At this point, an orphaned aircraft with a predatory and monopolistic support structure like the Eclipse, would never make my list of aircraft to consider purchasing.

BTW, Ken, you're not helping the cause.

Just sayin'

Ken, you don't happen to have a Creepy Crawler do you?

I don't want one. Something tells me I wouldn't like EclipseTalk very much.

I will break out one of my favorite lines. "If anymore gang banging goes on round here, at least feel guilty enough to buy the man a beer"

Defending the Eclipse seems to be like defending the Maginot line without the wine and cheese.

Cirrus owes Ken a paycheck.......(ok, I'll buy the beer)

I'm not here to defend the Eclipse. It does just fine on it's own. It's a good plane; you said so yourself. I'm just having a little fun.

But I'm not attacking your credibility. I believe you when you said you had a serious air data problem but decided to take off with it on the next flight straight into IMC. I wouldn't have done that myself; I think it's bad judgment, but I believe you when you say that you did. Your credibility is intact with me.

It's all in good fun, Ted. And I do indeed wish you well with your new purchase.

Ken

IMHO that's hogwash.

In 6 years of ownership, flying through all kinds of conditions, I've never seen a false stall warning. You've got an issue with the air data system--maybe it's a bad probe, bad ADC, an anomaly with the plumbing, a sneak leak somewhere, failure to comply with the probe AD (that could and did cause exactly this scenario in the past), or failure to completely drain the system and keep it from accumulating moisture (my money's on that one). Whatever the cause, you've got an issue with that airplane. Don't blame the design; ensuring the aircraft is maintained in an airworthy state is *your* responsibility.

Do you have any idea how galactically stupid you would look if you crashed the plane and somebody found out you'd had an air data failure on the previous flight that scared the hell out of you, but you decided it wasn't worthy of repair before further flight because you really wanted to get where you were going?

Ken

I'm not here to defend the Eclipse. It does just fine on it's own. It's a good plane; you said so yourself. I'm just having a little fun.

But I'm not attacking your credibility. I believe you when you said you had a serious air data problem but decided to take off with it on the next flight straight into IMC. I wouldn't have done that myself; I think it's bad judgment, but I believe you when you say that you did. Your credibility is intact with me.

It's all in good fun, Ted. And I do indeed wish you well with your new purchase.

Ken

Dave, I agree they did have some problematic parts, but they've corrected many of them through updated parts, new suppliers, and software changes. Owners today think the plane is quite reliable. My 6 years of ownership have been really quite good--way better reliability than when I owned a piston plane--and most of the owners I know feel similarly.

Maybe the Eclipse is just successful at weeding out you operators that it doesn't like .

Anyway, I can take a hint, so I'll bail out here and give the stage back to Ted .

Ken

Excellent.

I don't care who you are, you've taken off with something others would consider essential, inop. I don't think anyone here can deny that. If you understand what keeps airplanes aloft, you know a faulty gauge or two might not kill you. On the other hand, it may.

Be safe out there, invest in reliable equipment and have fun. Hostility helps no one.

Correct me If I am wrong, cessna had no problems certifying the mustang was pretty much on time with delivery and on target with performance, eclipse failing short on all of them with there first jet. Mustangs sells well even though It costs more to buy and burns more fuel to go slower. After reading this post I can See why more people bought mustangs rather than an eclipse.

It's funny how the Phenon 100 wasn't a bigger success.

It would prefer the Embraer over the Mustang or Eclipse any day.

It did cost more $$$, but it's a real jet when you look inside.

Only real downside are those economy seats!

I remember when Ted first started looking into the Eclipse and I relayed some expereinces a friend of mine had as he acquired one of the last planes off the original production line. It was awful. I can now say in retrospect that this bird has voodoo all over it.....it's one of those productions that someone always seems to be proping up because its value statement won't hold up on it's own. 1.0, 1.5, 4.5 or whatever version they get to....regardless of who picks up this company ....I can't see it turning around. Too many other options out there to have to put up with it or risk that much money. Ted, once again you have shown great wisdom and benefited us all by sharing the experience.

Cessna used a lot of "off the shelf" components, so certification was a lot easier, but it came with the price of weight. Eclipse designed smaller, lighter weight components that are single sourced in low volume. Every blessing has a curse.

The world has changed a lot since the inception of the Eclipse. Cessna took a different direction and it worked. They probably saw the weakness developing in the CJ1 market and split the difference. It's pretty nice to have both feet actively in the market when you are developing new product.

Ted,

This has been a great thread - thanks! No shortage of TYPE A's here and sometimes that leads to a little head butting. Nothing that a F2F and a beer wouldn't quickly fix....

Maybe I missed something but have you told us any details about your move to the "Citation club"? I'm very interested in hearing what you are thinking about. I might also be in the market and I like following smart guys around.

Last week, I had dinner with Mark Hangen and he told me wonderful things about the Citation 550 with the sierra upgrade. It seems like one of the best buys on the market but I'm a total newb so I just watch what guys like you and JC are doing...