Comments on: Eclipse catching up to Cessna…

By: ghengis

ghengis — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:18:04 +0000

The hype behind the eclipse has never made much sense to me. My understanding is that the premise was two-part 1. A new class of inexpensive turbine engines (presumably derived from lessons-learned by the mass production of cruise missiles) mated with modern composite construction would allow for a reasonably-priced small jet. 2. The existence of this affordable jet would fill a market niche as an “air taxi” carrying first-class level travelers with private-jet comfort and convenience.

Well, I understand that the original engines didn’t materialize, so the aircraft’s not too much more capable than a Columbia. (Isn’t it, in some sense, a Microsoft product?) I never understood the “air taxi” thing. Regional airlines can barely pay their pilots with 30 people in the back, how they were going to do it with 4, I’ll never understand. CEO’s fly in bigger jets, but what company can afford to lose 4 V.P.’s at the hands of a $35,000/year pilot? The whole thing’s a non-starter. Outside of Alaska, when’s the last time you heard of anyone chartering a light plane?

By: David

David — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:31:07 +0000

Favorite avaiation related quote from the article.

“A year ago, he would have only flown Gulfstreams,” Mr. Sullivan said. “Now it’s moving to the point where he’s flying Beech jets and Learjets.”

Class envy is not pretty…

By: jon

jon — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:52:42 +0000

The Eclipse is the ONLY multi-engine turbojet that does not need to meet the single engine climb gradient certification standard.

Eclipse decided that because their aircraft was under 6000lbs. is should not be held to the same standard as every other certified multi-engine jet. Much to the surprise of everyone the FAA granted them a waiver. (Of course the FAA also fast tracked the certification and tended to re-assign FAA personnel who found fault with Eclipse during the certification process.)

If you charter one of these you are not much better off than you would be in a Chieftain or a C-414.

That is to say nothing of the fact that this “jet” is not certified to fly in icing conditions.

A VMC only “jet” should cost considerably less than the competition.

By: philg

philg — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:07:38 +0000

Jim: You are correct. If inflation is bad enough that $3.14M is only enough to buy a Diet Coke in 2011, you can trade your Diet Coke for a Mustang in 2011; the price in dollars is the price. Presumably Cessna has figured out how to hedge their inflation risk. The other jet companies have much more complex contracts that leave the customer with the inflation risk, e.g., “You will pay us $2.998 million adjusted by the CPI-Q from 1932 to the time of delivery.”

By: Jim Howard

Jim Howard — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:04:52 +0000

“A Cessna Mustang ordered today would deliver in mid-2011 at a fixed $3.14M”

Just to be sure I understand, if I put a deposit on a Mustang today I will pay the balance on delivery based on $3.14 million in 2011, no quibbling about inflation between now and then?