It's not a finished product, but neither is it Koolaid and totally unsubstantiated.

They're not changing the airframe; they're adding a two-foot wing section, upping the thrust of the engines, and putting a lot more fuel onboard. The performance of the airframe is well-known; it should be a relatively simple calculation to see what 70 extra gallons of fuel buys you in range, minus the higher burn of the bigger engines, minus higher gross weight, minus some extra drag. Ho hum.

I can tell you with some certainty that if I put 475 lbs of extra fuel onboard my plane, I'd get 475 extra miles range. The plane gets 1:1 efficiency (distance traveled per pound of fuel) at cruise. But they're only claiming 275 nm of extra range--that shows they're accounting for the higher gross weight, higher fuel burn and higher drag.

What about the 1600 nm vs 1400 nm range? Well, that one's on you; you didn't catch the fact that one figure is NBAA IFR range and the other is VFR range. You've seen the NBAA profie, right?--



It uses a lot more fuel than just a VFR range profile. ONE Aviation has stated an NBAA IFR range of 1400 nm. Somebody asked what the VFR range is in my plane, and I said it's 1300 nm (that's published BTW). Knowing the profiles, the existing plane, and the NBAA IFR range for "Canada" it's not hard to estimate that the VFR range for it would be about 1600 nm, gaining roughly as much VFR range as IFR range (probably more than that actually since the NBAA profile has so much time down low).

Look, I get it--you don't trust them. I don't really blame you. What I'm saying is that this stuff is not just grabbed out of thin air; there's a basis for all of it.

Ken

Yes indeed. 10 years ago, almost to the day, they announced at Oshkosh the provisional certification of the Eclipse:



It was pretty cool. Of course they weren't fully certified and wouldn't be for several months, but ever the showman, that didn't deter Vern Raburn.

The plane's great, and I've loved owning it.

Ken

Also it should be noted the range figures are for ISA conditions. ISA is often positive at the altitudes the EA550 flies at. Between air temperature and headwinds these range numbers cannot be achieved 90% of the time. The NBAA IFR ranges are useful for comparing different aircraft. They are less useful for standalone discussion.

In today's world of social media it would be suicidal for an aircraft manufacturer to exaggerate published performance figures. Yes, it used to be done but I don't think any currently sold turbine aircraft can be pointed to with exaggerated manufacture performance figures.

If the "Canada" is certified under the Eclipse 500 type certificate it still won't have single engine climb capability.

It's little better than a single engine jet and still a world away from real twinjets offered by Cessna and Embrear.

I am curious what the Fed's thoughts are on a bigger Eclipse. The rational that Eclipse used to certify a jet that didn't meet single engine climb requirements was that it was a Baron replacement and therefore could have equivalent single engine performance. A bigger Eclipse is clearly not a drop in Baron replacement.

That's not right; where'd that come from? With an engine out, at maximum takeoff weight, the existing Eclipse climbs at 500 fpm (takeoff flaps) and 799 fpm (flaps up) in second segment. It does 194 fpm (takeoff flaps) and 410 fpm (flaps up) for a hot/high departure at 6000 feet and ISA + 15.

I don't have OEI climb rates for the "Canada" Eclipse, but the whole idea of the engine swap to a highly derated version of the PW615F Mustang engine is that the plane will have much better performance in hot/high takeoff and high altitude, hot cruise. As a result, the new plane can climb to 41,000 feet in 23 minutes, which 30% better than the existing plane and also faster than either the Mustang or the Phenom 100. So, it is reasonable to expect that engine out APR performance will be pretty good with the "Canada" Eclipse, regardless of how they wind up certifying it.


No no no. That's not right. It exceeded the Part 23 requirements at the time of certification and meets the new, more stringent ones imposed as part of the 2011 rewrite.

Ken

VFR range, for a jet? This is done at VFR altitudes such as below FL180?

No, it just means compliance with FAR 91.151(a)(1), the 30-minute rule for flights conducted in daytime visual flight conditions. VFR range does not imply flight below FL 180 because FAR 91.151 references VFR conditions, not VFR flight rules.

VFR range is always greater than NBAA IFR range, and most people think the latter is a better metric for comparing jets, but somebody asked what the VFR range was for the Eclipse so I gave it.

Ken

They are practically giving away the 550 if you are willing to pay $3.5 for a Canada someday. How many have they sold? I was told there would be an announcement during OSH , which I realize has two more days. I hope they have sold 17 550's and have deposits for more Canada's than that Ken. But I'll be shocked if they have.

I admire them trying to innovate themselves out of a hole but the fact of the matter is the hole is much bigger than them. Mustang is gone. Premier 100 just tried updating their plane. Theses VLJ's really don't make a lot of sense in the scheme of things. Fads, rich boys toys, that's about it. They just don't go fast enough or haul enough.

I climbed all over the SF50 at Oshkosh yesterday. I love it. It's a big airplane. It's going to change the airplane market in a big way.

But you're still holding out for a PC24?

Rather than getting pictures stuck upside down; here are some I took of the Cirrus Jet shortly after it arrived.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/125356136@N02/sN0F31

I hope you're right. I suppose it's all about personal transportation. And many Cirrus prop people will probably move up to it. But it requires being typed, getting recurrent; just read the Aviation Consumer article on the Icon A5. Now you want to talk about fun, bullet proof, easy to get into?

...for you.

Others disagree.

But you're still holding out for a PC24?