banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 09:37 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 00:05 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/26/17
Posts: 141
Post Likes: +74
Fltplan.com does have temperature considered - see his attached charts.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 00:07 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
Username Protected wrote:
Fltplan.com does have temperature considered - see his attached charts.


Not in the performance numbers

You have to make up tables for the temperatures or just let ForeFlight do it.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 00:25 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14128
Post Likes: +9073
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Wow, just looked at controller and Elcipse's have gotten cheap. Seems nearly every ad says "Motivated seller". :scratch: Wonder what these are really going for.

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 08:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/01/12
Posts: 32
Post Likes: +25
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Aircraft: Phenom 300
I recently transitioned from the Eclipse to Phenom 100 (1,100 hrs in the Eclipse). Loved the Eclipse, but the Phenom is easily worth an extra $300 in fuel on a trip like that for the exterior luggage, proper cabin class seating, and factory parts plan.

_________________
ATP | Phenom 300 N329MC, Icon A5 N1BA | Ex SR22G3 TN, G1, Eclipse 500, Carbon Cub, Phenom 100


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 10:03 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/01/11
Posts: 213
Post Likes: +106
Username Protected wrote:
I recently transitioned from the Eclipse to Phenom 100 (1,100 hrs in the Eclipse). Loved the Eclipse, but the Phenom is easily worth an extra $300 in fuel on a trip like that for the exterior luggage, proper cabin class seating, and factory parts plan.

It's a good point you bring up, Marcus.

It's not just more fuel (45% more, according to Andy's numbers). B&CA data suggest that the total direct operating cost of the P100 is about 40-50% more per mile than the Eclipse. And the upfront cost for a decent used example is at least 50% more than the Eclipse, probably more like double the cost right now.

The Eclipse gets Andy to Vero Beach in 2 hours 52 minutes. You get there 5 minutes faster, but you're paying a lot more. Is that worth it? Well, I think the answer is highly dependent on the owner's situation. When you have a business use for the plane, can profitably place it in commercial service from time to time, have a lot of people or things to haul, then of course it makes sense, and those are probably good reasons why it makes sense for you.

But there is also merit to the opposite point of view--if the plane has no business use, and there's only 2 people and a dog going (like Andy described), it makes a lot less sense to pay 40 or 50% more for the same trip, just to get there 5 minutes faster.

What people like about the Eclipse, beyond that it's a blast to fly, is that it is fast, safe, cost-effective jet transportation. How much the latter attribute matters to a pilot depends a lot on his particular situation.

Ken


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 10:17 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2867
Post Likes: +3575
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Username Protected wrote:
I know the numbers for the Eclipse are a little conservative but I haven’t a clue how good the M600 numbers are.

And by these numbers you are correct no way an Eclipse burns less but only 3 gallons that surprises me.

Remember that ForeFlight is taking temperature into effect and Flightplan does not.


The M600 numbers don't look very accurate. I am still showing that the Eclipse is going to burn at least a couple hundred more pounds of fuel on that trip. I know I will get at least this profile, and as I said before even my custom profile usually overestimates my actual fuel burn, unless I get really bad ATC handling. So I would bet in the 900 lbs of fuel range with good ATC handling. But I like to overestimate as to under. ;)

Foreflight probably used the POH numbers, and everybody I have talked to with an M600 says the POH numbers are pretty conservative. I see about 5 knots more at 50-75 lbs less torques and less fuel flow than the POH. I think their test planes were a little doggy, and probably having the old paddle prop instead of the new 5 blade scimitar prop probably cost them some performance.

Attachment:
1.jpg


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 10:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/01/11
Posts: 213
Post Likes: +106
Username Protected wrote:
I am still showing that the Eclipse is going to burn at least a couple hundred more pounds of fuel on that trip.

Here's what Business and Commercial Aviation say for the comparison:

600 nm trip:

M600: 735 lb
Eclipse: 837 lb

1000 nm trip:

M600: 1142 lb
Eclipse: 1137 lb

[Source: 2018 Purchase Planning Guide]

Pretty close, those two are.

Ken


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 10:37 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Wow, just looked at controller and Elcipse's have gotten cheap.

I had the opposite reaction. Close to $1M for a 10 year old jet with questionable support?

Many didn't pay much more than that when bought new (a lot of them were sold at ~$1.4M price).

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 10:58 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2867
Post Likes: +3575
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Username Protected wrote:
I am still showing that the Eclipse is going to burn at least a couple hundred more pounds of fuel on that trip.

Here's what Business and Commercial Aviation say for the comparison:

600 nm trip:

M600: 735 lb
Eclipse: 837 lb

1000 nm trip:

M600: 1142 lb
Eclipse: 1137 lb

[Source: 2018 Purchase Planning Guide]



Pretty close, those two are.

Ken


Pretty close, they still overestimate the fuel burn for the M600, but the Eclipse is very efficient, especially on those long missions. If you have a jet mission, jets make a lot of sense. Regular 150-300 nm trips, held low in the NE, not going to see that efficiency, though.

Say you get maybe up to FL180 KHEF to KCLT. 268 nm you will see 471 versus 758 lbs or 60% more fuel burn in the Eclipse, and save a whopping 15 minutes :peace:

Might be a bad example though, because flying out of HEF, I usually get my filed altitude without a level off.
_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 11:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/01/12
Posts: 32
Post Likes: +25
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Aircraft: Phenom 300
Username Protected wrote:
It's not just more fuel (45% more, according to Andy's numbers). B&CA data suggest that the total direct operating cost of the P100 is about 40-50% more per mile than the Eclipse. And the upfront cost for a decent used example is at least 50% more than the Eclipse, probably more like double the cost right now.


