banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 11:50 [ 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, 11:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/01/12
Posts: 32
Post Likes: +25
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Aircraft: Phenom 300
Username Protected wrote:
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?


Things are looking up. Parts that were in very short supplies earlier this year are becoming more readily available. Pitot tube issues are getting solved. Alternative batteries are available. RAS (https://www.resurgent.aero) has secured the ability to build the central aircraft computer, which had been abandoned by the original manufacturer. I think for the next decade there will be plenty of support via MRO entities, including the type certificate holder. After that, as the fleet age (and the planes turn 20+ years old) it is harder to see a clear path, but that is partly true for all digital planes.

_________________
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, 12:07 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/31/17
Posts: 1589
Post Likes: +623
Aircraft: C180
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


Which of Tarver's planes? I take it he had an Eclipse before the Citation?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 12:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/01/11
Posts: 213
Post Likes: +106
Username Protected wrote:
Which of Tarver's planes? I take it he had an Eclipse before the Citation?

This one:

https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=119423


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 12:43 
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
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


Ken,

Thanks for your response. I understand your point and I'm not really trying to relitigate what Michael did but just make the point that if one is bearish on ONE Aviation, and concerned about the future viability of the airframe as a consequence of a potential failure of the manufacturer, then buying an airframe where the parts likely cover the investment in a worst case scenario provides some manner of covering the downside risk.

I'm glad to hear that there are increasing opportunities for owners to insure the viability of their planes via 3rd party providers. I know that one of the positives that occurred after the last merger when Klapmeier came on board was that the environment improved vis a vis the company, operators and 3rd party vendors. I do hope that continues.

I also hope, as I would hope all pilots do, that ONE survives but hearing about talks with investors doesn't mean much in my opinion. When I toured the factory a few years ago they had just announced the sale of 20 airframes to China. I don't think that happened. Then later they said they secured investment in the company which was to, in part, make Canada possible. I don't know if that happened or not but I do know they've laid off a significant part of their workforce and their home airport is trying to throw them out for failure to pay rent. I don't believe they came anywhere near their initial projection for Canada deposits - which is too bad because the Canada was an intriguing airplane. They have to put on a positive pr front because to do otherwise invites immediate collapse. One of the business risks any buyer of a new or used Eclipse, or any turbine aircraft for that matter, has to wrestle with is the viability of the manufacturer. That has a definite, though perhaps difficult to quantify, impact on market value.

Certainly owners of late model refurbed aircraft, or the newer 550's, whose purchase price included "warranties" have a price problem with their aircraft. Some of the planes on Controller list those warranties as a benefit as if they had any actual value. I would expect most purchasers would discount that off the price immediately viewing it as a fairly high risk that they'd be able to collect on warranty support in full.

So, even though owners are in a better position today as you and Marcus report with respect to the ability to keep the planes flying, uncertainty kills value and there is a lot of uncertainty about the future.

You don't list an aircraft in your profile. Do you still own your Eclipse?

I'd also be curious about your opinion (or Andy's or Marcus' for that matter) about why utilization on these aircraft is so low? I get the early years and few hours but over the last few it doesn't make sense. These airframes don't fly much. Is it because, even though they are relatively cheap to fly, their owners still can't afford to? Is it because they are largely flown for personal and not business use? Is it because they sit in the shop more than other airframes? All the above?

By the way, and for the record, I really like the Eclipse aircraft. It is comfortable, fun to fly, well equipped for the most part for its class, inexpensive relatively speaking, and oh just to repeat it's fun to fly!
_________________
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, 12:53 
Online



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14129
Post Likes: +9075
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
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.


Looks like the asking price for a fully upgraded one is ~800k, and a ton with CALL. I do wonder what they are really selling for, but these upgraded ones cost way more than 1.4m. The 1.4m planes were all pumpkin'd or else they went through a 1m+ refurb at the factory. Support is certainly questionable, they're probably not worth much more than the motors.
_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 13:05 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/01/11
Posts: 213
Post Likes: +106
Username Protected wrote:
hearing about talks with investors doesn't mean much in my opinion.

No argument from me. The old company was constantly in talks with investors with "a high degree of optimism" reported to us. Right up until November 2008, when they declared bankruptcy :doh:.

My point was mainly that we really don't *need* ONE Aviation any more. We've got plenty of qualified mechanics and shops. We've got the engineering wrapped up on the plane, with FIKI, ADS-B, FMS and, most especially, life extension. What we need is parts, and there are several good avenues for parts in the event ONE Aviation disappears.

