I think you will find that there is absolutely no way to beat a Sierra converted Citation!

The problem with the Eclipse is that it was designed by a bunch of software folks, end of story. Teddy's description of the warnings and ap kicking off are a riot on a jet. They are true and there are many more. Get a Citation, if the fuel burn in between the Eclipse and the Mustang scares you, you shouldn't consider jet ownership to begin with. Most of the people who are happy with the Eclipse are folks that have never had a jet before and don't understand what solid, reliable systems are. Ken, have you have or flown any other jets, just curious.

Even beats inadvertent IFR w/ no instruments that put ground debris in your landing gear? Wow.
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/18209 ... directed=1

A friend of mine flys a Citation Mustang, he has removed the potty as they would never use it.
He just use that section for storage. I dont think he does a lot of long legs flights.

Even beats inadvertent IFR w/ no instruments that put ground debris in your landing gear? Wow.
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/18209 ... directed=1

That's a common misconception. Actually, it was Oliver Masefield who led the design and development of the Eclipse 500. You may recall that prior to that, he led the development and certification of the Pilatus PC-12.


I disagree with that. It's easy for a piston owner to say, "well if you can afford any jet, why does it matter what the fuel costs?" I hear that argument a lot. And it would be like somebody wondering why you're driving an Acura instead of a Maserati--after all, if you have enough money for any car, you ought to have enough for a really expensive one, right?

The Eclipse opens jet ownership to guys for whom it was not financially viable previously. The nearest competition--the Mustang--is a a half million dollars more upfront and about 35% more every single mile. The direct cost of an Eclipse is roughly the same as that of a cabin-class piston twin. The insurance and reserves are higher than a piston twin, but the actual operating costs put the Eclipse right in their bracket. And it does that without sacrificing performance, indeed the Eclipse performs *better* than its more expensive competitor.


FWIW, the system that caused Ted's problem is a Harco design; their equipment is used in the Boeing 777, Joint Strike Fighter, Embraer 190 and Phenom 100 (which actually has some very similar equipment to the Eclipse). It's not chintzy, second-rate equipment. And I think the plane's design handled the failure well. Ted obviously thought so too because he decided to take off again after the failure before getting it corrected. He was obviously pretty confident in the plane's backup systems and in his own ability to fly with a malfunction.

Ken

Ken,

I am not sure what piston twins you are referencing, but every time I run the numbers the Eclipse comes out a lot more then any piston twin in OpEx.
Can you give me a financial breakdown comparison? Such as to an Aerostar or Baron?

Tim

Do it per mile; it's the only reasonable way to compare the direct cost of aircraft with widely different cruising speeds. I think you'll find the Eclipse per nm direct cost (fuel plus maintenance) is in line with cabin class pistons.

It has been for me anyway; I had a twin Cessna for many years before the Eclipse.

Ken

About 40 hours in the Eclipse, 200 in the Mustang and 1200 in the King Air C90 Blackhawk.

I can only comment from my experience on these 3 for mainly legs under 600NM.

The King Air is like a GMC-Yukon; you can load and go any place you want.
The Mustang is like a 700 series; great car but you need to treat it well.
The Eclipse is like the Fiat X9; they don't make it anymore for a reason.

I can't begin to name all the quirks the Eclipse has from my view but it is a jet and that is very cool.

It is a bit of a crap shoot on what breaks on your plane. But to assume nothing is going to break is just wrong. You won't be able to operate at the piston twin cost all in for long without some real luck as the fleet gets older.

The piston twin has a large supply of salvage, overhauled, & OEM parts that allows some control on pricing. Over the next few years I can't see the Eclipse organization getting any cheaper or easier to deal with as they attempt to get their investment back. They are entitled to whatever the market will bring them.

The real issue is going to be when they get a couple of massive lawsuits and lose with some wacky jury.

If for some reason you have a fixed length mission that can be done with an Eclipse and Aerostart ... per nm makes sense.

But the way most private operators use their planes, you see a fair amount of mission creep. It's Friday afternoon - where can I get that's fun by Friday night. Lot more choices (and lot easier to run up the NM) on an Eclipse. That's not a criticism ... if you have the discipline to use an Eclipse like you would use an Aerostar, you may have similar annual costs. But I think most people really value the way the Eclipse expands (shrinks?) their world.

Do it per mile; it's the only reasonable way to compare the direct cost of aircraft with widely different cruising speeds. I think you'll find the Eclipse per nm direct cost (fuel plus maintenance) is in line with cabin class pistons.

It has been for me anyway; I had a twin Cessna for many years before the Eclipse.

Ken

That math is the same for every step up in capability. If you have an Archer, you go Archer distances for a weekend, if you have an A36 with tips, you go A36 distances for a weekend. I allways chuckle when people justify a Bonanza over a 172 with the 'but if you fly it at 172 speeds the hourly cost is the same' argument. If you fly a 172, you are going to have a certain check you are going to write every year, if you fly a Bo it is going to be a bigger number, everything else is fancy math to make ones own decision look less foolish. The same holds true for the step to turboprops or jets 'but if we fill all seats on the KA200 including the potty our NM/gal/seat is better than X'. Yes, if you fill those seats, that may be true, but 3/4 of the time it is going to be you and the misses.

Yes indeed. I personally think it's best to not "run the numbers" in the first place

But it does make for good BT talk

That is why I did cost per mile, cost per hour and based it on total miles flown per year and total hours flown per year.
Allows you to match against the mission. In my case, my destinations are pretty fixed, so I have seen my hours decrease as my speed has increased; but my total millage has been pretty close to the same.
I do plan at some point to start traveling to other locations, but probably not anytime soon. At that point, cost per hour will dominate more then cost per mile.

Tim