Hi; We are talking about the unknown with this airplane. I have been in the flight test and pre-purchase inspection business for 35 years. After you have researched this fleet of airplanes, it is time to get down to this particular one. Start off with a flight test, at the maximum performance numbers, Testing all the avionics along the way. Then shake hands with the airframe, think out of the box. That is what I do. Maybe you read about me in the AOPA Pilot magazine, February 1999 & October 2009. In the turbine sections. If not Google me with “Don Sebastian prebuy” prebuy@gmail.com (910) 315-0099 ATP/A&P/CFII

duplicate

Yves, I don't think so - they regularly fly out of my 2,600' strip

Yes some do, but maybe they shouldn't. During a conversation on another type club forum one Eclipse owner was discussing performance with a CJ2 owner. The CJ owner asked how he could make the accelerated stop charts work whilst operating out of the 2500' strip. The response was:

"The Eclipse, as a Part 23 normal category aircraft, includes the takeoff data specified in FAR 23.53. You will not find accelerate/stop listed there; it's a 23.55 requirement that applies only to commuter category planes."

As a pilot with a lot of hours in jets....it scares me that does not provide charts to consider such an important factor in balanced field length. What's more, the Eclipse pilot did not think it was an issue.

As for the $650,000, seems about right considering the fate of the company. I hope they can get back on their feet. It would only be good for aviation.

Kevin

Actually, it's the other way around. It was way underpriced (like 2 times), and that's what killed the company. It had nothing to do with the airframe itself. The problem was with the economic model which relied on mass production and economies of scale to achieve a profit point. As we know, the market simply was not there, and that was the end of them. Had they priced it realistically (around 2 mil) they would still be around, happily making 50 units a year. Of course, that wasn't Raburn's vision...

As for the aircraft itself - avionics issues aside, it's a fine little airplane, and if I had $650K to spend, I would be all over it.

A guy at Brandywine (3100ft) near Philadelphia made it off the end and down an embankment in 2008. Like any accident report on a small jet overrun it starts with the famous words

..... He believed that he was "a little high" on the approach so he "dipped down." As he passed the runway threshold his speed was "a little high," but he thought it was manageable........



Now you could say 'ah, typical VLJ owner, no experience blabla'. This guy had 6300hrs with type ratings in Lears and Hawkers......

+1. This is exactly what 90% of their problem was (organization issues aside). They under-priced it on a unit basis and over-estimated their market.

-Neal

Actually, it's the other way around. It was way underpriced (like 2 times), and that's what killed the company. It had nothing to do with the airframe itself. The problem was with the economic model which relied on mass production and economies of scale to achieve a profit point. As we know, the market simply was not there, and that was the end of them. Had they priced it realistically (around 2 mil) they would still be around, happily making 50 units a year. Of course, that wasn't Raburn's vision...

As for the aircraft itself - avionics issues aside, it's a fine little airplane, and if I had $650K to spend, I would be all over it.

What happened to 'Mr Direct Operating Cost' here ?

600nm 4 pax

Eclipse 885lbs
CJ1 1375lbs
Premier 1432lbs

Also, there is a bit of a spread between 2mil and the competition.

A 2009 Mustang is 2.8mil
A 2009 CJ1+ is 4.2mil
A 2008 Premier is 4.6mil



So yes, there would have been a business case for a jet that burns 30% less fuel than the next competitor and costs between .8 and 2mil less.

The "competitors" you listed aren't the only competitors.

BS. There are plenty of companies (in aviation and otherwise) which had a great product, and failed due to mismanagement or other reasons totally unrelated to the product itself.

Proof? What proof?

.. But you said "just go get a CJ", didn't you?

You said Just go get a CJ.

I compared the prices for current year used models with published asking prices (which admittedly tend to be higher than published position prices). I even included the Mustang which is arguably a variant of the CJ. There is still a difference in direct operating cost and for people who don't have 'free money' in capital cost.

Yes, the 'other competitors' are 10 year old CJs and 501 longwings, but that is an apples to pineapples comparison.

A twin jet at 2 mil that fulfilled it specs and the promised dispatch reliability would have had a market if it had been sold by a stable and/or reputable company. As someone else stated, that market would have been maybe 50 units per year, maybe more maybe less, but certainly not hundreds.

I agree. The best evidence is the Cessna Mustang, which runs closer to $3M, and has delivered about 300 units since 2007. If you could get Citation-like reliability and support at a $2M price point I think the Eclipse would have succeeded.