (for free naturally)...and the world is fine, the service better than that of Cessna etc.!
Steve Jobs had to leave Apple and returned to Apple (which is now more or less a "telephone company" - the Mc's don't sell that good...) as the new boss.
Neither the wedge nor RiP have Steve's capabilities.
Microsoft missed the navigation markets...
Back to our fpj hatchery in ABQ:
A lot of options will depend on the investors's views into the future: U, V, double dip of various types and how many more years of recessions or recoveries?
Julius
P.S.: I am not a Apple fan (PC is less expensive) and IMHO Steve's enterprise were just nice trials (NTs)...
Something NeXT:
Flight global on EA plans
Julius
Baron,
You still don't get it, do you, to paraphrase yourself....
I 'came' to this researching a business idea, which I'll describe as 'air-taxi' for the sake of brevity. I found EAC, and hence Stan's blog. In short order I became convinced that I was 'observing' a scam, and took on the blog custodianship to keep a spotlight on it.
Period.
The scam unravelled, as these scams do. I'd done my 'bit' and now choose to do one thing and one thing only.
Remind the unwary that there are 'sharks' in these waters.
My 'comic' is coming along nicely. I hope you'll be happy with the result, but I strongly suspect that Ken won't.
He continues to have real difficulties with facts that contradict his world view. This is hardly a surprise to most of us who've watched him squirm over the past few years. His continuing fanatical support for this program needs to be 'illuminated' for those who are new to the story.
Now back to the real world.
What about those DayJet birds? Will they get priority over commercial users (LineAir etc) for upgrades? Will Mason get one, for himself? What about Mike and Al? When will the first 'owner flown' FPJ get upgraded, and at what cost?
I seem to recall that EAC were taking months to do the 'aero mods' and AvioNG work, instead of the '10 days' Vern calculated.
Remember, time is money. Lots of time is going to be lots of money, and 'someone' is going to end up paying.
I don't think the EA plan can work, because the numbers don't add up. Some of the others were going after the 'pot committed' depositors to see if a deal could be done with enough of them. Why don't EA follow that route, instead of pandering to a privileged few who are unlikely to generate the millions of dollars required to convert this brave effort into a real business?
Nobody seems to know, or care.
And that, frankly, surprises me. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if there is another agenda emerging here.
We shall see.
In the meantime, I'll concentrate on the book. It's taking me some time to find the central theme, but I'm nearly there now.
Gadfly,
The 'rouge identity' uses a capital 'G' whereas you are all lowercase. I found myself in a similar situation, self inflicted, with a 'shane' as well as a 'Shane Price' based on Google's quirky policies.
Can I suggest that you ignore this idiot, and ask Phil to delete comments from anyone using a capital 'G'.
Shane
Billy :
yes , you are right !
the problem is that we are in a world where action leads to reactions ... decisions leads to consequences ...
i really wonder if Baron is "playing" or only unable to see reality ?
i came to that conclusion after few answers like :
I-Phone produced in China and making revenues in USA ...
WalMart t-shirt paid a lot less if made abroad ...
and many others !
it seems to me that he is unable to get that USA is part of a whole thing , nothing better or worse ...
i guess Pres.Jefferson and the "4Th power" is an extinct kind in this part of world , just across the pond from here ...
you see there is lots to be said about subject ...
was it Pres.Reagan who said that future should not be mortgaged for the comfort of today ?
in the same register :
IF there is ABSOLUTELY no words existing to justify the 9/11 ...
there is as well not enough letters in alphabet to name all the reasons why it did happen ...
exactly like Afghan-war is already lost for the 2 most simplistic reasons :
1* revenge or retaliation are no Christian concept
2* in the first 6 weeks of US bombing in Afghanistan , there has been more women and kids killed as collateral damages than there was victims in WTC !
3* Pres. Karzaî is a former halliburton/conoco consultant (what a coincidence !)
Shane Price said... I became convinced that I was 'observing' a scam, and took on the blog custodianship to keep a spotlight on it.
Noble cause, but I don't believe it one bit. You enjoyed the hunt. Simple.
Shane Price said... I'd done my 'bit' and now choose to do one thing and one thing only... Remind the unwary that there are 'sharks' in these waters.
Again, a noble cause. But these are now new owners, that have yet to do anything unsightly, no less "shark-worthy". So it appears your "one thing and one thing only" goes a bit beyond nobility and sincerity.
Shane Price said... My comic book is coming along nicely. I hope you'll be happy with the result, but I strongly suspect that Ken won't. He continues to have real difficulties with facts that contradict his world view. This is hardly a surprise to most of us who've watched him squirm over the past few years. His continuing fanatical support for this program needs to be 'illuminated' for those who are new to the story.
Hardly an objective impartial view for a fact-finding journalist as yourself with no "Dog in the fight".
Shane Price said... Now back to the real world. What about those DayJet birds? Will they get priority over commercial users (LineAir etc) for upgrades?
I'm sure the comic book will be loaded with such facts as LineAir. How can anyone take you seriously if you don't even know the major players of the story. It's Linear Air, and don't tell me it was a typo, it's also two words.
Shane Price said... Will Mason get one, for himself?
Mason owns a CJ2. He'll probably have "for sale" aircraft, and company demo and test aircraft at his disposal, so why would he need to purchase one?
Shane Price said... What about Mike and Al?
Mike and Al Mann both already own an Eclipse. You really are right on top of the facts, aren't you? What are you writing, a tabloid?
Shane Price said... ... ... ...
You sure seems to have a lot of questions and no answers for someone with an Inbox full of 'you don't know what I know".
Noble cause, but I don't believe it one bit. You enjoyed the hunt. Simple. ...
AND ?
so "some" can enjoy the "owning experience" while "some" others do not have rights to do as they wish ?
it appears your "one thing and one thing only" goes a bit beyond nobility and sincerity. ...
i think for the time being we are in the same mud as previously ...
what the matter about the shark's colors if it bites you ?
Hardly an objective impartial view for a fact-finding journalist as yourself with no "Dog in the fight" ...
sorry , you got it wrong !
Monsieur Shane's job = "Official Ken(ny?) Meyer irritant"
How can anyone take you seriously if you don't even know the major players of the story. ...
sorry , again :
comic-book = serious ????
FreddieBoy said... so "some" can enjoy the "owning experience" while "some" others do not have rights to do as they wish ?
Not at all. Shane is a charlatan. He's disingenuous about his real intentions. His information is usually flawed. He has a definite bias in his reporting. Therefore, his "one mission" statement is also false.
Not at all. Shane is a charlatan. He's disingenuous about his real intentions. His information is usually flawed. He has a definite bias in his reporting. Therefore, his "one mission" statement is also false. ...
AND ?
what about you ?
you know the story " you see the tiny bit of wood in his eyes ... but fail to see the tree growing in yours "
As an aside to the vapid attempts at character assasination and usurpation of critic ID's (smacks of frustration/desparation), we have let two very important anniversary's pass nearly unheeded.
It was a little over a year that Vern was canned, forced out of the company he started a decade earlier. And it is just about a year ago that the attempt by Vern and the Eclipse legal team to silence critics took its' rightful place on the ash heap of history thanks to the legal wranglings of one Norman Malinsky as directed and financed by Gunner.
