That's easy to fix, hire really tiny models:

Dang, the plane looks enormous.

Not sure if this was photoshopped, or those are really small people. Screen measurements put him at about 5 foot 5 inches.

Mike C.

Ken,

Maybe crap was a little harsh
I was thinking of a few things. The crash or almost crash caused by throttle quadrants getting stuck by pushing to far.
All the custom FADEC teething and related issues.
Custom database....

Reality is, Garmin is proprietary in many ways. They just have the market share to be the "standard". As such, Eclipse was considered the odd ball.

A lot of the performance items you mentioned could likely have been solved a lot cheaper and helped sales by installing larger engines de-tuned to existing thrust levels. This increases available performance up higher.

Tim

Mike,

The Eclipse is the only jet certified under the same section of part 23 as piston twins under 6000#.

At the time of certification Eclipse argued that their airplane was so inexpensive it would be a Baron replacement and therefore should not be held to the same standard as the Baron. I don't believe the Eclipse even meets the climb requirements of the commuter category which is applied to piston twins over 6000#.

You won't find charts for balanced field, second segment, accelerate go etc in an Eclipse POH because it was never designed to climb out on a single engine.

In terms of engine failures during take-off the Eclipse is no better than a C-310.

That's easy to fix, hire really tiny models:

Dang, the plane looks enormous.

Not sure if this was photoshopped, or those are really small people. Screen measurements put him at about 5 foot 5 inches.

Mike C.

It's a Hispano-Suiza FADEC, very similar to what is used in the Mustang. Considered part of the engine actually.

I'll buy that, but are you really saying that nobody else should produce an FMS? What about all the Collins stuff, the Universal FMS's in the world, etc etc? I don't see that approach as very practical, and having lived through the "Silver Crown" era, I don't think it's good for aviation, either.

That's what they're doing with the 700. The extra weight of the 615 (it's a lot heavier than the 610) is offset by making the fuselage longer, and the extra fuel burn necessitated the wing stub.

The 700 has some very nice performance numbers, but it doesn't really interest me since the existing design fits my needs very well, and I don't want to spend the extra money. [BTW, the existing plane is an extraordinary value right now on the secondary market.]

Ken

Sorry, Jon, that's just incorrect. There is a different standard than the Part 25 climb requirement, but it's not zero climb and it's not the same as a piston twin.

If you want, I'll pull out the comparative requirements of the EA50 and the C310; or may Mike will and save me the effort .

Ken

That's easy to fix, hire really tiny models:

Dang, the plane looks enormous.

Not sure if this was photoshopped, or those are really small people. Screen measurements put him at about 5 foot 5 inches.

Mike C.

or wealthy

Sorry, Jon, that's just incorrect. There is a different standard than the Part 25 climb requirement, but it's not zero climb and it's not the same as a piston twin.

If you want, I'll pull out the comparative requirements of the EA50 and the C310; or may Mike will and save me the effort .

Ken

Mike,

The Eclipse is the only jet certified under the same section of part 23 as piston twins under 6000#.

At the time of certification Eclipse argued that their airplane was so inexpensive it would be a Baron replacement and therefore should not be held to the same standard as the Baron. I don't believe the Eclipse even meets the climb requirements of the commuter category which is applied to piston twins over 6000#.

You won't find charts for balanced field, second segment, accelerate go etc in an Eclipse POH because it was never designed to climb out on a single engine.

In terms of engine failures during take-off the Eclipse is no better than a C-310.

Jon, the issue is second segment climb gradient. The 310 doesn't have a requirement to climb at all in the second segment. By comparison, the Eclipse is not permitted to depart under any circumstance that would not provide at least for a 1.2% second segment climb gradient.

Under the FAR 23 rewrite, a level 2 high-speed aircraft must only meet 1.0% climb gradient, so the Eclipse actually exceeds the current requirement.

So, yes, the plane was indeed designed to climb with an engine out. One of the things we had to demonstrate in the simulator in order to pass the type rating was climbing out after engine loss at rotation with conditions set just right (high altitude airport and warm temperature) to generate the minimum allowable climb gradient.

Ken

Always educational to see how little climb that is and the importance of maintaining V2.

If applied, means he is even shorter, since he is ahead of the wing and I used the wingspan as the reference for scale.

Mike C.

Reference?

I looked up the Eclipse TCDS, and nothing in the basis suggests Eclipse got excused from FAR 23.67 requirements in effect per amendment 55.

Specifically 23.67(b):

(b) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category reciprocating engine-powered airplanes of more than 6,000 pounds maximum weight, and turbine engine-powered airplanes in the normal, utility, and acrobatic category--

(1) The steady gradient of climb at an altitude of 400 feet above the takeoff must be measurably positive with the--
(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at takeoff power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps in the takeoff position(s); and
(v) Climb speed equal to that achieved at 50 feet in the demonstration of Sec. 23.53.

(2) The steady gradient of climb must not be less than 0.75 percent at an altitude of 1,500 feet above the takeoff surface, or landing surface, as appropriate, with the--
(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps retracted; and
(v) Climb speed not less than 1.2

So the Eclipse has to be positive at 400 MSL flaps down, gear up, and be 0.75 gradient at 1500 MSL cleaned up.

Section (a) is piston under 6000 lbs, (c) is commuter category.


Got a reference for this? I've never seen an argument based on the price of the airplane used to chose different rules before. If this did happen, I feel certain it had to do with the weight and not the price.


Pistons over 6000 lbs are also 23.67(b), not commuter category.


Maybe you meant "never required to demonstrate".


If a "new" 310 was designed under the same rules, it would be under 23.67(a), not (b) that applies to the Eclipse.

If the FAA said Eclipse was under 23.67(a), I'd like to see some reference to that and how it came to be. I see no special conditions, equivalent level of safety, or exemptions on the TCDS that show that.

Mike C.

I love it! CPA is alive and well; still talking Eclipse and MU-2.