Eclipse 500

[Neil Gould]

Hi all,

I was very impressed by the article on the Eclipse 500 in the latest AOPA
magazine. After so much skepticism, criticism, and so forth, it appears
that the promised aircraft is about to be delivered. I was particularly
impressed by the description of the development process, and by the
comprehensive training program that is being created. It's nice to see
such forward-thinking being implemented in today's GA environment.

What is your reaction to this plane?

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> What is your reaction to this plane?

I like the way the on-board computer system is integrated into many
every-day items from the get-go. The engines, avionics, and environmental
systems are all very high-tech, and should be easier to operate and
trouble-shoot than any other jet.

On the other end of the scale, I like the way they've kept things simple
where they could. Using simple mechanical connections for the control
surfaces and landing gear saves $$$ both now, and during maintenance.
Making sure everything is cheaply and easily maintained is essential to
their mission, and it looks like they're going down the right road.

That said, it'll never be in my hangar. But I wish them well.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> On the other end of the scale, I like the way they've kept things simple
> where they could. Using simple mechanical connections for the control
> surfaces and landing gear saves $$$ both now, and during maintenance.
> Making sure everything is cheaply and easily maintained is essential to
> their mission, and it looks like they're going down the right road.

"Cheaply" is not a word I like to associate with aircrafy maintenance. :-))

[Mike Rapoport]

It sounds great but the price has already risen almost 40% (in constant
dollars) for the initial $840K. I know of more than one person that put
down a deposit and won't be able to pay for the airplane unless they win the
lotto.

Mike
MU-2


"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
.. .
> Hi all,
>
> I was very impressed by the article on the Eclipse 500 in the latest AOPA
> magazine. After so much skepticism, criticism, and so forth, it appears
> that the promised aircraft is about to be delivered. I was particularly
> impressed by the description of the development process, and by the
> comprehensive training program that is being created. It's nice to see
> such forward-thinking being implemented in today's GA environment.
>
> What is your reaction to this plane?
>
> Neil
>
>

[Richard Kaplan]

The plane looks great but the cost has risen so much from the original plan
such that it is now "evolutionary" and not "revolutionary."

The ability of the company to provide long-term support is a key question
because an orphaned airplane would lose lots of value.

Therefore, I think for anyone considering a VLJ, the Cessna Mustang is a
better long-term investment. There is no doubt Cessna will be around for
the long-term; the jury is still out on Eclipse.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mike Rapoport > posted:

> It sounds great but the price has already risen almost 40% (in
> constant dollars) for the initial $840K. I know of more than one
> person that put down a deposit and won't be able to pay for the
> airplane unless they win the lotto.
>
On one hand, that's understandable, but wouldn't the reality be that those
people really couldn't afford the plane in the first place? Training and
maintenance can't be inconsequential considerations of the real cost of
ownership.

In this respect, I was also impressed that Eclipse will be returning the
deposits of those who can't qualify to fly the plane.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Richard Kaplan > posted:

> The plane looks great but the cost has risen so much from the
> original plan such that it is now "evolutionary" and not
> "revolutionary."
>
Evolved from... what? What other VLJs will be delivered within the next
year?

> The ability of the company to provide long-term support is a key
> question because an orphaned airplane would lose lots of value.
>
Ever look at the price of a North American P-51? You could have bought
several of the originals for the price of one today! ;-)

> Therefore, I think for anyone considering a VLJ, the Cessna Mustang
> is a better long-term investment. There is no doubt Cessna will be
> around for the long-term; the jury is still out on Eclipse.
>
Well, this is a judgement call that would be dependent on many factors,
not the least being how many Mustangs make it to the market compared to
Eclipse 500s. Considering that Cessna and Piper are being outsold by
Cirrus, I don't see a company's history as a very good predictor of their
future success. People will buy the aircraft that they think represents a
better choice for their mission, and since the VLJ market will be at least
in part defined by return on investment, I think that planes costing
several times more to purchase and maintain will have an uphill battle
against the E-500.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> What is your reaction to this plane?
>
> I like the way the on-board computer system is integrated into many
> every-day items from the get-go. The engines, avionics, and
> environmental systems are all very high-tech, and should be easier to
> operate and trouble-shoot than any other jet.
>
Agreed.