A lot has happened in the past 12 months - EAC went BK, organic support popped up, lots of plans were developed and announced, all but one have gone by the wayside or gone underground, and at some point, M&M&M will close on their authorized purchase, or we will sing the second verse (same as the first).
I agree with BEG regarding sending jobs overseas. I've often wondered why Ralph Lauren Polo shirts cost $50 but are made in Indonesia. At that price point they could surely be made in the U.S. and still be able to make a hefty profit.
Sorry for the slightly off-topic rant.
SHadow...
becasue of three reasons:
1- the expensive stores are located here...
2- the expensive ads are developed and run here
3-folks who buy Polo will not buy if the price is too low (proven fact, BTW)
Most "outsourcing" is done within the US... and outsourcing as a strategy is not a bad idea - companies get to focus on ther value add, and core competencies.
EAC should have done more of this, IMO. Its a good low cost strategy.
Offshoring, for many jobs, is a lose-lose situation in many outsourcing cases.
Freddie said... you know the story " you see the tiny bit of wood in his eyes
Actually, I never envisioned Shane with a "woodie" in front of him, but I guess you do, and I guess anything is possible.
but I guess you do, and I guess anything is possible. ...
you guess ?
so much for "Hard-facts" ...
ATM :
you're kinda right ... (imo)
successful Economy is mostly about finding the right balance between many factors ...
if you run for "Low Costs"and "Short Term Profits" only ...
then who is going to make the money to buy your stuff ?
this is where the "Laffer curve" can be analyzed as pure BS ! ;-)
AT,
I think you might have misconstrued by thoughts. If the Polo shirt is going to retail for $50, then does it really matter if it costs an extra $1 to manufacture it in the U.S. versus Indonesia? Heck, you can even raise the price to $55 and put a tag on it that says "Proudly made in the USA" on it too.
Given our export-import trade imbalance, we should be concerned with what Ross Perot called "that giant sucking sound." Pick up an object within your reach right now and look for where it's made. I bet that it's not in the US, but China or India. Along with the jobs, our cash is being outsourced, too, which means American people have less to spend. This is just one facet of why we're in recession.
"I've often wondered why Ralph Lauren Polo shirts cost $50 but are made in Indonesia"
You are financing Ralph's exotic car collection.
Shadow,
Underwear used to be made in the US...
Now, there's a HUGE factory somewhere, making most of the worlds branded underwear.
They make pennies on each pair...
The US can no longer compete. We gave it up.
Should we have?
You may be right that $1 more might be worth saving the US jobs... I suspect a RL polo shirt landed cost is around $5-$6. Someone makes a gross profit of $2-$3 on the shirt. The total labor is around $.75
We decided we do not want these jobs.
ATM,
Now that the topic has shifted to underwear, I'd like to mention a new product for those of us who travel widely. It is men's underwear with three leg holes. You move over one leg hole per day and then turn them inside-out for six days total. Then they are destroyed as a hazardous material.
Plain Truth,
I know Al and Mike both have FPJ's. I was interested in when/if they'd be upgraded.
Who's 'first' into this queue is going to be very informative. Almost as interesting as who's first to emerge from the other side, or how much lighter their bank account is afterwards.
Mason was one of the 'pot committed' depositors I'd referred to. He proves my point, exactly. He's so keen to get his hands on an FPJ, even after being scammed, that he's gone the whole hog.
However, even I'm slightly surprised at how much 'deeper' he was prepared to get into this mess....
I'm reminded of that lovely Kenny Rodgers number, appropriately called 'The Gambler':-
You got to know when to hold 'em,
know when to fold 'em.
Know when to walk away,
know when to run
So, rather than attack my motives, why not attempt to answer my questions? They're not that hard, and might even help EA to move things forward.
Thanks also for reminding me of the comical aspects in this story.
Vern really did look like a clown, announcing his own firing on the opening day of Oshkosh last year, didn't he?
But he had strong competition on that platform from Roel, who's ability to produce letters from Russian officials was not backed up by his ability to extract money.
From Russian officials.
Or how about s/n 266, on 'static' display at Oshkosh '08. In fact, the aircraft was so rooted to the spot, it took more than two weeks to get it back to the factory afterwards.
Remember those confident predictions of '478' aircraft in 2008?
Don't know about you, but I'm still laughing at some of those stunts...
Speaking of fun, it's....
Competition Time!
Let's open one of our 'world famous' prediction competitions, shall we? This one is called:-
How many 'upgrades' will EA complete, in what remains of 2009.
I'll start it off:-
Zero.
Not one.
What do you think?
Shane
PS I normally pick '42' in honor of Douglas Adams, but there's no way EA will do 42, in this or any other year....
WhyTech,
You are financing Ralph's exotic car collection.
Your taste sir, as always, is impeccable.
And an absolutely fabulous collection it is too....
Shane
"And an absolutely fabulous collection it is too...."
Went to see the collection when it was "on tour" in the Boston area a few years ago - stunning!
EA will likely 'complete' the EAC tire SB and get it approved (but not until a privately developed STC is in place). They will, through their service partners, make this change on maybe 30-40 planes.
EA will take ownership of the DJ planes and MIGHT 'complete' one or two by year's end, none will be delivered before the end of the year.
The Avio NfG 1.5 and FIKI SB's will be redone and approved, and examples will start flowing before year's end - my guess is maybe 20 planes nationwide.
Then things will come to a standstill as EA gets caught up in SDR and continued airworthiness issues, maybe even a new AD.
The FL370 bleed restriction will probably not be solved before the end of the year.
We will find I think that the FIKI SB is not all that is cracked up to be and will be discarded in favor of a better solution (not presently under development to my knowledge).
That's enough for now.
Poor, depressed Shane writes, "I know Al and Mike both have FPJ's...Mason was one of the 'pot committed'...Vern really did look like a clown "
Shane, I love your "first name basis" familiarity with guys you never met, never talked to, and who have done more, made more, and *are* more than you.
I think that's what this is really all about :)
BTW, I was there--you weren't--and Vern did not look like a clown at all. I thought he handled his difficult predicament very respectably.
As for the question and answer in your missive:
"How many 'upgrades' will EA complete, in what remains of 2009.
I'll start it off:-
Zero.
Not one."
Well, you're already wrong. Eclipse Aerospace has completed or are in the midst of work on 5 FIKI upgrades before evening closing on the purchase! The owners of those planes speak very highly of the work.
Ken
The FIKI SB has been accomplished by other than EA service providers (other than NAJ BTW) - it is just not an elegant solution.
I will make a recommendation here that will likely fall on deaf ears, the personal animus on display is not helping any of the posters displaying it - let's keep this focused on facts and opinion about the planes and the company and skip the personalities.
I thought he handled his difficult predicament very respectably.
Understatement of the Year Award.
So, Ken, who's the lucky 'first' FIKI test pilot, sorry, owner?
And can I take it that you're in for '5', or are you feeling more than usually optimistic?
Cancel that. I don't think I could handle an 'overoptimistic Ken'....
Shall I put you in for 10? 100?
All 259?
Do tell....
Shane
PS ColdWet, agreed, I'll stop now. Got a 'comic' to compose.
I am an avio plane with ett. Will be an interesting question to see when they get to me. I don't think 2009. I think they will get at least 10 FIKI/NG 1.5 planes done before 2010.
Shane... Tsk tsk... Burn.
Nice PT. You said it before I could.
Shane Price said... I know Al and Mike both have FPJ's. I was interested in when/if they'd be upgraded.
