Last I've heard, Ted is loving the plane. He just does not like the company and their support policies.

Hey, at least we're not trashing Dukes today..

They are very similar in size & range as well as running cost ($ per NM), even when compared to the Royal Turbines for the same sticker price.. a Regular Duke does 200ktas, RTD goes 300kias, the Eclipse gets close to 400ktas with almost exactly the same fuel & range.

A regular Duke will run you 150-300, you can get an Eclipse for under 1M, a Royal Turbine will run you about 1.2M 'new'.

The main complaint with the plane is not the design or its capabilities but rather the criminal enterprise that designed and built it.

They are not any more criminal than hundreds of dotcom entrepreneurs (or should I say dreamers) who started their companies with Other People's Money and promptly went under in the same era. In fact, Raburn is one of them.

Of course, they grossly underestimated the effort. If they did not get involved with the stupid Avio project and didn't turn the plane into a flying computer, but rather focused on the goal of making a simple light jet at lowest possible price, it could have tuned out quite differently.

Left a very bad taste in my mouth when they started throwing their weight around be fore they delivered anything. I tried to negotiate the escrow agreement which basically said: we'll notify you and you send us money. No benchmarks or third parties to review. I just got out of the way, but many others signed those completely one sided agreements and sent a lot of money.

Best,

Dave

No argument the company was terrible and ultimately led to their own demise. The guy that bought my last baron lost his deposit with them and was pretty bitter about it, obviously. Like I said in my post though, it was not about the company or the support from them to date, but simply a matter of performance. Some folks say that there is no market for an eclipse and my argument to that would be that I would think there would be MORE of an argument for the eclipse than the TBM. It cost less, operates more efficiently, has two jet engines, and the performance is far better. But what the heck do I know, I am just a lousy no good air traffic controller that can't afford either of them!

I agree with the point Stewart is trying to make. When I first started flying the Eclipse, I was told many untruths by nearly everyone I spoke with- some came from this board.

1. no FIKI meant it would be a VFR only airplane and that I would be cancelling trips all the time. Truth- I have flown more than 50 hours, plenty of that in IMC, including two ski trips into mountain airports and have not yet once had to cancel/delay a trip due to an icing concern.

2. that because the Eclipse is so slow, I would never get cleared to FL400 or FL410. Truth- I have received these altitudes every time I request, and that is what I typically file for. In fact, I am often cleared to these altitudes before the plane can climb there (i.e. without any level offs)

3. no coupled autopilot would mean hand-flying approaches which is too much for a single pilot in a jet, especially a low time jet pilot such as myself. Truth- the airplane is an extremely stable instrument platform and you can slow it down to fly the entire approach at 115 knots if you wanted to (I don't- I perfer to fly them fast). I stopped flying regular coupled approaches in my 530W/Stec55 equipped baron a while ago when I realized how rusty of a pilot it made me. During type rating training, I hand-flew single engine approaches to single engine missed approaches in actual IMC. I find it easier to handle than any piston twin.

4. there is no space inside. truth- the eclipse has more room than my baron. Smaller than my 414 for sure, but much more comfortable than a baron.

5. useful load is terrible. truth- I can (and have) put 4 people with bags for a week and ski gear in the airplane with full fuel. What's more, the single engine climb rate is still about 1,000 FPM at sea level even at max t/o weight.

6. I would be AOG all the time with extremely expensive problems. truth- While I have had to deal with a few of the 'Eclipse idiosyncrasies,' I have not yet once been stuck on the ground or had to cancel a trip in over 50 hours. (knocking on my wooden desk as I type this)

7. Insurance would be impossible to get or extremely expensive due to companies not wanting to touch the early versions. Truth- very reasonable insurance was easy to obtain. In fact, this policy cost less than the best quote I could get for my Cessna 414 a few years ago (and that's with double the liability limit and 5x the hull value!)

I finally realized that most people who speak negatively of the aircraft have never flown one, never ridden in one, never even sat in one, probably never even seen one in person!

It is not a new Lear or Gulfstream, but IMHO it is far more capable than any piston twin.

The TMB and Pilatus are incredible machines, but tools for a different mission.

One final truth is that the Eclipse is very addicting. Fly it for a while, and you will never want to go back to an airplane with propellers (or dare I say it, reciprocating engines! )

Appreciate the update Ted. Even though I will probably have a recip I would much prefer a turbine at some time. So what are the idiosyncrasies?

Well, I haven't flown the TBM, but I have flown the Eclipse (and have sat extensively in both).

IMHO, neither one is really quite big enough, which is why I own neither. They are not the same size airplanes, though, the TBM is still a bit bigger based simply on my impression. I am tall and I simply didn't like sitting in the back of the Eclipse, the seats are way too low and I feel like I'm sitting cross-legged. And that is assuming only 2 seats were left in the back, with a 3 rear seat configuration (i.e. 5 in aircraft total), I can't really sit in the seats much at all.

And performance has many parameters, so it depends on what you're after. If you go in and out of short fields a lot, a turboprop makes much more sense. If you are kept at low altitudes a lot, your range in the jet will be negatively impacted a fair bit more in the jet. I think the Eclipse is a bit skinny on range in the first place, I think their advertised range numbers are on the optimistic side given that in the real world you don't get nice straight climbs to altitude or descents, and prudence often needs a hair more fuel reserve.

For two people with occasionally a couple extra the Eclipse seems like a great little machine, assuming you are willing to deal with the uncertainty surrounding its support and such.

Theodore-
Responding to your point 7 in your post.

Insurance for a twin-engine turbo-jet can't be compared to a twin-engine piston - they are apples and oranges from a rating standpoint in terms of how underwriters price the risk and the liability limits available. Look no further than the actuarial data surrounding losses etc. between the two classes. But you are right on in that jet insurance is very favorable from both a premium and limits available standpoint when comparing the two.

The Eclipse insurance market is not bad at present and certainly will improve as they move into production again (ie more units produced and insured). It was down to one or two carriers during the bankruptcy and airframe/avionics issues - Chartis has been the primary insurer for most Eclipses since the early days of the company and they still are a major insurer of the type. The insurance market for Eclipses is at present about 4-5 underwriting companies which leaves the consumer with choices (always a good thing!). So in short there should be no insurance related issues even for transition pilots into this type.

For the right mission is exactly right. As I said it all depends on the mission and if someone requires more range than 1000nm then the Eclipse just isn't the bird to do it.

Gerry,

Why do you think bigger is more stable?


Tim

Yep, I don't understand it. Then again, I could never understand the Cirrus bashing either. Oops, did I say Cirrus?

Wing loading for the Eclipse 41 lbs

Wing loading for the TBM850 38 lbs