Ugh. A bit pricey. How much the Mustang goes for these days?

Too bad it's going to be built in Poland.We sure could use the jobs in the U.S. Especially here in Albuquerque! When Eclipse went under the trickle down effect on sub contractors etc. Was quite devastating as well.

Think so, huh? I think it is another airplane that will not be capable enough at a price that is economically viable. Just my guess.


So you would pay 2.5M to get a "not real" airplane? Not many would...


If there is no order book then there is no production. They have been out there accepting orders for a year or so, they better have an order book by now if they have any realistic hope of restarting production.

Wise words, good thoughts, +1

Do we already have a betting pool going on how long this venture will last before it goes bust with another batch of orphaned airframes ?

For the last forty years nothing has changed in aviation except the numbers have gotten bigger. Jim Bede lives on!

Look at a 1.0-1.3 Eclipse for $600k-$800k and for the 'right' operator, there is nothing on the market that even comes close to touching this jet.

However, when you start talking $1.5m (for an upgraded 500) or $2.8m for a new 550, one has to start looking at other airplanes.

+1

Capability is not the problem. Eclipse is plenty capable, and I am sure Vision will be too. The question is the price. If they can deliver Vision for 1.5M, it will be a seller. 2M, not so much.



You know what "real" airplane is. It's the one with a toilet. Eclipse is still in the "clown plane" category.


That's something they will have to deal with, and that's the reason the deposit to hold the position is only 25K. One would have to be crazy to give them any significant funds prior to delivery. The good news is that with Sikorsky backing they may actually have the funds to front the production costs. Once they build it, I am sure the buyers will come IF the price can be kept sufficiently low. 2.5M - yes. 3M - not so much.

I just think a jet needs more range.

There are people trying to sell 1.0 airplanes who are asking $1m. Just like sellers asking $125k for their V35 with worn out paint/interior and KX-155s in it. I can tell you where the market is. The last two IFMS airplanes sold for close to $1.5m. I know of a very nice one right now with a few hundred hours on it that you can buy for $1.7m, but it has been on the market for quite a while- they want too much $ ...

As for the controls being 'way too heavy,' I found the Eclipse to be a 'little' heavy in the roll. Pitch, not at all. Having to use the trim to climb and descend? Well, I use the trim when no matter what I am flying but I do like to hold a little bit of the airplane still.

What have you been flying? A Cessna 150? In pitch the Eclipse is no heavier than any Baron I have flown- and much lighter than a KA90. In the roll, it is a little bit heavier than a Baron, probably about the same as a KA90.

It would certainly be nice, but looks like Mustang and Phenom 100 have about the same range (around 1,100 nm), so Eclipse is not at disadvantage here.

I have never been a guy to claim that I know much really about anything, so perhaps someone else can explain it. After following the thread of Ted getting his type rating in the eclipse and reading all of the posts bashing the airplane, I could not figure out why all of that was. After reading this thread, the questions have still not gone away so here is what does not make much sense to me. Please note that my comments are not in regards to support or maintenance, but performace based only.

It seems to me that everyone raves about a TBM. The 700 does I believe 270kts at FL310 and the 850 (a totally different animal) *advertises* 310kts and FL310, although my friend that has one says that is a little difficult and 295 is more accurate. In comparison to the Eclipse, these are just about the same size airplanes, same number of seats, but the performance of them is no comparison. I would take the 360kts at FL410 in a jet over 270 or 300 in a single turboprop 100 times out of 100. The fuel flow of those two jets is pretty darn close to that one turboprop. Not to mention that a used eclipse can be had for a few hundred AMU's cheaper than the TBM. Even the new eclipse can be had for almost $1 million cheaper than a new TBM.

So my quetion is this:

Why is it referred to as a clown plane? Why do folks downplay the performance of the eclipse? Because it is a jet that is slow when compared to the other $4 million+ jets? It smokes the competition from a performance standpoint and there is no denying that. Even flying it conservatively as Ted indicated, that is still 330kts at FL410 at 55GPH. That pretty much cannot be beat, especially in a jet. The TBM doesn't have much more room or capability than the eclipse, other than FIKI.

The eclipse may be the smallest of the jets and it may not have the range of a Lear 60, but as it has been stated, for the right mission it is a heck of a plane. It was never designed to compete with a hawker, lear, or falcon. It was designed to compete with the TBM as an owner-flown jet that was easy enough to fly that someone who wanted to transition from a bonanza or baron could do so, and fast enough to get 4-5 people somewhere quickly and efficiently. All of which I would say it is able to do well.

Again, I don't know a whole lot about anything, so perhaps someone with more knowledge that I have can explain it. FIKI and a coupled autopilot seem to be the original eclipse's downfalls. The new one has those problems fixed. So what is the problem here?

Last I've heard, Ted is loving the plane. He just does not like the company and their support policies.