Again Shane, you're right there "in the know".
Al Mann's plane was already upgraded to Avio 1.5 last fall as part of the verification to generate the service bulletin. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
If it wasn't for the great intelligence in your top secret Inbox, you'd have no intelligence at all.
Did NAJ ever complete an Avio OG to Avio NfG conversion? I don't recall hearing of the completion but I remember the first bird was in the shop for an extremely long time.
Any help?
Shane said... Or how about s/n 266, on 'static' display at Oshkosh '08. In fact, the aircraft was so rooted to the spot, it took more than two weeks to get it back to the factory afterwards.
Again Shane, where do you get this crap??? Actually 266 left Oshkosh early.
Shane said... Speaking of fun, it's.... Competition Time!
Time for more mindless diversion. Must be there is nothing in the Inbox.
Shane . . . concerning your comments on the "imposter" (which I just now read), 'have already been noted and discussed with Phil. Yes, it is best to ignore this sort of thing, with the caveat that with over 400,000 excellent English words to use, I don't wish for a second to be associated with the few additional words that someone pulls out of the toilet.
gadfly
(Words are tools, to be kept in good repair, and used with skill. When they are mistreated, they fail when needed for serious communication.)
Black Tulip, that is too funny! Perhaps you should forward that idea to Ralph Lauren, who could probably convince people who travel often and like to pack light to buy them for $100 a pair. All it would need is a little Polo logo on the tag.
I'd also like to suggest we manufacture them in the U.S. but dispose of them in China. Given the pollution in China, I doubt anyone would notice.
EclipsePilotOMSIV, regarding avionics upgrades. Would you consider upgrading your current system to R9 if Avidyne was able to pull off this upgrade and make it compatible with other upgrades (FIKI, etc)?
Yes I would if it was not only compatable with upgrades but current systems ie ECBs etc. The R9 is a nice package. What Avio was supposed to be.
I have it on reliable authority that Avidyne CAN make R9 fit into an Eclipse. Whether or not they WILL depends on their perception that they would make money at it. Many owners and, I would bet, EA have inquired on this point. Now if the owners would just send in some good faith, non-refundable deposits of $50,000 or $100,000, Avidyne might well put the matter right at the top of their list of aircraft to get an STC for the R9 treatment.
R9 is just as good as, or perhaps even better than, G1000. Avidyne's problem is that without an OEM their market is limited to retrofits on Cirrus and Piper aircraft (mainly) and when these are all done, what next? This could be a really good run for Avidyne, however, and if they can reasonably sweep in 200 or more EA jets, I bet they will.
And so it begins.....
As predicted before, the determination of a singular, supportable configuration will be a huge challenge.
R9 is essentially the application original Eclipse buyers were promised (from an avionics standpoint).
Problem is, IIRC, there are more NG installations than OG installations. The only way for M&M to support the fleet efficiently is to have a single configuration.
Every deviation from a singular configuration adds cost and risk.
I hear there may be good news on the IS&S front, but even capturing the whole fleet only accounts for about 260 shipsets, subtract out the planes already equipped, and you are looking at fairly small volumes which is a tough sell for long term growth.
Unless M&M set a singular direction, the owner community will splinter based on individual needs/desires (and dirty little secret is that it has already happened).
Shane...
you were SO wrong in your prediction of ro..
completions...
Becasue..
They alrady..
STARTED some...
What a farce
CW,
you are so WRONG..
they are going to make an "announcement" within 6 months, bout when or if, they will ever re-start production..
Plus, unless you missed the MEMO... the Chinese are VERY interested...
Shane... fodder for chapeter 12.. call it "Our Saviour - Jesus Christ Number 12"
WTFO?
CW,
just a joke... from F Int'l article published today with Col. Mike: - Chinese are interested, and they will make a decision on wether to re-start production in 6 months or so... not the Chinese, EA.
EA claim the "only" reason the foeigners backed away from EAC was related to the issues discussed here regarding foreign buyers.
if this is true, there's no reason the Chinese will not come back (or the Russians) in short order and make a deal.... IF...
should be interesting to watch... dare I say, amusing?
PS. if this ever does come to pass, I will be including the trip Ken took to China as part of his cost, from then on... as part of his total cost acquiring/keeping his plane
;)
Shadow,
Garmin 1000s and R9 are shown with old style backups.
IIRC, Avidyne never stated that they have a fail-safe solution with two PFDs etc. and do not need stand-by instruments.
In this case a shift to "R9 plus" would cost much more than $100,000 and a lot of time, if Avidyne is willing to do this job - again.
Julius
Just curious. How is Eclipse Aerospace upgrading anything right now? They don't have a repair station certificate and they can't do it just because the own the TC. Just what are they doing and where are they doing it and to whose airplanes are they doing it to?
ASM said... How is Eclipse Aerospace upgrading anything right now?
Under North American Jet's 145 certificate.
ASM it is all part of a game of 3-card Monty. EA established the Eclipse Service Network a few months ago, and absorbed, after a fashion, North American Jet's operation.
There is no 145 certificate for EA, nor is there one for ESN. It is a bit of harmless slight of hand in my mind, that allows people to claim EA is performing maintenance (which it is not) it was also used to suggest ESN was performing maintenance (it was not), this is all the NAJ effort and a few smaller providers working with NAJ.
In other words, SSDD.
Thanks for the explanation ATM, I was afraid someone was pretending to be you as well as Gad.
It's terribly obvious that someone is making money here by the word.
"There is no 145 certificate for EA, nor is there one for ESN. It is a bit of harmless slight of hand in my mind, that allows people to claim EA is performing maintenance (which it is not).."
Thanks Coldfish,
Not sure how "harmless" it is though. If I were NAJ I would guard my reputation VERY closely.
Ken Ross and the NAJ team are 'all-in' at this point, and have been since this Spring when they partered up with M&M.
Agree on the reputation and certificate issue, but not everybody thinks like you and I do.
Pay close attention to KnotMPH . . . he’s on to something of value. As in automobiles, the so-called fuel economy is not the issue . . . we have two “Lexuses” (or is it “Lexi”?) . . . and figuring the overall cost for ten years, fuel at any price is approximately 20% of the cost of ownership . . . and, believe it or not, they (the “Lexi” that is) work out to being extremely economical.
Shucks . . . at Ten gallons per mile, for our submarine (at economy cruise, and back in ancient times when “ten cylinders, twenty pistons, times four, ruled the day” . . . think that one over for a few minutes), I could prove that our boat was a better option than a jet . . . but what’s the point?! The “jet” and the “sub” both burned essentially the same fuel. Both did what they were designed to do . . . and both, in their element, were extremely economical. Why? Because of “fuel economy”? Hardly! We burned enough fuel to fly an Eclipse halfway across the “states” by the time we cleared Ford Island . . . and by then, we were only making a little over five knots.
If you have your eyes on fuel economy, for either the Eclipse “Vunderjet” or a car, you’re a prime target for a sure sale. Get real . . . you’re buying something that cost as much as a few houses for the rest of us “bloggers” who can only comment on what we observe.
