Your friend's brother bought an Eclipse version that the company announced years ago it would no longer support and wondered why they wouldn't support it by supplying him a mentor?

Eclipse announced in 2011 that they could no longer support the un-upgraded versions as of March 2013; this was not a sudden capricious act against him in particular, and guys who bought one of those un-upgraded planes after the announcement--including Ted Wright--should certainly have known what they were getting into. In any event, there are at least dozen mentors not working for Eclipse Aerospace that are happy to train anybody in any version of the plane. The story is missing something; as written it makes no sense. That's not your fault--third hand stories are often missing something.

Regrettably, quite a lot of Ted Wright's Eclipse rant is incorrect too. Ted started with a kernel of truth: Eclipse does charge a lot for parts (other jet manufacturers do that too) and Eclipse does have some monopolistic policies (more so than other manufacturers)--but he added all kinds of stuff that is just incorrect, invalidating the whole rant.

Perhaps an honest discussion would be in order if anybody is interested in finding out the facts.

Ken

I don't believe anything I have said in any posts here is incorrect. I really feel like I have made an honest and factual representation with my experiences.

The problem is that Eclipse owners will not allow a fair and balanced discussion of the aircraft. Anything negative is deleted from their board, as they believe this could scare away people doing their due diligence and ultimately devalue their investments. At least, that is how I had it explained to me. Ken is a member of this group, hence the 'kernel of truth' comment, which I would find insulting if I didn't know where he was coming from.

I was banned from the owners club. Why? I posted the information about a subcomponent. I was not negative or critical. I only posted the facts and gave EAI the benefit of the doubt as to potentially high certification costs spread across a small fleet justifying their markup, etc. After this post, I was attacked personally and 'called names.' When I suggested this member hit the 'ignore' button, I was warned that I would need to 'show him respect' and that I was not allowed to respond as he is a highly respected 'lifetime' member and that I was just a newcomer.

Their board is HIGHLY moderated. Even when I posted up about a recurring problem I have experienced with BOTH of my jets, (it's one of several minor design flaws) I was told that I must be crazy or an idiot because there can't be anything wrong with the Eclipse 500. Like every aircraft, it has it's shortcomings. Owners of most other aircraft can accept or at least acknowledge them. But not an eclipse owner. "It's perfect."

I wish we could have an 'honest discussion' if you like Ken, but I am not convinced that would be possible with anyone from your group.

At this point in my life, I'm not in need of a jet for business use but I have often wondered, if I was, why would I purchase an eclipse over a Cessna Mustang. Just considering the two manufacturers abilities, experience, history and support, I can't understand how EAI is still in existence! When Cessna announced the Mustang, I thought that was the death knoll for the eclipse. Sure would like to hear some opinions from those with jet ownership experience and what factors figure into the final decision.

Does Cessna force you to buy tires from them at triple the retail price to keep them propped up?

Ken ,

So where does the static from Eclipse come in? Do they have to do the annuals? If they do some maintenance and notice you bought tires from somebody else are you going to hear about it?

Tires are a bad example because it is probably the ONLY thing you can actually purchase outside of Eclipse (illegal in their opinion). Yes, you can save money on them. But when you need brakes, a light bulb, or virtually any other component, it MUSt be purchased through Eclipse. They say that this control is in the name of safety, and I don't totally disagree with them on that.

If Ken's plane went to Eclipse for maintenance, they might tell him he needs to replace the tires with an 'authorized' set. Of course, if he doesn't take it to them for maintenance, his plane will turn into a pumpkin in 4 more years according to EAI. I disagree with this, and Ken and I have been in agreement (which is disagreement with Eclipse)on a lot of FAA guidance regarding manufacturer's maintenance programs and service bulletins. However, that does not change the position of EAI. In their opinion, mandatory SB must be complied with, otherwise the AC is not airworthy. One friend of mine, has EAI writing letters to the FAA and his local FSDO saying that they want his aircraft grounded because it has not been maintained in accordance with the Eclipse maintenance program. It is blacklisted and he cannot purchase parts for the jet, forcing him into a potentially unsafe operating condition. (this was the A/C that hit the deer on the runway)

These are just a couple of the things going on. It's actually even worse than this, but I a cannot discuss it on a public forum.

I know there are ways to work around EAI on these from a legal standpoint, but what EAI is going to do with them down the road is another story. Personally, I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole. The information regarding the Eclipse Message board is interesting to say the least. A bunch of guys trying to protect their investment, that'll get things going to the deepest bs levels in existence.

I don't think that's actually a fair characterization. The Eclipse Owners Club is, and has been, totally independent of Eclipse. Heck, several of the current board members opposed Eclipse Aerospace in the bankruptcy, favoring a deal with Hawker Beechcraft to provide support for the fleet. Now most people recognize that the new owners of the company have done a remarkable job supporting the aircraft and bringing it back to production.

That's not to say we don't disagree with the company on some things. There is plenty of discussion of things we like and don't like about the company, things we like and don't like about the plane. The general consensus is that owners love the plane and generally like the company that supports it, with some complaints about parts pricing and policies like you'd find on other owner boards.

What isn't allowed on the owners' board is clearly posted as rules of the club, and occasionally people are censured for violating them:

"You agree not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, personal attacks or that violate any laws. You also agree to not post any copyrighted material or confidential information."

I don't know what got Ted kicked out for, but it wouldn't be simply for posting opinions about the plane or the company; that happens all the time.

Ken

If you can operate a jet for close to the per mile cost of a piston twin, or less, you'd think there would be a huge market. If the choice is a $1.5 million King Air C90 or a $1.5 million jet at the costs per hour your talking a King Air doesn't make a lot sense.

I think there's a bit more to take into consideration Tony. The C90 is eight seats and a 850 to 900 pound payload with full fuel; cabin class with a lot of creature comforts (like a potty, coffee pot and cooler). Think in terms of SUV compared to sedan or sports car. One could actually stand up and walk around a bit which can really help on a long trip. The Eclipse was about the size of my P baron. There's an STC for the KA that increases gross weight another 700 plus pounds. Last year, when I took family to the Bahamas, the KA carried seven folks (including little ones in car seats) play pens, strollers, bags of diapers and luggage. If you could get it in, you could carry it. 'Couple line guys rolled there eyes when we unloaded and stuff just kept coming out (g).

Best,

Dave

I think there's a bit more to take into consideration Tony. The C90 is eight seats and a 850 to 900 pound payload with full fuel; cabin class with a lot of creature comforts (like a potty, coffee pot and cooler). Think in terms of SUV compared to sedan or sports car. One could actually stand up and walk around a bit which can really help on a long trip. The Eclipse was about the size of my P baron. There's an STC for the KA that increases gross weight another 700 plus pounds. Last year, when I took family to the Bahamas, the KA carried seven folks (including little ones in car seats) play pens, strollers, bags of diapers and luggage. If you could get it in, you could carry it. 'Couple line guys rolled there eyes when we unloaded and stuff just kept coming out (g).

Best,

Dave

He who's stirs the S H I T pot should have to lick the spoon.....Theodore is a good guy. His post here support that. Cant imagine why he would be booted off an any forum from what I know of him through BeechTalk.

My 2 lincolns.....