> On the other end of the scale, I like the way they've kept things
> simple where they could. Using simple mechanical connections for the
> control surfaces and landing gear saves $$$ both now, and during
> maintenance. Making sure everything is cheaply and easily maintained
> is essential to their mission, and it looks like they're going down
> the right road.
>
I also liked the model of redundancy that is being used. It should make
the plane both more reliable and economical to maintain.

> That said, it'll never be in my hangar. But I wish them well.
>
Perhaps not, but it may help to insure that you have places to land your
Pathfinder... ;-)

Neil

[Montblack]

("Mike Rapoport" wrote)
> It sounds great but the price has already risen almost 40% (in constant
> dollars) for the initial $840K. I know of more than one person that put
> down a deposit and won't be able to pay for the airplane unless they win
> the lotto.


Can they sell their spot in line - thus getting back their deposit and
making a little on the side?

BTW, what were the price guarantees for the early deposit people? I would
think they'd get a price break vs. someone deciding, today, that they want
an Eclipse.


Montblack

[Kyle Boatright]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> Recently, Mike Rapoport > posted:
>
>> It sounds great but the price has already risen almost 40% (in
>> constant dollars) for the initial $840K. I know of more than one
>> person that put down a deposit and won't be able to pay for the
>> airplane unless they win the lotto.
>>
> On one hand, that's understandable, but wouldn't the reality be that those
> people really couldn't afford the plane in the first place? Training and
> maintenance can't be inconsequential considerations of the real cost of
> ownership.
>
> In this respect, I was also impressed that Eclipse will be returning the
> deposits of those who can't qualify to fly the plane.
>
> Neil

Let's be honest... Most people buy the most airplane they can reasonbly
afford. That's why you see lots of people flying C-150's, Ercoupes, and the
like. When people decide "Hey, if I do X, Y, and Z, I can afford that new
$840,000 Eclipse.", and the price goes up by $350,000, it is no surprise to
me that the extra up-front cost might run off a few customers. Beyond that,
there are plenty of people who probably saw the Eclipse as a good value (if
that's possible with an airplane) at $840k. Add $350k to the ticket, and
the bang for the buck just took a real hit.

KB

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:37:16 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:
>
>Eclipse is going up against a player - Cessna - that dominates that
>segment of the market. They're going in with 2 things - a much lower
>price point, and a small technical advantage. Meanwhile Cessna has a
>well established name, product line, production facilities, dealers,
>repair facilities, diversified product line and deep pocket corporate
>parents.
>
>Does Eclipse have the money to stay alive in a price war with Cessna?

Bill Gates is the 2nd major investor in Eclipse... One can guess who
the #1 investor is...

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/inthenews/detail_05.htm?content_id=760

Who knows what his commitment level is, but if he is dedicated, money
will not be an issue.

[Don Hammer]

>
>What is your reaction to this plane?
>

It's the next doctor killer. No matter how much training, you can't
be a professional pilot flying a hundred hours or so with your mind
on other avocations.

[Matt Barrow]

"Don Hammer" > wrote in message
news:1120503614.9d7845ef9042c76b51f36dc25d66bf98@t eranews...
>
> >
> >What is your reaction to this plane?
> >
>
> It's the next doctor killer. No matter how much training, you can't
> be a professional pilot flying a hundred hours or so with your mind
> on other avocations.

It's probably less complex (i.e., easier to fly) than a piston twin.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Neil Gould" > wrote

> Evolved from... what? What other VLJs will be delivered within the next
> year?

Evolutionary compared with turboprop performance and price.

> Cirrus, I don't see a company's history as a very good predictor of their
> future success. People will buy the aircraft that they think represents a

The odds of Cessna being around in 20 years are outstanding. Even if the
Mustang is not a rousing success, it will still be supported by Cessna.
Cessna still continues to support every plane it ever made.

The odds of Eclipse being around in 20 years are unknown.

> better choice for their mission, and since the VLJ market will be at least
> in part defined by return on investment, I think that planes costing

I gather that means you believe in the concept of hundreds or more Eclipse
air taxis? Now that is very much an unproven business model. It is even
more of an unproven business model when you start calculating the payload of
an Eclipse. Charter operations almost never make a profit if the capital
investment in an airplane are considered; there are so many people who want
to buy an airplane that the free market has reduced charter costs such that
a charter airplane returns a modest return on incremental hourly costs but
no return on capital costs. I have yet to see a realistic spreadsheet of
any Part 135 charter operation which results in a net profit including both
the cost of capital and operating costs; there is no reason to believe the
Eclipse will be any different.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Matt Whiting]