Seriously, KnotMPH is turning your reasoning to a new and good direction. Use your grey cells, and follow through.
gadfly
And speaking of fuel economy: Has the public suddenly seen through this big lie, promoted by Chevy with their “Volt”? . . . the re-“volting” claim of 230 miles per gallon? (Attempting to ignore what they have actually developed is a “coal fired vehicle”, and failed to mention the actual fuel mileage in “pounds of coal per mile”, to run the turbines that generate the power that charge the batteries that push the car around, provided the temperature is above 40F, for “up to” forty miles, on essentially level ground, and maybe the engine won’t “kick in” to get you a few blocks back home, so you can plug it in and charge it up on a few more pounds of coal at the power company.) Maybe they thought that the “new math” taught in the school system had finally taken hold, and they could fly that lie by the American public, and the listeners would stare in full belief, with saliva dribbling off their chins. ‘Seems that the claims have suddenly taken a back-seat in their ads . . . and now they’re admitting that Honda makes a better lawn mower than they can produce with their “Obamacarts”. And who said “humor” is dead in the media?!
‘Need a number on that? . . . Figure a kilowatt per pound of coal, and the 16 kilowatt hour battery (450 pounds) has a “program” that limits it to 8 kilowatt hours, to power the thing for “up to” forty miles . . . at which time it “must” be re-charged. The engine recharges “nothing” . . . and is carried around to “get you home” when the battery poops out. Neat, huh! Now why didn’t I think of that? (Oh, and use 100% efficiency in your numbers . . . it won’t help much, but makes the math a little bit simpler. And forget the CO2 . . . trees still have to breath, you know!)
gadfly
(Oh, and all that was what was promised in a year or two, at $40K, with a healthy government assistance underwriting . . . Sound familiar?)
(And think of the profits realized for the “carbon credits” exchanged through Goldman Sachs offsets. Ah yes . . . one born every day.)
"failed to mention the actual fuel mileage in “pounds of coal per mile”, to run the turbines that generate the power that charge the batteries that push the car around"
You're on to something, but I think an even broader view is needed to assess the full long-term environmental and economic impact. Example: what about the hazardous wastes in producing and disposing of the batteries in 100mm (or just 10mm, about 1 year of auto production in the US alone) such vehicles, not to mention the cost?
"Phil," come on man, come clean.
This is a Google commercial site that pays by the word. My relative told me all about it; she works at Google.
It is obvious that this site has a bunch of, shall we say, enthusiasts, that make a commercial platform that creates an annuity.
Might I add that it is more than EAC ever made!
In the meantime, EA is dead.
Please allow me to repeat:
The 230 units are already an over-saturation. There will never be another E500 manufactured.
WhyTech . . . you're getting far too technical for me. Why confuse the reader with minor things, like the energy to produce all this environmentally safe stuff, ship it over from China, haul it around the country on big trucks, etc., and bury the stuff in landfill, etc., etc. 'Fact is, lithium may turn out to be a very stable ground-fill on which to put up particle board houses, to sell at inflated prices . . . hey, maybe we're on to something truly big!
gadfly
(Gotta go home now . . . at my age it will take me all evening to drive up the left lane of the freeway, with the left turn-signal on "just in case". 'Ever seen a Lexus SUV at 30mph in the first lane? . . . that's the left lane for you who didn't grow up in Southern California.)
"lithium may turn out to be a very stable ground-fill"
And such ground will grow giant tomatos, right?
DeepBlue . . . claiming that there will be no further E500's is cutting it close to plagiarism . . . since I thought I already had a monopoly on that claim a couple or three years ago. So, watch it! OK?
Besides, the horse . . . she is dead . . . and beatin’ it won’t he’p none! Been there, done that . . . nothing but a weak pulse early on.
gadfly
(Now, for sure . . . I gotta' get out of this place and go home.)
"There will never be another E500 manufactured."
DB, I heard you, and cannot devise a compelling argument to the contrary. My bet: 80% likelihood that this is the case.
I have seen a device promoted as a 6"x6"x6" cube that can produce 30KW. I guess BAron would be interested? Circulating cash IS the reason to be in business, right?
"fuel at any price is approximately 20% of the cost of ownership"
HOW can you say such a thing?
I have a monopoly on this argument...
Baron95--
Would you please email me at eclipseowner(at)gmail.com? I have something I'd like to share with you.
Ken
KnotMPH
Later, I’ll do the study on EEstor . . . so I’m late a few more minutes . . . the wife is with the grand-kids and I’ll find something leftover for supper.
Now, do the homework yourself: The average American home has an input of 100 amps (we have 200 amps . . . I wired the thing, myself), at 220-240 volts. That’s 240 times 100 = 24,000 watts, max, before the main breaker trips, right? That’s 24 Kilowatts times the “hours” equals 24 kilowatt hours per hour, max. But the biggest circuit in your house, besides stove, drier, and water-heater, is a 20 amp, 120 volt outlet. Period! So, anything made to “plug into” a normal outlet is maxed out at 20 amps x 120 volts for 2,400 watt hours per hour (2.4 kwh per hour). The “Volt” (car) has a maximum allowable useful battery charge of 8 kilowatt hours . . . limited by software. So, since their software and power-supply figure on a 15 amp circuit (not 20 amp), they claim a full charge in six hours at 120 volts. So, we take their numbers and know that no manufacture is going to require a full load on a circuit (fire danger, electrical codes, and all that sort of thing), a maximum of maybe 12 amps is even stretching it a bit. The bottom line is that even these numbers only produce a maximum of 1.44 kilowatt hours per hour of charge on a 120 volt outlet . . . right in line with the Chevy claim of a full 8 kwh charge on a normal outlet in six hours.
Some of you are lost . . . but that’s OK. On a normal outlet, like you would have on the side of your house, with GFI (ground fault interrupter, required by law), the maximum you could charge a battery in three to six minutes would be what? . . . one twentieth (3 minutes) or one tenth (6 minutes) of 1.44 kilowatt hours of charge?! So your 54kw device would be able to operate for (do the numbers . . . 1.44 times .10 equals 144 watt hours divided into 54,000 watts . . . numbers come down to . . .) seems to come out on my HP calculator at about 9.6 seconds of 54 kilowatts. Now, you can do a lot in nine seconds . . . in fact someone on an electric chair might say you are overdoing it. But for most applications, that is something rather minimal.
Now, for sure . . . I’m going home.
gadfly
(It’s been real! Oh, and by the way, I’ve played with this stuff . . . a large box filled with capacitors, fully charged as if by “sunlight” over time . . . and discharged in a few micro-seconds, in a device called a “plasma generator”, inside a ten-foot diameter vacuum chamber, exciting a very small amount of argon gas, to produce a small puff of thrust, for an inter planetary space vehicle, using the sun’s energy for most of the propulsion . . . and I’ve mentioned my “boss” before, Adriano Ducati, “I want it quick and dirty, . . . but precise!” . . . that’s the man. And when we discharged that big box of capacitors, which I built and were hung, all 800 pounds on a single piece of “music wire”, . . . that, my friends, was a most exciting moment, and one big bang.)
Shane - PLEASE STOP.
I can't stand watching this anymore - what happened to you man?
You are making a fool of yourself and by association all that participated in your blog. You are firing an inordinate amount of incorrect and incoherent "facts", and, when corrected by others, you make things worse by digging a bigger hole.
You can do better than this - come on.
I think we need to cool off and wait for the transaction to close and EA to announce upgrade schedules and prices.
In the meantime, I'd be interested in more substantiated facts.
As in X numbers of NG planes were upgraded to 1.5 and/or FIKI and the upgrade took x days.