Quote:
Do you still own your Eclipse?

You bet. I occasionally look at alternatives--maybe a nice Phenom like Marcus got or a CJ1 (that I'm already typed in). And then I run the numbers. Neither one of those would do much more for me, and each would cost a lot more to operate. Well, I retired young, and the truth is, I'd rather be retired flying an Eclipse than go back to work and fly a CJ or Phenom. Our Eclipse has been very reliable, taking us to all kinds of far-flung destinations. It's fast, fun, safe, and cost-effective jet transportation.

Quote:
I'd also be curious about your opinion (or Andy's or Marcus' for that matter) about why utilization on these aircraft is so low?

Based on Pratt data, the current fleet utilization is just over 363,000 hours with an average time of 1227 hours. That's maybe 120-130 hours annually or around 40,000 nm a year. I think those are probably pretty reasonable numbers for an owner/operator plane. It's right about where my Eclipse is.

Ken


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 13:23 
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
Username Protected wrote:

Looks like the asking price for a fully upgraded one is ~800k, and a ton with CALL. I do wonder what they are really selling for, but these upgraded ones cost way more than 1.4m. The 1.4m planes were all pumpkin'd or else they went through a 1m+ refurb at the factory. Support is certainly questionable, they're probably not worth much more than the motors.


Anyone know what a low time, fully upgraded airframe (brakes, actuators, autothrottles, latest IFMS, etc) is going for for cash (I'll bet financing one is tougher than ever - a couple of years ago the ratio was significantly less than for other aircraft).

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


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 05:56 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
Tony
I just got the latest market update and it looks like for what you described around 1.2M is the going rate.

Interestedly prices have rebounded so currently there isn’t depreciation.

I was talking to my mentor and he confirmed that an Eclipse is the least expensive airplane to be typed in because for all the other jets the insurance companies demand between 25 and 50 hours of mentoring before they release you to fly single pilot.

In the Eclipse the mentoring program that they accept for single pilot operation can be completed in as few as 8 hours.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 10:09 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4946
Post Likes: +4785
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
Username Protected wrote:
Tony
I just got the latest market update and it looks like for what you described around 1.2M is the going rate.

Interestedly prices have rebounded so currently there isn’t depreciation.

I was talking to my mentor and he confirmed that an Eclipse is the least expensive airplane to be typed in because for all the other jets the insurance companies demand between 25 and 50 hours of mentoring before they release you to fly single pilot.

In the Eclipse the mentoring program that they accept for single pilot operation can be completed in as few as 8 hours.


Andy, I found the Eclipse to be the MOST expensive jet to be typed in. This is primarily driven by the fact that only special approved schools can provide the training. The Nortons, Al Itanis, etc. are charging a flat $15K for which is basically 3-5 days of work. These guys really stick it to you because they can. With a legacy Citation, any CFI can sign you off to take a checkride with a DPE; so the supply/demand curves brings training prices to a reasonable level. I can't comment on the insurance requirement but we haven't seen any mentoring requirements needed on the Citations either; even for low time guys.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 12:19 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/10/12
Posts: 6819
Post Likes: +7927
Company: Minister of Pith
Location: Florida
Aircraft: Piper PA28/140
Username Protected wrote:
the Eclipse to be the MOST expensive jet to be typed in


Gotta love BeechTalk! :bud:

_________________
"No comment until the time limit is up."


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 00:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/01/11
Posts: 213
Post Likes: +106
Username Protected wrote:
The Nortons, Al Itanis, etc. are charging a flat $15K for which is basically 3-5 days of work. These guys really stick it to you because they can.

My wife is the Customer Service Manager for Norton Aviation and arranges every type rating performed by the company in Eclipse aircraft as well as the Phenom 100 and 300. $15,000 is not the price Norton charges for an Eclipse type rating; your figure is incorrect.

I think Andy's point--and indirectly yours as well--is that the Eclipse type rating must be performed in accordance with an FAA-approved training program. As a result, the requirements for training and mentoring are specified upfront. That's a double-edged sword in that you cannot just challenge the checkride with minimal training from your favorite CFI as you suggested you can do with a Citation.

OTOH, the mentoring requirements are also specified, so insurers typically accept Norton's mentoring completion certificate as evidence of adequate mentoring rather than requiring a large arbitrary number of hours. That's where cost savings can occur as Andy outlined.

