The Eclipse is heavily computerized. Most functions are either controlled or monitored by the computer system. By doing that, it's potentially a lifesaver. The plane will try hard to keep you from killing yourself.

The computer constantly monitors hundreds of functions silently in the background and reports only those that are important to know. It'll scream long and hard if you try to take off with the flaps set wrong or a half dozen other critical things not correct when you advance the throttles. I have myself been not-so-gently reminded when I forgot to set the pressurization.

Anyway, that's all by design. And the end result is that the plane has suffered *zero* fatal accidents and zero injuries in the six years since certification. That's a pretty good record considering the large number of pilots--myself included--who transitioned to the Eclipse directly from the piston world. There are quite a few former Cirrus owners among Eclipse pilots and a fair number of guys who had Bonanzas or Barons.

The heavy reliance on computerization in the Eclipse can potentially be a mixed blessing--if a computer fails, it would bring down a lot of functions, and it would probably be expensive to replace. But they don't fail very often; I've never had one fail. Indeed, in 4-1/2 years of operating the Eclipse, I've only had one episode where a maintenance issue delayed a planned flight. That had nothing to do with computers; it was a leaking engine fire extinguisher. The repair delayed my departure from Florida for Puerto Rico for about 3 hours.

Ken

For $1.6m a used TBM 700 C2 would make more sense and will be faster on 1000 nm legs.





Scott, try to follow along here. This has already been discussed a few times in this thread.

This is not a VFR only airplane.

The people who bought them new originally got the shaft. They were delivered before the final certifications were done (basically all we are taking about is FIKI, moving map, coupled autopilot, and radar) The company was terribly mismanaged. Take a look at their business plan and you would swear it is something Madoff came up with. It is the kind of story a movie could be made about ...

Eclipse went broke, shut their doors, and left owners with 'unfinished' airplanes. The guy who bought the company was able to shed all the 'IOUs' to outstanding customers, and made them pay to have the airplanes upgraded ('finished' would be a better word) by the 'new company.'

A lot of people lost a lot of money. If you bought a new Eclipse back then, you would probably be wishing that you had done anything else with the money. One guy paid 1.5 million for his airplane the day they filed bankruptcy. Wired the money that morning and they never did give him the airplane! Most people only lost $100k deposits or got an airplane that was delivered without everything as promised ...

Let's take the current value of an original Eclipse (~$600,000). Spend $1m on the upgrade and you have 1.6m into basically a brand new airplane that has quite a bit lower DOC than a Citation Mustang. (at half the acquisition cost)

Marc,

We are discussing airplanes. Since when is sense involved.
And more importantly. It is a jet, and secondly it is a twin so it is safer yet!
Now if only I had the money....

Tim

For a 1000 nm still air trip, the Eclipse will beat the TBM by about a half hour while burning roughly the same amount of fuel, going higher, quieter, etc etc. If Marc posts the numbers for a 1000 nm flight in a TBM 700, I'll do the same for the Eclipse.

It is true that the TBM has a greater range than the Eclipse. The TBM-700 is a very nice plane, and it has greater range than any of the PW600 series jets (Eclipse, Mustang, Phenom 100). If the mission is to regularly exceed 1000 nm, the TBM is a better choice than any of the new-generation small jets. But the rated NBAA IFR range for the Eclipse is actually 1125 nm, and you can certainly do a 1000 nm trip in still air in it.

Ken

I knew Vern Raburn (eclipse founder and CEO). He was was a tough SOB, I locked horns with him and lost. Vern was visionary and he needed to be an operator. Vern headed up a company called Slate in the early 90's, there vision was the tablets we all know and love today. I saw Vern last year and he got old, he seemed young when I knew him and I bet the experience took a giant toll.

For a 1000 nm still air trip, the Eclipse will beat the TBM by about a half hour while burning roughly the same amount of fuel, going higher, quieter, etc etc. If Marc posts the numbers for a 1000 nm flight in a TBM 700, I'll do the same for the Eclipse.

It is true that the TBM has a greater range than the Eclipse. The TBM-700 is a very nice plane, and it has greater range than any of the PW600 series jets (Eclipse, Mustang, Phenom 100). If the mission is to regularly exceed 1000 nm, the TBM is a better choice than any of the new-generation small jets. But the rated NBAA IFR range for the Eclipse is actually 1125 nm, and you can certainly do a 1000 nm trip in still air in it.

Ken

Here you go, 1120 nm in 4.3 non stop, 210 gal fuel burned.
And I was kept low for 15 min at departure around FL, landed with over 1 hour fuel.
Try that in your Fisher Price Jet !

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CGEM ... /KORL/CYCC

Also its FIKI out of the box !







For a 1000 nm still air trip, the Eclipse will beat the TBM by about a half hour while burning roughly the same amount of fuel, going higher, quieter, etc etc. If Marc posts the numbers for a 1000 nm flight in a TBM 700, I'll do the same for the Eclipse.

It is true that the TBM has a greater range than the Eclipse. The TBM-700 is a very nice plane, and it has greater range than any of the PW600 series jets (Eclipse, Mustang, Phenom 100). If the mission is to regularly exceed 1000 nm, the TBM is a better choice than any of the new-generation small jets. But the rated NBAA IFR range for the Eclipse is actually 1125 nm, and you can certainly do a 1000 nm trip in still air in it.

Ken

So is the Eclipse (All but a handful of the first delivered airplanes)

The TBM looks like a great airplane. However, the numbers say that the Eclipse will do a 1000nm trip faster, quieter, and on a little less fuel with 2 engines. The TBM carries a bigger load, more fuel, and although I have never been in one I assume it's cabin would be a bit more spacious than the eclipse. What does the same vintage TBM cost? (with glass- 2007+?)

Here you go. An Eclipse going 1277 nm in 3:21 November 18.

TBM's a nice plane; if my wife had gotten her way, we'd have bought one back in 1996. It's mission overlaps with the Eclipse, but there are some things each does better than the other.

Ken

Here you go. An Eclipse going 1277 nm in 3:21 November 18.

TBM's a nice plane; if my wife had gotten her way, we'd have bought one back in 1996. It's mission overlaps with the Eclipse, but there are some things each does better than the other.

Ken

So is the Eclipse (All but a handful of the first delivered airplanes)

The TBM looks like a great airplane. However, the numbers say that the Eclipse will do a 1000nm trip faster, quieter, and on a little less fuel with 2 engines. The TBM carries a bigger load, more fuel, and although I have never been in one I assume it's cabin would be a bit more spacious than the eclipse. What does the same vintage TBM cost? (with glass- 2007+?)

Well if we are going to play that game, then I offer this,

KMCW-KEFD 943sm 3h33m 39 gallons

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N84M ... /KMCW/KEFD

I know a guy who just bought a PC-12. He used to own a TBM. He had to go to flightsafety for initial training and then back every year for a recurrent. The FAA may not require a type rating, but the training requirements for insurance make it just about the same (just no official checkride)

I think the Eclipse is going to work fine for me. I have a good opportunity worked out on one and I am going to take advantage of it. I could use a Baron or Bonanza for my mission. I am choosing to fly a jet for a while.

That right there is a thread killer....
I agree!
No other reasons needed.

Have Fun!!!!

I for one always thought the Eclipse "cool" (including the single they brought to OSH one year). Don't leave BT: I'd like to see how this works out for you. (vicariously, can't begin to afford one.)