I am curious about that loss. If your friend took delivery in 2008, he probably paid about 1.3M for it. I see a lot of 2008 Eclipses for sale for 1.3M right now, some as high as 1.7M. Where is the loss?

BTW, G IV charters run about $6,000/hr. If he's flown at least 200 hrs since 2008, that would add up to 1.2M, which is pretty much what he paid for the plane. Somehow I doubt his plane is totally worthless now.

I am curious about that loss. If your friend took delivery in 2008, he probably paid about 1.3M for it. I see a lot of 2008 Eclipses for sale for 1.3M right now, some as high as 1.7M. Where is the loss?

BTW, G IV charters run about $6,000/hr. If he's flown at least 200 hrs since 2008, that would add up to 1.2M, which is pretty much what he paid for the plane. Somehow I doubt his plane is totally worthless now.

So why not rip out that Avio crap and stick a G600 in there? I understand you need an STC, but it shouldn't be that hard to get when this kind of money is involved.

Oh, and I know some Beech pilots who's tires last an average of 20 landings.

Was the DFO at Eclipse, flew almost every s/n in production flight test.
Have over 1300 hours in the world's only true VLJ.
They will go into production and they have succeeded as Eclipse Aerospace since the bankruptcy buy out...in the black the entire time. Their linkup with Sikorsky and therefore United Technologies will prevail.
The jet is quite capable and competes against a King Air 200 in operational costs.
Sweet Jet.
Kent Ewing
President BPPP Inc

I'm the friend to whom Kevin M. was referring -- so let me clarify. The total of fixed and variable costs during 21 mos. of ownership, and the loss on the sale which Andy accurately characterized, was slightly more than $800,000. The plane was flown about 150 hours during that period -- I'm pretty sure I could have chartered a GIV for that.

The high costs were obviously compounded by the company bankruptcy and subsequent loss of warranty (and the associated loss of value). By jet standards, the variable (fuel and engine reserve) costs were quite low, so a prospective buyer should be cheered by that... if you have confidence in the viability of the new company.

The plane is way fun to fly, but you need to pay careful attention to the mission limitations. If your range requirements are 600nm or less, the new version with (finally) capable avionics would be a decent choice. Yes, they claim 1,000nm+, but a conservative pilot is not going to assume anything close to that.

If I had to guess, I'd say the future of Eclipse will depend on what Piper, Diamond, and Cirrus deliver. If those companies can actually meet their specs and price points, then
a twin-engine Eclipse with limited range at $2.6MM+ is going to be a niche market at best.

I would think Eclipse has about 3-5 year window to get established and maintain a large enough fleet. It will take that long for Cirrus, Piper, Diamond to get certified and really start sales and production. The reason I think it will take so long is that all three, from what I can follow, are counting on either FAA waivers or changes to Part 23 certification requirements (the current rules never considered a single engine jet) to get the planes into production.

Further, the FAA announced recently they are considering a rewrite of Part 23. If they do so, I think they will be even less inclined for a waiver until the new rules are established/finalized or dam close to being done. With that in mind, and how fast the FAA moves, I think Eclipse has some time. Question is will the general economy or the aviation segment improve enough for Eclipse to be really established.


Tim

When Eclipse first introduced the plane at Oshkosh, you could tell there was more hype than knowledge. It was just a matter of time before the whole thing came crashing down. I felt at the time that anybody that bought one would be very sorry.
People stood in line to give Eclipse a deposit.
A couple of years ago I got to fly one and fell in love. I guess anyone can finally build a nice plane, if they spend about a billion dollars of other peoples money!
If I could get one at a initial price I could afford, I would jump on it.
People lost money on every general aviation/business jet.
Jets that would have been 20mil a couple of years ago went for less than 10 mil. The Eclipse went from 1.3 to about 600K-700k.
plus the large maintenence cost of another 100k or so. Thats huge, but all jet owners took just as big or bigger hits. If ya gonna play ya gotta pay, Play big and pay big.
Also just because you see Eclipse jets listed for 1.3 does not mean they sell for anywhere near that price.

I've pretty much tipped my hand already. I love the idea of a personal jet. Don't get wrong, I am a very happy Bonanza owner / pilot. That being said, there's definitely times I'd like to get higher, get there faster, etc...

Sooooo, I'm always looking @ BT, Controller, etc... and doing the math.

Right now there are a couple of Eclipse 500's for sale in the $700,000's. It's my guess that these don't have the latest greatest avionics upgrade. The good news is that the folks @ Eclipse can take care of that for ya.

Yup, for only $349,000 to $959,000 they can upgrade that tired ol panel.


Well, here's hoping that the new Eclipse 550's are everything they're advertised as being. (1,100 mile range, 425 mph cruise, 41,000' ceiling and up to 6 people total capacity) And also hoping that the folks @ Cirrus get their Vision Jet up and running.

Oh, and here's also praying that our Country experiences a "True Recovery", both economically and politically !


blue skies

Dean: When I looked at a local partnership for an Eclipse, the current owners told me Eclipse would only upgrade planes for original owners and there was some time frame for that. Their priority was to move from retro fitting old planes to producing new ones. Obviously, the old planes compete with new ones and new Eclipse doesn't make much on retro fits in anything; they do it more to smooth out previous problems.

Also, regarding the remark above yours about Eclipse making money on each new sale. Well, I'm sure they have some large amount of fixed overhead. That would mean they wouldn't cover that without some minimum number of sales.

