There is proof that they burned through 8 times the development and marketing money compared to their next competitor and brought a product to market that was still in its beta-1 phase.

One thing that seriously hurt Eclipse was that the Williams engine did not perform as specified. So they had to significantly redesign the airframe for the P/W engines.

And how exactly does that prove that there is no business case for a jet that burns 30% less fuel than the next competitor and costs between .8 and 2mil less.?

I think it's time for the obligatory porn video

[youtube]http://youtu.be/DG-KXKN_jjM[/youtube]

"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.


Kevin

I would accept the gift of an Eclipse ONLY if it was unconditional. Then I would sell it.

There are so many problems with this plane. The legality of the avionics is terrible. The dearth of included avionics is unforgivable considering the availability of modern equipment. In their haste to make deliveries Eclipse did not get certification on all of the sparse navigation equipment making it illegal to fly within the "system" except on airways. So much more could have been in the panel and fully tested, and certificated, and thus legal.

This is a sad situation. The Eclipse may go the way of the Beech Starship but without a "Father" company to buy back the unwanted planes.

One more lesson in aviation business.

Since WWII the U.S. airlines (combined) have a very significant net loss. It is a terrible business and even worse than the manufacturing side of aviation. New planes coming onto the market require a 20+ year amortization to break even but airlines keep placing orders...there is no logic to explain why airlines operate as they do.

Only six U.S. corporations have made money making airplanes AND survived without a bankruptcy: Beech, Boeing, Cessna, Cirrus, Gulfstream and Lockheed. Of these six will there be a fatality in the near future? ??? Cirrus is the weakest.

I am always surprised that people are willing to put up capital to fund new aerospace ventures. Is it the romance of flying? Maybe so, but still it involves more hope than brains to be an investor in a new aviation company.

Thread drift warning.

Your questions are valid but as usual the answer can be found if you follow the money.

Airlines themselves have never been money makers and in fact a 2% return is considered phenomenal in the airline industry.

There is money to be made, however. Leasing companies, OEMs and support industries all do very well. They need the airlines to facilitate their businesses but the airlines only need to be successful enough to survive.

Most airlines today own little of their fleet ( in quite a few cases they own none - even when orders are placed the airframes are usually sold an leased back shortly after delivery) and in fact own very few real assets. Airlines do generate a tremendous amount of cash, they just capture very little of it themselves. One major airline's former CEO had an interest in one of the smaller leasing companies and I am sure there are others who do as well. There will always be capital available to finance airline start ups. The profits will only show up in the balance sheets of associated companies.

"Hey, isn't this a conflict of interest? Naw, we call that a synergy."

Yes sir, and I was one of those idiots that was within days of putting a down payment on one of the EA400's. I was just waiting to head home at the end of the week to do it. This is the only time in my life I gave thanks to Dulles Airport for their delays.

Exactly ! They just did it because it all was a marketing joke. They figured out by making the EA400 they could do an extra round of cheating investors!

I have said it the day it was announced. Raoul Pieper is a criminal in Belgium. He frauded Belgium investors with a company called Lernaut & Hauspie 10 years ago. When he came to Eclipse I knew what was going on. Unfortunately it's the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Sloot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernout_%26_Hauspie

Say it ain't so Mikey. I sat in every seat of the mock up of the cirrus jet @ NBAA this past year. I loved it. The room in the cockpit and the cabin was unbelievable (maybe that should be our first clue huh?).

Those things are sexy.... They get you to thinking "Ok, ok, it'll be just fine if my kids go to a vo-tech instead of college, and who needs a 401K? I'll just fly around and sleep on friends and family's couches when I retire

Dino,

I had two friends that made a killing by selling their slot on the 500, so thats why I was looking to do it on the 400. God was good to me that day for not being able to get back home to pursue this further.

Doug

I feel ya. Kinda like the 35 or 33 to the 36. Sports coupe vs Sports sedan


Well at least they R both V-tails vs Piper tails...

Doug,

I've got some friends down here ( yeah, who knew I had friends right ?) who weren't so lucky. They got caught up in the whole "Buy a spec lot in a luxury development on the coast and flip it" craze. One buddy owns 3 of them, he's sitting on a 60% loss should he sell right now. Fortunately he has the ability to wait it out.

I'd hate to be one of the folks that got caught up in this and financed it.

Because when Eclipse gave this to the market (they tried to sell their jet at 30% less fuel and at .8 and 2mil less than the next competitor) they didn't get the orders they need to make it happen. = proof that there is no business case.