FF at what altitude?

Eclipse quotes FF based on 41K'. The Mustang does not. You'll never get to 41K' in an Eclipse.

Here's a reference to Eclipse's comparison to other planes. Not that anyone here would believe their numbers
http://www.eclipseaerospace.net/files/p ... _Chart.pdf

They have mission profiler, but I can't get it to work.

http://www.eclipseaerospace.net/mission_profiler/

There is an Eclipse owner's club, but it's $125 to join. If I got serious, probably would be worth chatting with other owners.

Dave

From the airline pilot's forum's board:
Also a lot of excellent info on pros and cons of TBM and some other birds.

Best,

Dave

Ditto that sentiment. Personally I refrain from offering my opinion if I haven't flown the machine, but that is just me... I am a Pilot Examiner in the Eclipse 500 with over 1000 hours in type; my opinion is that for the money, it is the best value going today. Hey, if you have $3MM there are other, better equipped options out there - THAT IS WHY THEY CALL THIS A VERY LIGHT JET! It is light in weight and light on the pocket book. 65 GPH / 440 PPH total burn at FL410. Pretty damned efficient!

Yes, the original Eclipse went bankrupt, and lots of investors/vendors got screwed in that process, but the new Eclipse Aerospace is up and running under different management, parts are readily available from numerous sources, and most of the start-up problems of the first few years are behind the airplane now. Great technology, P&W power is fantastic, FIKI 1.7 solves nearly every problem in the early development of the airplane and from my seat, no better value out there for missions requiring less than 1000 miles and 4 seats. If you want to see for yourself - I have an airplane you can fly in California! gw

I have no dog in this fight but I despise disinformation, so when I began to see unsupported statements contrary to what I have experienced myself in an Eclipse 500 I began to take up for the little jet. It certainly has its issues, but give it a break.

Latest quote...


Dave, I really appreciate your EXPERIENCED opinion. I have had hours of fun in my brother's Eclipse, but I could never afford one if it was given to me. In my experience we have often enjoyed 345 knot cruise speeds at 35,000 feet on 355 PPH.

Again, no dog in the fight, just tired of hearing outlandish statements made by piots who have never flown the aircraft, or certainly not on a cross country trip. Yes, I'm presuming when I say they haven't flown much if at all, but then again, from experience I know they'd know better if they had.

I must agree with Rodolfo. "Let it go..."

Now, lets give it a rest, take off the gloves and have a cold one together. Maybe I can even get my Bro. to give you a ride!

Ron,

Have you flown a Mustang? If not, how can you compare fuel flow? (just going by your rule of "experience".)

Why does Eclipse advertise it's numbers based on 41K'?

Mustangs with 100 hours are all over Controller with an ASKING price of $2.5 million. I'll bet you could get one of them for under $2.1 million.

Don't come in an internet forum where we're asked to compare airplanes and tell everyone to STFU. This is what a forum is all about. Sometimes people get information wrong and it gets corrected. That's the whole point of a forum.

I don't really understand what you and Rodolfo are getting all worked up about either. It's an airplane discussion. Chill.

Ok gus.... I hope this is going to be kept civil.... and looks like it's heading that way.

For me, I like all the inputs, but only as a casual interest. Having not flown in any of those planes, I'm not one to comment.

And, there is something to be said about experience. If one has owned, operated, flown and paid the bills, they would be much more credible than one that has never seen one. And we get both opinions and a few in between. There's also a few folks that have probably shopped these a bit, but have little or no time in them..... their opinions are good, too.

However, I'd vote for giving some qualifications along with the opinion. Give some basis to the statements.

Overall, fun discussion.

I'm not defending the eclipse; what's more, I think it looks like a toy. I love the mustang and I would love to have one. I sat in one 2 years ago which was picked up from the factory the day before and was being ferried to Austria, and just happened to stop at my airport overnight. I even got to sit shotgun as the pilot started it up and taxied it a few meters to the parking spot.

What I'm saying is, don't close your mind to the eclipse, listen to what people have to say. How do you base your statements to critique the numbers posted? You say it will never do 410. Have you tried it? How many hours do you have in an eclipse? Ron seems to have a few, so his opinion is worth something.

That's the nice thing (and the bad thing) about opinions, they are not required to have any basis on actuals facts. I think the Eclipse is cool as hell, and that's a fact.

We'd all benefit from getting real input from an owner or operator. I see Eclipse's numbers but can see why anyone would question the manufacturer's numbers. I've just put a lot of information up hoping some folks with actual operating or ownership experience that isn't trying to sell something would chime in. Maybe they just aren't on here. I have a couple folks I can ask. It could be very interested if promised numbers were real.

The previous poster I cited said Eclipse is more efficient at FL35 and 360 than FL410. The turbines I've looked at aren't as efficient at the highest certified altitude (except where engines were later upgraded like the KA XP).

A friend has asked to connect me with the current Eclipse president. May just do that to try to get to the bottom of things.

Best,

Dave

Dave, I really appreciate your EXPERIENCED opinion.[/color]

I got talking to a Mustang pilot and he said it's best at around 340 over 410 because at 410 the plane hangs off the nose too much and plows through the air

starting to understand why the old man's blood runs cold when he sees these things on the ramp.

Someone PM Kent Ewing. I'll listen to what he has to say.

I would also like to hear JC's comparison. What do you think these two can really be flown per hour at 300hrs per year? Research is a valid method of taking a position, even if you have not flown a specific airplane. We all do it all the time in our work.

I didn't say the Eclipse won't do 41K'. I said ATC will never clear to to 41K' and I asked "how many trips will you ever go on where climbing to 41K' even makes sense". And I said, "how long will ATC keep you low burning gas before they clear you to 41K' and will you have burned too much gas by then to make it even reasonable to do the climb"?

Forums are about "hashing out the details". No, I won't just take some guys word for it that flew in one one time or some guy who's brother owns one. It's totally reasonable for anyone here to ask questions and kick around ideas. I don't dislike the Eclipse. I just don't think it gives a lot of utility for the $$.

If you flew one then great. Tell everyone what you think and all about your experience.

No, I haven't flown one. But you guys haven't owned one either. So does "owning one" or "flying one one time" make you the expert?

no, but it gives that person a lot more credibility.

We can all read published numbers, those with first hand experience have more information than us.


It's very simple, when it comes to the eclipse he has first hand experience. Do you? No. Do I? No. Simple as that.