Good luck to them. The market was much deeper at the under $1MM price point they initially promised than at $2.7 MM. I was sharpening my pencil at the old number. Not spending time on it at the new one. Of course, 2.7 is only the entry price.

Best,

Dave

[quote="Andy Stelmaszek"

The ones selling for 1.3million now are heavily upgraded, most at a cost of 700K to 1.3million over the 2 years of ownership plus the original 1.5million spend on the purchase. If he upgraded it and then sold it, he probably lost more money than if he just scrapped it in the first place. Go to their website and see what is costs to upgrade avionics alone (http://eclipseaerospace.net/upgrades.php). Anywhere between 350K and 960K. Now, how much does it cost to totally scrap a King Air panel and put a G1000 in there? 350K. Avidyne R9 is closer to 90K for a Piper Meridian update, What does this former system do that the latter do not?

960K and still less than features than a dual G600 with a GTN750 and GTN650 can do. I would never, ever purchase an aircraft that does not come with a standard, third part avionics suite from the likes of Garmin, Collins or Honeywell. That's a very quick pathway to financial disaster. "

The AD came out on the engines limiting altitude till fixed. Original projected cost of $50k. Avionics upgrades were out of the question as the company was doing nothing to get the process for stc for upgrades that would have given the plane capabilities already current in the likes of a C182. A simple chip related to non-essential function ( can't remember the specifics) cost $10k to replace and an extinguisher in one of the engines was leaking after about 20 hours. No fiki, etc. Over the last year (now after the sale), Sikorsky has brought more stability and avionics upgrades are being done. I still would be suspicious of the old ones. And for 2.4 I would think there are a lot of alternatives.


Even if I had the money for the operating expenses, you could not give me an Eclipse. Did I mention the tires on average last 20 landings.[/quote]

Andy, right or wrong, the avionics in the Eclipse are so heavily integrated into the airplane that it couldn't fly at all with a "Standard Package."


Your choice, which is fine. But please don't malign the aircraft with untruths. Properly flown, tires last 100+ landings, which is bad enough, but 20 is a terrible exaggeration. They are supposed to fix that with more than the single-source tires. The spares I bought were $1,200 each, too. It's been three years since I've flown the aircraft, and I'm not up-to-date on it.

The Eclipse is a fine little aircraft, a dream to fly - when all is well. I can remember one flight from Cabo San Lucas to Nogales at FL340, TAS 340, and fuel burn of 70 GPH, with four pax and me aboard, all legal. Smooth, quiet, cool and comfortable. If they could just get the airplane to do that routinely...

On the other hand, I had one flight from Van Nuys to Camarillo that scared the living daylights out of me, and I thought I was fearless. I have NEVER been so shaken, and I've had more than my share of "abnormalities." I would not wish that on anyone. Entirely the airplane, nothing else.

Best...
John Deakin
Advanced Pilot Seminars
jdeakin@advancedpilot.com

If you go to their website and watch the video showcasing the avionics......

It's pretty impressive. ( I know, I know, this coming from a guy who flies a vintage steam gauge Bo whose most advanced instrument is the 496, and yes, I still miss my Loran )

Anyway, looks like a very capable avionics suite now. But man, $900K+ to upgrade an older model I think a person could update 3 citations to the G1000 for that price.

Still can't help but like the little jet though.


Ok, gotta come clean here on the Near Death Experience in the Eclipse here. You just can't leave us hanging.

When properly flown? What does that mean? 2 mile long runways and arresting cables? 20 is not a terrible exaggeration, it's the initial service record on these things. Touchy brakes + landing speed + small tire size + lack of ABS = bold spots, big, bold spots

The biggest problem with aviation is the fact that most of us are 'in love' with our aircraft. Here is my exchange with mooney aircraft company yesterday in regards to a voltage regulator for a M20M:

-It's a MAC part, manufactured by Zeftronics, but a MAC part non the less

-It's $1890 with delivery of 1 to 2 weeks after order via MAC so basically between sometimes in the future and never

-Zeftronics will not touch one to repair unless send to them by MAC

-MAC will not touch one either

-Zeftronics does not make a PMA replacement part but they do make the part

-A certain MSC located in the same area of Zeftronics will fix the existing one for a fraction of the cost of new. Great. Being it was shipped overnight for today's delivery, I wonder which Zeftronics employee is calling in sick today for some extra cash on the side.

-Welcome to the strange world of aviation

-If I run my company the same way as MAC I'd be out of business. Oh, they are

If any other company did this to me, I'd be looking for a competitor. I love how it's a "fine little jet" other than your near death experience. 2.7 million for a new eclipse or 2.7 million for a slightly used Mustang. No brainer.

As in fly-by-wire? Or controlling the anti-lock brakes? Or the FADEC? No on all fronts, standard mechanical flight controls, no anti-lock brakes, FADEC by P&W.

I'm pretty positive that with all the avionics removed and a few switches installed to control flaps and landing gear the EA50 will fly just peachy without anything else in the panel but an airspeed indicator. I didn't say safely, but fly it will.

You all believe what you want $900,000 grand for $10K worth of hardware (yes, I said 10K, circuit boards and LCD displays do not cost any more or less whether they go into my washing machine or an airplane or a G1000/G5000, Honeywell Epic or Collins ProLine).

As to software, I understand, that's my business actually. It's called "scale", that's why small companies like Eclipse should not be in the software business when companies the size of Cessna aren't and instead source their cockpits from Garmin, Collins and Honeywell.

Actually went to watch the video, appears they wrote the video player as well It only stopped on me 5 or 6 times...