These are proof points for the degree of difficulty.
To play Shane's game... I think there will be about one dozen EA500 with NG1.5/Garmin/FIKI configuration by year end.
And that is an opinion, not based on any particular piece of info.
Baron, you might read the Flight Global article and specifically quotes from the good Colonel as well as Randall Sandana before condemning Shane's mention of foreign investors/partners, as well as plans for resuming production in the next 6-18 months.
I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that foreign interests were the leading viable potential bidders right up until the FBI visited with the trustee the week before the 'bid' was expected - and that is why we saw the $40M half cash/half promise offer, not yet consumated BTW, of Al Mann essentially buying the EAC assets from himself, and getting $20M in notes that will presumably be easier to colect than the guarantee from RiP if this thing goes south.
Would love to have been a fly on the wall during what I imagine were some frenzied phone calls and personal visits. Of course, that is conjecture on my part but admittedly not a big stretch.
YMMV but if anyone is demonstrating unhinged obsession bordering on hatred, to the point of stalking, it may well involve someone close to you, maybe even the man in the mirror.
Shane has backed off, Ken has backed off, the only dogs remaining in fight mode right now are the ankle-biting Chihuahua's, let's let them fight over table scraps so the adults can stay focused on the real issues, challenges and opinions.
Sorry Gadfly and MPH...I know nothing about this device and don't have the time to go look...but your assumptions are incorrect that a battery can not be quickly charged at home.
Let me give you just one of many potential solutions...
You plug on your 110/220 outlet a device that can be continuously charged at the normal 20AMPS and store the charge (battery, capacitor, KERS, etc).
When you come home with you car, you "plug it" (it will probably be by induction, not plug) in and there is a "big hose" from the device to your car that can charge your battery at 10x or more the rate you can get from your home outlet.
So, yes, be skeptical of claims. But also, don't make the equally bad mistake of assuming it can't be done.
It can.
I HAVE PERSONALLY USED SUCH A DEVICE TO CHARGE UP AN AIRPLANE - you figure it our ;) ;)
Sorry CW - there is nothing new on the FlightGlobal article.
They will probably make a decision in 2010 if to restart production or not!!!
There are overseas (Russian, Chinese) interested parties and they are talking to EA!!!
The US makes it hard for foreign companies to buy certain assets and technologies!!!
Is any of this news?
Shane could/should have said exactly that "The Chinese are interested but concerned about the review process".
Instead he categorically affirmed that EA would not win the bid and that the Russian and Chinese would be the winning bidders.
Anyway. Not here not there. I have little interest in could of, would of.
I'm interested in the here and now and the future.
Is the sale going to close. How much capital does EA have. What cost and capacity to do the upgrades. What are the critical parts to secure. Etc.
I want to see the EA500 as a viable jet anchoring the entry into personal fan jet flying.
I'm mildly interested in resumption of production as this will be synergistic (if it can be funded) to supporting the fleet.
If the Chinese want to take over the wing production and the Russians want to take over the empenage production at higher quality and lower cost, that is great.
I think they are to be welcomed, not disparaged.
I think the disparaging of "the Chinese" and "the Russians" on this blog is a low point, racist and distasteful. The very terms that Shane launched are distasteful.
Why not say such and such company from China or such and such investor from Russia?
What on earth are you talking about? Now we are racists?
You have officially jumped the shark Baron, this is your most attrocious post ever.
On second thought Baron, you just keep on keeping on - I'll be more selective with my participation.
baron . . . you are entirely correct in the possible charge of the battery in question in a short time . . . at least in theory. And you mentioned a 10x rate of charge. So, with the 54kw battery (which I had assumed to be 54kwhours), I could conceivably charge it up in the six minutes mentioned. In fact, such things were done aboard the submarine on a regular basis . . . 126 cells in each of the four batteries (a normal sub had two batteries), and each of the 504 cells weighed about 1,650 pounds (about 415 tons) . . . each cell putting out 2 volts, to supply power to four “Elliot” main motors, direct drive, to two 9 foot diameter x 5 foot pitch screws, producing 5,400 horsepower.
Now, for that 54kwh battery, charging from a 20 amp power supply . . . and make it 240 volts, so the numbers are more in your favor. That works out to 4.8 kw hours per hour. Divided into 54 kw hour battery, and it will take eleven hours at 100% efficiency. We don’t know the voltage of the battery in question, but to transfer that much energy into a battery in six minutes would be a most exciting experience, in anyone’s book. And not the sort of thing you’d want happening in your home. For instance, “If” the battery had an output of 240 volts, you’d need to transfer the energy at the rate of 2,250 amps (at 120 volts, double the amperage), provided it were 100% efficient, and you had the necessary low resistence cables to transfer the energy . . . even with an inductive device (which is AC, and would require a massive and yet to be invented DC/AC to AC/DC converter, to handle that sort of energy transfer). Since I’ve personally worked with current in the range of 2,000 amps and 1,200 volts, DC, I have a fair “feel” for that sort of thing, and it is not for the faint of heart, nor for the simplistic fantasy that you have proposed . . . even in the world of zero impedance/conductors that are sometimes mentioned in cryogenic experiments.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but until the laws of physics are greatly modified, it ain’t about to happen. That does not mean you cannot “swap” the battery at home for the one in your car, but then present technology for battery size (that is, cell size) needs a major breakthrough to fit inside the volume that was mentioned in the earlier comments (6 inch cube).
gadfly
(Hey . . . it’s a great mental exercise, even with the help of my HP 32S “Fiftieth Anniversary” RPN scientific calculator, a “free” gift from HP . . . after I spent about $300K on their computers and software.)
(Oh, and a final note: almost any conceivable power can be "output" from even a "AA" cell, provided the time is short enough. The "SS" radar on our sub had an output of 50 kilowatts . . . that was the pulse strength, but average output was only about 300 watts, continuous, far less than a cheap microwave oven. That's how to play with the numbers.)
KnotMPH
Rather than attempt to make extensive comments on “EEstor”, here is a good place to begin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor
It appears that the battery/capacitor, that you had mentioned (52 kwh), is slightly bigger than a cubic foot, in their conception, and would weigh in at well over three hundred pounds . . . and have an output of 3,475 volts. It also appears that these batteries (capacitors) are not so efficient . . . the article alludes to heat being a major concern in charge/discharge cycles . . . loosely translated: inefficient through heat loss. And for the most part I would put them in the category of “vaporware”, at the present time, until actual working models have been built and tested. And, if that becomes a reality, the next major problem will need to deal with a steep voltage curve, during discharge.
Ever work with high voltage in that range, with significant amperage? Bad things tend to happen very fast in violent ways. And you seldom get a second go at the thing.
gadfly
Law of Conservation Of Energy anyone?
CW - I don't think you understood my post. SOME ways that people here refer to "the Chinese" and "the Russians" IS stereotypical, derogatory and overtly ethnic racism.
If you were a Chinese you'd be offended by the remarks.
There are no two ways about it.
But that is not core to the story, so I'm happy to leave it alone and get back on topic.
I'm afraid we just need to give EA time before we can discuss things more objectively.
As of now, the only thing we can say is:
1 - It is better that someone (that is already organized and supporting the fleet in some fashion) won the bid - rather then see the assets scattered.
2 - It is better that there is a plan and funding behind the initiative - rather than nothing.