Nathan Young wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:37:16 -0700, Richard Riley
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:07:54 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:
>>
>>Eclipse is going up against a player - Cessna - that dominates that
>>segment of the market. They're going in with 2 things - a much lower
>>price point, and a small technical advantage. Meanwhile Cessna has a
>>well established name, product line, production facilities, dealers,
>>repair facilities, diversified product line and deep pocket corporate
>>parents.
>>
>>Does Eclipse have the money to stay alive in a price war with Cessna?
>
>
> Bill Gates is the 2nd major investor in Eclipse... One can guess who
> the #1 investor is...
>
> http://www.eclipseaviation.com/inthenews/detail_05.htm?content_id=760
>
> Who knows what his commitment level is, but if he is dedicated, money
> will not be an issue.
>
>

Bill is dedicated to making money. If Eclipse doesn't make money in a
reasonable time frame, I'll bet his "dedication" will quickly fade...


Matt

[karl gruber]

You can still buy a MUCH better used Learjet for the same money.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Mike Rapoport" wrote)
>> It sounds great but the price has already risen almost 40% (in constant
>> dollars) for the initial $840K. I know of more than one person that put
>> down a deposit and won't be able to pay for the airplane unless they win
>> the lotto.
>
>
> Can they sell their spot in line - thus getting back their deposit and
> making a little on the side?
>
> BTW, what were the price guarantees for the early deposit people? I would
> think they'd get a price break vs. someone deciding, today, that they want
> an Eclipse.
>
>
> Montblack
>

I suppose that depends on how many people are in the same situation.

Mike
MU-2

[Don Hammer]

>
>It's probably less complex (i.e., easier to fly) than a piston twin.
>
>
>

I agree, but that twin doesn't go 400 kts either. Easier to fly
doesn't help the judgment issue when things are happening fast.

Thurman Munson had the full Flight Safety course before he flew his
Citation into the ground. Probably was thinking of his next baseball
contract instead of the best way to shoot an ILS. How many Malibu's
and Bonanza's have come out of the clouds minus their wings? Those
are singles easier to operate than any complex twin.

It is my observation and the NTSB's that it is the non-professional
pilots who lack the experience and singular focus of professional
pilots that find themselves victims of those accidents, through no
fault of the airframe.

Unfortunately I think you will see the same pattern with privately
operated VLJ's

[Michael R]

The Cessna Mustang engines are 50% higher thrust than the versions used in
the Eclipse. I'm sure they are much more expensive.


"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...

>
> They're now using the same engines (at the same cost to them) as
> Cessna. ....

[Richard Kaplan]

"Don Hammer" > wrote

> It is my observation and the NTSB's that it is the non-professional
> pilots who lack the experience and singular focus of professional
> pilots that find themselves victims of those accidents, through no
> fault of the airframe.

If by "professional" you mean full-time pilot, then I believe this is your
opinion and not that of NTSB.

If by "professional" you mean a pilot who is well-trained, proficient,
well-equipped, and following sound risk management procedures, then yes, you
are correct.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Don Hammer]

>
>If by "professional" you mean a pilot who is well-trained, proficient,
>well-equipped, and following sound risk management procedures, then yes, you
>are correct.
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>

Richard,

I am in the business of consulting in corporate aviation and have for
the last ten years. As a company we own a Citation that we will soon
sell.

The point I am trying to make is even though some of us have as much
as 15,000 hours in jet aircraft, our focus is on the business we are
doing and not 100% flying. I can guarantee that none of us feel as
sharp as when we flew 400-500 hours per year and that was all we did.

We fly the Citation less than 100 hours per year and always hire a
full time contractor as PIC when we go. There is a time when the ego
has to stay home.

Are we well trained? - very
Proficient? - At 100 hours per year, not likely
Follow sound risk management procedures? - You bet

The issue is, we are dedicated to our business and that business is
not flying aircraft. Can we turn off that business when we get in the
cockpit? Again, not likely. If we flew full time our total focus
would be the job at hand.

By professional I mean someone that does it for a living. My fear is
that there are a lot of big egos with big pocketbooks and have their
deposit down that have no business flying around in a jet . All week
they will be cutting on people and think they are professional because
they went to school and can afford to make it to Florida on the
weekend.

Don

[Richard Kaplan]

You say a number of things in your reply.

Are there people who can afford more plane than they can safely fly? Of
course.

