From an Eclipse owner.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/zA0nDVcFD14[/youtube]

Rob is one of my best friends. He started the flying club at Wake Forest that I took over. I introduced him to the Eclipse. He has quite the fleet now and this video has made quite the stir at Cirrus!

Lol. I bet.

I was at OSH when Randy flew the ECJ/Eclipse 400 in the aerobatic display, and the CirrusJet prototype did its flybys. Sad those 2 never had the chance to do head to head.

While I’m biased towards the Eclipse, I think some numbers were a little too skewed on the Eclipse. I don’t recall insurance being that cheap. Didn’t include the cost of the combustion liners (are all Eclipses upgraded at this point?). And while it will easily hit 375 KEAS level down low or in the descent, not everyone will hit that in normal operations. Also, the Cirrus definitely has the newer avionics, autoland, and the support network by miles.

Good video, but I’ll be waiting for the Cirrus owner response videos.

Doesn’t Rob have a Premier now?

Good video but I think it's a little disingenuous to compare the flight costs based only on the service ceiling. In my experience flying at 410 is a small percentage of missions and even when you get there you're not there long.

He still has the Eclipse too.

Fair enough

Let’s look at right now with a tailwind and best time using ForeFlight

Cirrus
2:44 hours and 201 gallons at Fl290

Eclipse
2:19 hours and 140 gallons at Fl390

Save time and money

Same speed and less fuel burn at 410 but I find FL 390/380 are the best altitudes for good speed low fuel burn and routings due to traffic

I thought it was pretty well done. He admits having a little bias, but I think he does a fair job of trying to mute it.

More than one person here on BT have commented that in terms of bang for the buck (CapX and OpEx), there are much better aircraft than the Vision.

I have yet to speak with pilot who has Eclipse time who hasn't spoken very highly of the aircraft. Too bad the company didn't do better.

Fair enough

Let’s look at right now with a tailwind and best time using ForeFlight

Cirrus
2:44 hours and 201 gallons at Fl290

Eclipse
2:19 hours and 140 gallons at Fl390

Save time and money

Same speed and less fuel burn at 410 but I find FL 390/380 are the best altitudes for good speed low fuel burn and routings due to traffic

Is this comparing new (Cirrus) vs used (Eclipse)?

Serious question. Not sure of the current state of getting a new Eclipse nor getting a used G2.

Calling Mike C, come in Mike...

George

Pretty much, a 1M Eclipse vs 3M Cirrus. Which sets the stage for new vs old, and a slightly biased view. On BT it is done all the time when looking at planes...seems we all like to think cheaper is better. Even when the markets says, no 3M is more then 1M.

My opinion the real insight is the cluster performance graph, where the Cirrus Jet really is like a Turboprop performance wise, while the Eclipse is a Jet. Once you realize that, then any criticism of the Cirrus make sense. You compare a jet vs turboprop on long-ish legs the jet will start to win. The shorter the leg the better the turboprop looks. Bias towards higher service ceiling matters more for longer legs.

Reality check: the review shows 184hrs/yr in the Eclipse. Look at the planes for sale, that is WAY above average. (it is roughly 1 standard deviation above the average, while the median usage is 110 hrs/yr)

While it is earlier days for the Cirrus Jet, it is flying in excess of 225hrs/yr. So you are comparing a $3M Cirrus used roughly twice as often as a $1M Eclipse.

Then look at Eclipse/Cirrus on a 'mission'.
800nm average flight, again above average. So you really have shown the Eclipse in the best light possible. Only lots of 'long' flights. And surprisingly, the Eclipse wins when you do that. I prefer looking at 1/3 short trip, 1/3 long, 1/3 in between those (300, 600, 900 nm for instance) and determining if the extra performance on the long legs justifies the drawbacks on shorter legs.

Examining real world world 'typical' usage the Eclipse's advantages start to disappear. If the operator tends to have lots of 'longer' flights Eclipse looks appealing. After all we all know the market is wrong.

Have the Eclipse parts programs been solved? I haven't paid attention for a couple of quarters but the last I did if you lost a probe your plane was a lawn dart. Without effective, and reliable, parts and service support, not to mention upgrade paths for future requirements it doesn't much matter what the capability of the plane is.