Now we have to see the plan mature, be announced and implemented.
It's cool to speculate about the plan. But without new facts it gets tiresome.
baron95,
sometimes the lanuage in a blog is short like F***, BS, etc. but I am sure Shane doesn't want offend any peoples or nations!
I personally cannot insinuate certain attitudes in this blog.
If one takes some words out of the context and ignores that this is a blog and not a distinguished literay circle one might draw wrong conclusions.
As of now, the only thing we can say is:....
I German there is a saying:
Better to have an end with horrors than horrors without end.
If plan means:
1 There is money for 6 months.
2 After 6 months there is a CEO who will be the successful fund raiser, the accredited aviation visionary, the perfect leader, the ... company developper etc.
then think of the German saying!
Open to everybody actually means having no plan or waiting for a plan...
Investors from China or Russia (that the way you like it?) might have additional long term interests -
think of the A320 made in China which is much more expensive that those made/assembled in Europe!
The City of ABQ has another point of view to outsourcing EAC to somewhere.
BTW: If Col. M. gets the AVIO NG 1.5 and FIKI upgrades then one of the oldest fpj gets the "latest" upgrade first. (I know that fpj might be an AVIO NG 1.3 etc. version; it's a test;...)
Julius
julius said... sometimes the lanuage in a blog is short like F***, BS, etc. but I am sure Shane doesn't want offend any peoples or nations!
Hey Genius! This hasn't been Shane's blog for quite a while. Where have you been?
Question is... is there any real money in the EA deal?
- is there truth to the statement that the $20M cash goes to pay Mann for DIP? In effect, IF he is the only one putting up $$ here (Perhaps M&M came up with some?) he is just repaying himself?
- perhaps this is a convenient way to settle the debts for $20M paper, and move along with the Russians or Chinese in a "controlled" fashion, and they would bring $$ to the table.
If this is what occured, Shane was correct, in that its just a convenient way to bring the Russian or Chinese money into the deal.
Two point, IF this is what occured:
1- there's no money in the deal without the Russians and Chinese, so not much progress can be made on any front, until they make a deal.
2- Essentially, Shane was correct - reality is, this is a Russian/Chinese deal, because ALL progress depends on them.
While I have never been inside a EAC dataroom, and I am not privvy to discussions on this subject, I would think the timining and statements being made to the press regarding when a decision can be made on the future of the busines, and the fact they admit the Russians and Chinese are looking to be involved, lead to some scenario where this is how it plays out, otherwise...
ATM, at this point it is irrelevant whether or not Shane or other critics were right about the Chinese or Russian connection, that we predicted the price, that we predicted the BK, that we were ahead of the curve on the vast majority of issues and challenges.
All that matters now is the continued sniping and gutter politics from a small number of posters intent on destroying other posters they don't agree with - at any cost.
The tactics in use would be embarassing to a Chicago thug politician (calling shorthand used to identify the various players 'racist' as an example - oh wait, the Chicago thug politicians ARE using the same playbook).
Anyway, certain ego's are so involved and invested now that retreat/regrouping may no longer be possible for some.
Some others have never had a single positive thing to say or made a real contribution, they are limited to personal attacks and mindless repetition, as critical thinking and logic are the bane of their existence - let them yap at our ankles, they have nothing of value to say anyway.
Many of the issues brought up by Shane, myself and others, things which were denied vociferously and which we have been attacked for stating, have been verified by one of the M's in the M&M show himself and one of the EOG.
There is a difference between wild accusations and informed speculation - it would serve some posters well to consider that when they try and discern between what is and what 'might' be, not just from the critics, but from the players at EA.
from the wire: "After repeated delays, Boeing Co. said Thursday its 787 aircraft will be ready for its first test flight by year-end and its first delivery in the fourth quarter next year.
The maiden flight of the next-generation aircraft, built for fuel efficiency with lightweight carbon composite parts, has been delayed five times already. The inaugural flight was originally slated for the fall of 2007.
The delays have cost Boeing credibility and billions of dollars in anticipated expenses and penalties. With the date of the flight more certain now, shares of Boeing rose $2.72, or 5.7 percent, to $50.54 in premarket trading.
The Chicago company also says it will book a third-quarter charge of $2.5 billion pretax, or $2.21 per share, related to the 787 program. When it reported its second-quarter earnings last month, the aircraft manufacturer said it was still assessing the financial impact of the latest delay.
The eagerly anticipated long-range passenger jet has been delayed mostly because of production problems. With the 787, Boeing has taken a new approach to building airplanes, relying on overseas suppliers to build huge sections of the plane that are later assembled at the company's commercial aircraft plant near Seattle.
Ill-fitting parts and other problems have hampered production, but Boeing and some analysts say the plane -- Boeing's first all-new jetliner since the 777, which airlines began flying in 1995 -- eventually will prove a financial and technological success.
The latest delay came in June, when the company said earlier that it needed to reinforce an area in the side of the aircraft.
"This new schedule provides us the time needed to complete the remaining work necessary to put the 787's game-changing capability in the hands of our customers," Boeing Chairman, President and CEO Jim McNerney, said in a statement.
Boeing expects it will produce 10 airplanes per month in late 2013."
Well, we'll see...at any rate, what game is it that McNerney thinks the 787 will change? I t may turn out to be a financial and operational disaster for the airline industry (and a boon to Airbus et al).
That strikes me as at least an equal probability given the way Boeing has (mis) managed this program along with the inherent, still unknown operational performance of the aircraft and its systems/materials.
CW,
"discern between what is and what 'might' be"
The inability to do this effectively might define a "die-hard".
Luckily, it's a niche market.
DB,
I think the real news is that Boeing announced that frames 1-3 have no commercial value (due to being severely overweight and patched up) and will not be sold.
Frames 4-6 also will be partially written down, but will (maybe???!!!??) be sold.
That is an amazing revelation - to me anyway.
Boeing is basically scrapping at least 3 and maybe all 6 ships.
WOW!!!
Scrap.
Baron,
Perhaps you might need some reading glasses. Boeing said they would make the first three aircraft strictly research and development ships. This is not unlike the first five or so Eclipse 500s, just that the 787s are a tad bit more expensive.
While Boeing is writing them off as an accounting expense since they no longer can be considered customer aircraft, they're certainly not scrapping them as you indicated. I'm quite sure Boeing will find good use for these airframes once the initial certification is completed.
Say, what are the first five or so experimental Eclipse 500s doing these days?
Monsieur Shane :
I'm a Christian, so I don't hate anyone ...
off-course , but does Christianity do anything into this ?
i know that it might be only a way of saying , BUT ...
i have always been very amused by peoples who think "It's from this specific (anywhere) location so it ought to be perfect !"
or whan i was in Eastern Countries many times i saw ads or panel (mostly in front of shops, marriage agencies, , pubs or restaurants) "American Own And/Or managed"
(i am not intending anything bad at you )
if we analyze a bit :
"Deutschland or US Über alles"
does it have any chance of being true by itself ?
or
Did Maddoff had a sign in his office "Proudly from the USA" ?
i feel it is already hard enough to try to be ourselves , not to complicate matter any further ...
that said :
i give a 10 out 100 chances of success to EA ...
for the same "details" you gave ...
and i agree that it would be a giant leap forward if everybody could express himself in a form of
"Personally , i do not like it"
or
" i wouldn't personally put more than a cent in the matter"
seems to be so much better than :
"If you do not agree with me then you're a piece of dirt"
or
"I know that you know that i know this has no chances to be true anywhere else than in FPJ's wonderland , but don't you dare to say it "
on such i think ColdWet is simply brilliant :
we all have different opinions on different subjects ...
is that a reason to call names ?
nothing can be 100% bad or good ...