For sure, but the original poster only talked about fuel burn ;)

At least a used P100 costs a million less than a new M600 :popcorn:

_________________
ATP | Phenom 300 N329MC, Icon A5 N1BA | Ex SR22G3 TN, G1, Eclipse 500, Carbon Cub, Phenom 100


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 11:12 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/01/11
Posts: 213
Post Likes: +106
Username Protected wrote:
Say you get maybe up to FL180 KHEF to KCLT. 268 nm you will see 471 versus 758 lbs or 60% more fuel burn in the Eclipse, and save a whopping 15 minutes :peace:

If confined to FL 180, we'd use "turboprop mode." You can power an Eclipse back to long range cruise and the numbers start looking a lot like turboprop numbers, with a lot lower fuel burn. The plane would still burn 560 lbs on the trip you cited, but that's 19% more than you would, not 60% more. And it would still get there faster.

You can turn an Eclipse into a turboprop, but you can't turn an M600 into a jet. Not that you'd necessarily want to ;) .

Both are nice planes, but with different sweet spots, as you said. You learn to work the plane you have into the mission you get, even if it isn't quite in the sweet spot.

Ken


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 11:21 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 09/02/09
Posts: 8415
Post Likes: +8303
Company: OAA
Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
The Eclipse has a lot to offer for range, DOC's and speed if you only need to carry a limited number of people for short distances, or are willing to stop frequently (no potty). It also offers "JET" for a fairly modest capital expenditure. Some examples have things not available on light jets or VLJ's anywhere else: auto throttles for example. Andy has a nice example.

If you already own one they are relatively cheap to "operate" and have a fair amount of utility.

They also offers a tremendous amount of financial risk to a purchaser. While the most recent parent company hasn't filed bankruptcy that I know of they have to be close. Yes, the engines can be maintained elsewhere. Supposedly IS&S can maintain the avionics but do they have enough of an installed base to be willing to? I'm not aware of the current status of VNAV but when I was looking at this airframe a couple of years ago it wasn't available and "IS&S is working on it". They had been "working on it" for a long time. I agree 100% with what Mike C said.

In the 1980's I tried to buy apartment complexes but was unable because the offers I made, based on what the real estate was actually worth based on rents, cash flow and reasonable cap rates, was far less that owners had invested/borrowed. They couldn't sell and, while I could buy, I wouldn't. It was a frustrating time. A few years later, after virtually all the owners had gone through bankruptcy or foreclosure, the deals actually sold for 50% less than my ridiculous offers of a few years earlier. I felt extremely fortunate that my "failure" as a buyer meant that I didn't go broke too. I think there is a parallel in doubtful, or unsupported, turbine aircraft.

So, while they offer a lot of "operational value" that's only if they keep flying. If you need business dispatch reliability I think there are a lot of questions about that looking ahead that would give just about anyone pause. Perhaps financial risk takers will balance that risk with a reduction in capital risk. To that end I think the airplanes are worth dramatically less than their asking prices. As someone looking again at light jets I think it's an intriguing airplane for about 50% of typical asking prices, or less.

The way Michael Tarver bought his plane a few years ago is the right approach I think. Figure the salvage value of the engines and pay no more than that and your downside is pretty well covered.

If you own one the discount to sell will be hard to stomach I would think. Those folks ought to fly their planes until they can't, or until a better long term airframe supporter comes along (like what the Aerostar and Commanders have for example).

BWTHDIK? :scratch:

_________________
Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120
Never enough!


Last edited on 02 Jun 2018, 11:27, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 11:22 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 09/02/09
Posts: 8415
Post Likes: +8303
Company: OAA
Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
Marcus, Ken & Andy:

You see my previous post. As close observers of Eclipse, and as owners (or recently former in Marcus case) what do you think of the near term and long term future of support for the Eclipse?

_________________
Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120
Never enough!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 11:27 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
You can turn an Eclipse into a turboprop

Not on landing.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 11:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/01/11
Posts: 213
Post Likes: +106
Username Protected wrote:
The way Michael Tarver bought his plane a few years ago is the right approach I think.

Tony, I disagree. IMHO Mike Tarver made a pretty bad call that caused him to part out his plane when he wanted to keep flying it. Years ago, Eclipse Aerospace publicly announced that it could not effectively support the earliest, most-basic versions of the Eclipse, of which there were only a few examples left (the others having been upgraded to more capable versions). Some time after that announcement, when those "unsupported" versions had lost much of their value and became attractive to bottom-fishers, Mike bought one at a very attractive price.

I assume he was gambling that "unsupported" didn't really mean unsupported. It turned out he lost that gamble, and he parted out his plane when he had no other viable option. He got his money out, and that's good, but parting out the plane was not his plan, so in that regard he failed.

As for the supported planes and where they stand today, ONE Aviation just now announced opening of its new maintenance facility in Aurora, IL. Hard-to-find parts are now easier to find, with very few AOG's due to parts issues. The company says they are in advanced talks with an investor to restart production.

But hypothetically, let's say they fail. Back in 2008-2009 when the first Eclipse Corporation failed, we kept flying. There was no shortage of qualified mechanics, and there is none now. Suppliers worked directly with owners for some parts; other parts were sent for overhaul when needed.

Today, we are actually far better positioned than we were in 2008-2009 because the planes don't need FIKI and FMS upgrades like they did back then. Today we have a 20,000 cycle life limit, not 10 calendar years like we did back then (with little hope for lengthening it without a manufacturer). And today we have a company who is reverse-engineering many of the parts to provide an alternate parts supply pathway. I don't think ongoing support for the Eclipse is going to be nearly the disaster some may be envisioning even if ONE Aviation fails, which they insist is not going to happen.

Ken


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Marsh.jpg.