Are there full-time professional pilots who are not appropriately proficient
or skilled to fly their planes? Of course.

The question I am asking here is about your comment about full-time vs.
non-full-time pilots. Are you suggesting that no one can be a safe and
proficient pilot without flying 400-500 hours per year? And are you
suggesting that the NTSB agrees with you in this regard? If so, I strongly
disagree with you on both counts; I believe you are over-generalizing to an
unreasonable extent.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[AliR]

Too bad I have to sell my house and 5 of my neighbors' houses just to be
able to fly one!

AliR.

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
.. .
> Hi all,
>
> I was very impressed by the article on the Eclipse 500 in the latest AOPA
> magazine. After so much skepticism, criticism, and so forth, it appears
> that the promised aircraft is about to be delivered. I was particularly
> impressed by the description of the development process, and by the
> comprehensive training program that is being created. It's nice to see
> such forward-thinking being implemented in today's GA environment.
>
> What is your reaction to this plane?
>
> Neil
>
>
>

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Richard Kaplan > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote
> (People will buy the aircraft that they think represents a...)
>> better choice for their mission, and since the VLJ market will be at
>> least in part defined by return on investment, I think that planes
>> costing
>
> I gather that means you believe in the concept of hundreds or more
> Eclipse air taxis? Now that is very much an unproven business model.
>
Yet, it is one that everyone entering that market with a VLJ believes to
be viable.

> It is even more of an unproven business model when you start
> calculating the payload of an Eclipse.
>
That depends on how correct Eclipse is about the seat/mile costs. A full
E-500 has to be cheaper to fly in than a half-full Citation.

> Charter operations almost
> never make a profit if the capital investment in an airplane are
> considered;
[...]
> I have yet to see a realistic spreadsheet
> of any Part 135 charter operation which results in a net profit
> including both the cost of capital and operating costs; there is no
> reason to believe the Eclipse will be any different.
>
This is a problem that affects all operations equally. If one can reduce
their capital expenses by a significant amount, that results in a higher
net profit, and I have a hard time seeing how that is a Bad Thing.

Neil

[[email protected]]

Neil Gould wrote:


> That depends on how correct Eclipse is about the seat/mile costs. A full
> E-500 has to be cheaper to fly in than a half-full Citation.


Sure it may be cheaper. But the charter market never has been a
price-sensitive market; that is why jet charters are much more popular
than piston charters.

> This is a problem that affects all operations equally. If one can reduce
> their capital expenses by a significant amount, that results in a higher
> net profit, and I have a hard time seeing how that is a Bad Thing.

My point is that when capital is considered, there never has been such
a thing as a "profit" anywhere in the charter industry except in the
very high-end VIP market which sells ultra-security and ultra-privacy
without regard to cost.

The reason the charter market exists currently is that owners who
already own airplanes for other reasons choose to lease them back to
Part 135 operators. The owners make a profit on the leaseback but take
a loss overall; that is OK since the airplanes can be justified on
other grounds and the leaseback is just a bonus.

In other words, no one today can go out and buy a fleet of CitationJets
and make a profit chartering them; what happens is that someone who
already owns such an airplane for other reasons chooses to earn some
incremental money on a leaseback.

The model of hundreds or thousands of Eclipse air taxis takes a
different route and assumes that a charter leaseback can instead be
profitable if the planes are bought strictly for leaseback, i.e.
profitable considering both capital and operating costs. I propose
that if iswere shown to be true then the free market will take over so
many people would get into the air taxi business such that the charter
price gets pushed down and once again the capital cost is not recovered
in the price.

In simplest form, every pilot would love to own an Eclipse if he could
pay its ownership costs in full via a charter operation, no less make
money on the deal. This would be so good a deal that the free market
will ensure that it is not possible.

[Jose]

> But the charter market never has been a
> price-sensitive market; that is why jet
> charters are much more popular
> than piston charters.

Were that really true, charter prices would rise unimpeded (as charter
companies try to make more profit). But they don't. The bucks may be
there, but value is demanded for them. Charter =is= price sensitive.