Deep_Blue,
"'Phil,' come on man, come clean. This is a Google commercial site that pays by the word. My relative told me all about it; she works at Google. It is obvious that this site has a bunch of, shall we say, enthusiasts, that make a commercial platform that creates an annuity."
I'm happy to respond to your query (again), however only the first answer (on the previous thread) is free.
I'll give you my preferred customer rate of two cents per word. (I get my "two cents worth" in by just saying "huh?").
And as I'm a fair sort of chap, I'll even split the profits from using your quote above, so I'll only charge you one cent per word for those.
While deftly avoiding the obvious giveaway of notable advertising, I guess I knew the subliminal advertising scheme would fall apart sooner or later. Stan, and then Shane, both retired on the millions in ad revenue, after just 18-24 months each, and sold me the franchise for $1.5M plus 15 percent of revenues.
(Think it's any coincidence Stan is now taking diving vacations in the South Pacific, and Shane has retired to write his memoirs?). I had hoped to do the same within another year or two, and then purchase use my ill gotten gains to purchase an Eclipse. (Or maybe the entire factory, depending on how things go for M&M).
As we're aviation enthusiasts, as well as critics, you may send your check for $4.79
To:
Save An Eclipse
2503 Clark Carr Loop SE. Albuquerque, NM 87106
Thanks!
***
End of billing session.
Want some "free" advise?
Step 1:
Ask your relative that works at Google to point out where the "monetize" tab is.
If they don't know, then ask them to split the $4.79 tab. (Make them pay the extra penny).
Step 2:
If they do know, then ask them to take a look at our blog.
In about the time it takes to say,
"Hey, would yo..." (u look at...)
He or she will be able to tell you, to the exact penny, with 100% accuracy, how much it "creates an annuity".
Sorry- no refunds.
(From me-or Eclipse!! :)
"..they're certainly not scrapping them as you indicated. I'm quite sure Boeing will find good use for these airframes once the initial certification is completed."
Well, they are a little big to be gate guards, but whatever. An ice cream parlor? A youth hostel? Maybe take the wings off and raft down the Coulmbia River? All of Dassault's first 7X test airplanes......went to customers! But that's so Old Europe! Boeing has adopted the Piper approach: Build, fly, test, design, build again, ect."
B95: Interesting indeed about 787 "scrapping." Is there a press release/article somewhere? Thanks.
ASman, I'm sure the 787 R&D ships will find future uses, such as testbed platforms and subassembly haulers, among others. If you really want to know, call/e-mail someone at Boeing and ask. But they're not scrapping them, despite what Baron says.
"I'm sure the 787 R&D ships will find future uses, such as testbed platforms and subassembly haulers, among others."
For some strange reason I think the payload and g limits might be a tad constrained
ASman, this is Boeing we're talking about, not Eclipse. I'm 100% sure they'll modify them for some kind of important use. For sure, they won't be sitting around collecting dust like the first five Eclipse test aircraft. Six if you count the Eclipse prototype that was retired in 2003.
"I'm 100% sure they'll modify them for some kind of important use."
I wish them the best, I really do. But pretending that the program hasn't been a train wreck to date and the whole uber-outsourcing concept deeply flawed isn't helping anyone.
ASman,
We might as well be speaking two different languages. I'm talking about Boeing re-purposing what are now the 787 R&D ships and you're addressing management execution and outsourcing of the entire program. This gets back to the "what's already happened" versus "what might be" thing. I just have much more faith in Boeing than Eclipse when it comes to "what might be".
From this mornings New Mexico Business Weekly -
Hirings rise as new Eclipse feels wind under its wings
After six months under padlock, the former Eclipse Aviation Corp. installations at Albuquerque International Sunport are buzzing once again.
Eclipse Aerospace, the newly formed company that purchased the former Eclipse assets out of bankruptcy for $40 million, will open its doors on Sept. 1. The new company is already hiring former employees, said Mike Press, one of two investors who formed Eclipse Aerospace.
“We have more than 600 resumes from former Eclipse employees [who] want to come back to work,” Press said. “We won’t hire back any of the old executive management, but we will re-hire engineers and the people who actually built the jet. There are a lot of high-quality, highly trained workers ready to come back to work.”
Press said Eclipse Aerospace plans to immediately provide service and upgrades for the 259 Eclipse 500 very light jets that began flying before the original company closed its doors last March. Within 18 months, however, it expects to start producing new jets.
"I'm talking about Boeing re-purposing what are now the 787 R&D ships and you're addressing management execution and outsourcing of the entire program."
Not to beat a dead horse, but if they had not outsourced the entire program they would not have six defective jets to worry about. How many more must be parked beside the first six before somebody gets a clue?
"Press said Eclipse Aerospace plans to immediately provide service and upgrades for the 259 Eclipse 500 very light jets that began flying before the original company closed its doors last March."
Under what authority are they going to provide service and upgrades to existing airplanes in ABQ? A Repair Station's authority in Chicago? We are getting beyond the stupid here.
"I must be stupid, too, because I didn't see where the article said that they would be doing the upgrades in ABQ. Or did you just ASsuMe that"
Eclipse Aerospace isn't going to be doing upgrades ANYWHERE until they get a Repair Station certificate. The fact that they are representing themselves as starting to do the work when it is provided by another organization tells me all I need to know about Eclipse Aerospace.
ASM MAN - How do you know, as of today, that the work is being provided by another orginzation and not EA?
Your statement tells me all I need to know about you.
A long time ago, our little family was preparing to take on the responsibilities of five aircraft for the Sudan Interior Mission in Jos, Nigeria. And we were on a trip to raise the necessary financial and prayer support of various churches. On our trip down Highway 1, just north of the Golden Gate, we broke a ring in that little 1.5 liter engine, in our VW bus . . . and were “towed in” to Mill Valley VW, on the other side of San Francisco. Leaving the “bus” (I had done all the body work, myself . . . and rebuilt the interior . . . and painted it a two tone “pure white over true yellow” . . . it was truly beautiful! . . . late 1960's), we were given a loaner “Bug” . . . and drove it over the Golden Gate Bridge, and over the Bay Bridge, etc., to visit my uncle, and tour things that were a part of my life back when I was stationed at “T.I.” in the Navy.
And just now, I thought to myself, “Why in the world would anyone want to fly this minimal little jet, the E-clops 500?” . . . and my memory took me back to that day when, for the first time, I drove that little VW bug over the Bay Bridge, into Oakland, through Berkeley, and through the tunnel into the Walnut Creek area. Let’s face it . . . the VW “Bug”, or as one of my youngest grandson’s calls it, “Herby” . . . was a fun thing to drive. And probably that is the appeal of the little “Eclipse” . . . not much room, but as you see the girders of the bridge go flying by, you have the sensation of being in a real driving machine. ‘Not practical, mind you, but certainly a “blast” as you go a few blocks down the street to pick up a couple quarts of milk, and maybe a pizza on the way back home. It’s a “niche” market, to be sure . . . a fun thing with “four on the floor”, the sensation of speed . . . and an opportunity to “grow up” to the real thing, in due time. Back then, owners of the “then” new thing were tricked into thinking their little bug could fly . . . whoops, drive forever on a gallon or two of gasoline. But in time, even those tricks wore thin . . . and fuel economy was finally recognized for what it was, a “ploy” to sell cars, as the real costs of ownership finally became apparent.