Ken


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 07:21 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4946
Post Likes: +4785
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
I was mistaken, Norton wanted to charge me $20,650, not $15,000. Regardless of what the number is, 10,15,20K PLUS the hours on the airplane and the gas; getting a type rating in an Eclipse is a very large investment. Eclipse trainers are charging you more than $1,000 an hour for their time; it's a complete rip off in my opinion. This doesn't include the $5K they wanted for the special upset training school either. Your claim that the Eclipse is a "cheap" type rating is simply not accurate.

Email from Norton's guy from a few years ago:

Dear Mike,

Per your request, please find a new estimate for one person in training instead of two. I neglected to mention that the estimates included as part of the invoice reflect what we anticipate to be a worse case scenario based on the limited information you’ve shared with us. Your currency, hand flying skills, basic instrument skills, completion of our home-study workbook, and being ready to learn during training will pay huge dividends in allowing you to complete our program as expeditiously and safely as possible. We’re here to help you succeed in this venture and I look forward to answering any questions you may have on this invoice.

The Eclipse initial type rating training program is a unique and thorough program unlike any other based on the diversity of the owner-operators and/or professional pilots that were originally anticipated to fly the aircraft. The quality of the FAA-approved program is a testament to the safety record of the Eclipse community having been the foundation to training pilots with under 300 hours total time – some of them having just completed multi-engine land and instrument training – to highly-seasoned, professional aviators with multiple ratings and over 20,000 hours.

Instead of a single pilot type rating, your father may obtain an SIC endorsement (not included in the invoice), which is one day of training including ground school, cockpit procedures training, and one flight (1.0-1.5 hrs) for $1,200. The endorsement may be added to his pilot certificate by visiting your local FSDO with logbook and 8710 in hand. An SIC endorsement is not required to be on the certificate if performing SIC duties within the states, but is required for SIC duties performed overseas.

Edward is more than welcome to audit the rest of your course on a not-to-interfere basis with your normal progression during training, do be determined by your instructor.

Attached is an estimated invoice for your Eclipse initial type rating training with estimates for additional training days, mentoring (the last mandatory segment of the FAA-approved initial type rating program), and reimbursable expenses. It does not include any charges to third party providers such as Kings Schools or upset training. You can simply make a 50% deposit by clicking the link in the body of the attached invoice or click PAY HERE and change the “Payment Amount” field to reflect a 50% deposit of $10,325. Online payment is very secure, easy, fast, and free! Alternatively, you may mail a check to the address on the invoice for the same amount. Training materials will be sent and a training start date confirmed once a deposit is received.

Please call me at your convenience to discuss in further detail.

Regards,

Mike Kendall
941-343-7976


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 08:33 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/01/11
Posts: 213
Post Likes: +106
Username Protected wrote:
I was mistaken

Yep, you said the Norton Aviation Eclipse training program was a flat-rate fee of $15,000 for 3-5 days of work, but that's incorrect. The type rating fee is well under $15,000, and it is a full 10-day program. It's not a "let's do a couple of flights and maybe you can pass a checkride with my friend the DPE" type of thing at all.

The email you posted citing $20,650 included more than just the fee for the type rating--it added in the fees for instructor reimbursable travel/living expenses, the checkride, and the mentoring too.

I think Andy's point was that the Eclipse mentoring program can actually save money for transitioning pilots because it is event-based and still accepted by insurers, usually in lieu of hours of mandated mentoring. Therefore, the time it takes to complete the type rating and mentoring package is usually shorter than it is in jets with 25 or 50 hours of mentoring imposed by the insurer. Imagine what 50 hours of mentoring in a CE500 or a Phenom might cost.

But the program is not intended to shortcut the time it takes for a transitioning pilot to become safe, competent, and comfortable. Andy's suggestion that it can be less expensive than training in other jets reflects the required mentoring rather than any shortcuts in the steps necessary to complete the program and become fully competent to operate an Eclipse safely as a single pilot in complex airspace.

Ken


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 13:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 59
Post Likes: +68
Aircraft: M600
Both Tru Simulation and FlightSafety quoted me $28k for an M2 initial type rating.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Entry level turbines
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 19:35 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4946
Post Likes: +4785
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
Why does a jet type rating need to cost a year/semester of college tuition to obtain? The prices do not remotely resemble the cost to provide this service.


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

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