The rest of the story? . . . Mill Valley VW didn’t do a good job of tightening down the hold-down bolts of the cylinders . . . you know, “stripping tight, plus a half turn”, and upon returning to Santa Ana, the engine . . . and reduction gear bearings in the rear wheels were in for a major “rebuild”. But maybe the cost was worth the expense. Health problems within our small family, and a civil war in Nigeria . . . took us in a new direction.
And the VW bus? . . . It served as a healthy down-payment on a BMW 2002 in ABQ . . . which began the next long lesson on being excited about a fun thing to drive, without good reliability . . . I think I’ve done enough to earn a PhD in exciting things to own and drive . . . maybe! Another BMW, another new “water cooled” VW (400 miles per quart of oil . . . the Germans said, "That's normal!"), and a new Volvo (that was a farce) . . . me thinks the Japanese have got it right. (There was some GM and Chrysler in there, somewhere . . . not fun, not reliable . . . but cheap, sort!)
Maybe there’s something in this for those who have been so enamored by the vision of what they thought the little bird to be . . . they might learn early on that sometimes it’s best to cut the losses, and face reality. And then again, me thinks I’m speaking to an empty house.
gadfly
(And now, we return to your regularly scheduled broadcast!)
C U, does EA hold its' own Repair Station Certificate?
Not the one issued to Ken Ross and NAJ, or any other existing provider, but one issued to EA? Is there an EA Part 145 Manual? A list of EA Personnel? An EA Quality Management System?
EA didn't have a website, a phone number, or any paid personnel when they started presenting themselves as a bidder for the assets.
Then they announced the ESN with Ken Ross, and ESN didn't have a Part 145 certificate either.
Is this legal? Yes. Does it seem like deja vu all over again? That is up to each reader to decide for themselves.
ASM MAN - How do you know, as of today, that the work is being provided by another orginzation and not EA?
Because, AS OF TODAY, EA has no repair station certificate and thus no authority to work on or modify their own airplanes or any one else's airplanes. A mechanic or authorized inspector working for EA could sign off the work under his own signature and/or prepare a FAA Form 337 following major repairs that would have to be accepted by the FAA. That's a long way from saying EA is modifying airplanes and performing maintenance. But don't let that stop you. Go. Enjoy. Don't forget your checkbook.
Sorry Guys - been consumed by a pesky customer ;) ;) - It's cutting into my blogging time ;)
-------------
Re 787...
Shadow - in case you don't know - Boeing (and most other manufacturers) does NOT hold on to R&D or test flight planes. They sell them to customers. And Boeing's plans WERE TO SELL every single one of these early 787s.
Now they are writing them off as "having no commercial value".
Boeing will have NO USE for all these frames. That is why I said they are "basically scrapping" them.
It is immaterial if they are actually scrapping them, donating them to a museum or keeping them around for unknown or uncalled for uses.
It is a monumental - that is wright - monumental admission that these frames are so overweight and so messed up by patches that they can't be brought up to a commercially viable and usable configuration.
If you understood Boeing's practice on all recent programs that is astounding!!! Losing 3-6 $200M airliners as scrap!!!!
If you don't understand how big a deal this is, you don't know Boeing and modern A/C manufacturing.
Deep Blue, the info I got was from listening in the Boeing Conference Call - the info came from the CFO.
THe other thing the CFO said is that they will take a $2.5M charge in 2Q (IIRC).
You know what that is?
That is playing to prevent forward losses on the delivered frames.
It is a way to show 787 as a profitable airliner program.
This is a massive failure from Boeing. They are trying to sweep the financial consequences by scrapping 3-6 frames and taking a charge now to avoid forward losses.
I hope this is the last bit of bad news on this program. Very disappointing.
or 3Q, I forgot.
Then they announced the ESN with Ken Ross, and ESN didn't have a Part 145 certificate either.
Is this legal? Yes. Does it seem like deja vu all over again? That is up to each reader to decide for themselves.
---------------------
What is the big deal CW? Companies can have owned subsidiaries and/or partners with 145 certificates.
It is immaterial what cert they use and what amount of work is done by EA directly, a subsidiary or a contracted partner.
I actually give them points for priming the pump and hitting the ground running with an existing 145 and experience on had for the upgrades in progress.
What did you want them to do.
Wait weeks to close the sale. Then wait more weeks to hire people. Then wait more weeks to write a 145 operating manual. Then wait more weeks to get a 145 cert. Then and only then start doing mods?
Come on!!!!
They are doing the right thing. Hit the ground running with actual experience on the mods under their belt.
EA's success will be based on establishing a value chain of partners, vendors, affiliates, etc.
I give them points for that. Right thinking.
"It is immaterial what cert they use and what amount of work is done by EA directly, a subsidiary or a contracted partner."
Are you completely out of your mind?
Phil-
About your prior post-about guesstimating 787 first flight?
Now that Boeing has announced first flight is before the end of the year, you can just go ahead and award the "prize" to the only person that predicted first flight this year-
B95
. . . . . . . . .
But seriously, folks.
Aside from the lost value from the early airframes, can anyone try to explain how an airplane that's not close enough to the production plane . . . to be sold as one . . . can be used for all the certification tests (because it DOES represent the production airplane)?
And now that I've "lost" the first flight prediction contest, I'll venture a different prediction.
I guarantee that this will be the last 787 delay announced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by the current CEO and Executive team.
Another slip, and you just can't possibly make a case for keeping any of the current "leadership" around.
So did the check clear today?
Where is the joyous shouting from the rooftops?
Where are the 'told ya so's'?
Didn't the trustee say he wanted this done by the 28th (today)?
Doesn't the ten day time limit to close time-out early next week?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
ColdWetAndAnxious said... Doesn't the ten day time limit to close time-out early next week?
You answered your own question.
No Skids said...can anyone try to explain how an airplane that's not close enough to the production plane . . . to be sold as one . . . can be used for all the certification tests (because it DOES represent the production airplane)?
--------------------
Good question and the answer is complicated, but basically it boils down to;
1 - Frames 1-6 are all aerodynamically conformant and systems conformant - so all related cert tests ate no brainers.
2 - That leaves out structure (static, dynamic load testing, fatigue, etc). A lot of those tests are done in the static and fatigue test frames, not these 6 frames. And the rest can be done by analysis. You build your FEA model, test, pre-fix, calibrate, test post-fix, calibrate, show by analysis that permanent fix - post ZA020 will also work.
I'm oversimplifying, but basically that is how it goes. Now, there is always some tension (but not much) between the OEM anf the FAA/EASA on what can be done by analysis and what must be shown in practice, but in the end, the FAA knows that no plane can be certified if you need to re-run all tests after every fix. It is an impossibility.
Do you think that the first 772 off the line is the same as the last? Nope, there are continuous improvements and weight savings that are cut in in blocks. For the 787 the first major cut in in the 20th frame. From there on they'll be substantially lighter. All that is done by analysis.
So yes, the exact configuration of the planes we fly, have never actually been the ones tested for certification.
Post a Comment