The E-500 would provide as much value to the passenger as a Citation,
and either provides more value than a piston twin.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Aluckyguess]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1120588811.57bca5da2d4bbba0ee41b1af085a611a@t eranews...
>
> You say a number of things in your reply.
>
> Are there people who can afford more plane than they can safely fly? Of
> course.
>
> Are there full-time professional pilots who are not appropriately
> proficient or skilled to fly their planes? Of course.
>
> The question I am asking here is about your comment about full-time vs.
> non-full-time pilots. Are you suggesting that no one can be a safe and
> proficient pilot without flying 400-500 hours per year? And are you
> suggesting that the NTSB agrees with you in this regard? If so, I
> strongly disagree with you on both counts; I believe you are
> over-generalizing to an unreasonable extent.
>
I think he is saying your not going to be safe in a 400mph + plane. You may
be fine in a 200 mph but a 400mph jet is a different story.
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan
>
> www.flyimc.com
>

[Richard Kaplan]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..

> Were that really true, charter prices would rise unimpeded (as charter
> companies try to make more profit). But they don't. The bucks may be
> there, but value is demanded for them. Charter =is= price sensitive.

Lack of price-sensitivity does not mean price is irrelevant for equivalent
services, i.e. the less expensive of two identical CitationJets with
equivalent crews will be preferred over the more expensive one.

What lack of price-sensitivity means is that the market is not so quick to
jump on a service which is a lot less money if the product is not perceived
of being at least as good in quality.

An Eclipse will require a compromise in payload and/or range vs. a
CitationJet. In some cases an Eclipse will also require a compromise in
lavatory facilities if that option is not chosen for a given plane or needs
to be sacrificed for a passenger seat.

To the extent a price-sensitive market exists and WOULD be interested in the
value an Eclipse offers, the question begs to be answered as to why that
market will embrace the Eclipse but not piston twins or even turboprop
twins. I think the answer is that in order to reach this price-sensitive
market, the price would need to be much, much less than will be possible
with Eclipse economics.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Don Hammer]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:40:13 -0400, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>You say a number of things in your reply.
>
>Are there people who can afford more plane than they can safely fly? Of
>course.
>
>Are there full-time professional pilots who are not appropriately proficient
>or skilled to fly their planes? Of course.
>
>The question I am asking here is about your comment about full-time vs.
>non-full-time pilots. Are you suggesting that no one can be a safe and
>proficient pilot without flying 400-500 hours per year? And are you
>suggesting that the NTSB agrees with you in this regard? If so, I strongly
>disagree with you on both counts; I believe you are over-generalizing to an
>unreasonable extent.
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>

I guess you don't understand what I'm saying or maybe I'm not clear
enough or maybe I am over-generalizing. I'm talking about high
performance aircraft and pilots that don't spend 100% of their working
life with them. I don't know about you, but given the chance, I'd
feel safer with the 100% pilot that fly's 400 per year than some
lawyer or business man that fly's for pleasure when he has the
opportunity, no matter how well trained and conscientious. I think
your insurance man as well as accident statistics would agree with me.
Hell - you may be God's gift to aviation and it doesn't apply to you.
I don't have a clue.

As to the NTSB, I was referring to their conclusions to the
certification review of the Piper Malibu after many came apart in the
clouds. They determined that the decisions made by the pilots to fly
through convective air currents caused the wings to come off through
no fault of the airframe.

Now I really don't know how many of those were flown by professional
pilots, but my best guess would be zero. Guys that do this stuff for
a living give CB's a wide berth or they cease to make a living at all.

My observations come from being in the industry and spending the best
part of 35 years in corporate jets. I think I have a different
perspective (maybe not a correct one) than a light aircraft flight
instructor.

I'm sure the whole field is full of wanna-be's that would just love to
fly a jet and because of the low price will be able to afford them.
Having been-there-done-that for most of my life, those are the ones
that concern me. GA has take some big hits lately in the press, but
you haven't seen anything yet until a VLJ with another big ego
Kennedy-type guy goes smoking through a rather large house in
Westchester County, NY. Enough political pressure from the class-envy
masses and we'll all have to park our toys.

Nuff said!!!

[Jose]

> What lack of price-sensitivity means is that the market is not so quick to
> jump on a service which is a lot less money if the product is not perceived
> of being at least as good in quality.

Yes, I agree that "a lot less money" presently buys "a lot less service"
and that's not what the market is. But when "a lot less money" buys "a
little less service", you'll find more takers. Some will come from the
piston twin regime, where now for "the same money" they can get "a lot
more service".

All this, of course, FSVO "a lot". That's the nut we're waiting to see
crack.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Richard Kaplan]

That puts things into a bit of perspective but let us clarify this a bit
more.

First of all, let us talk about high performance piston singles. No doubt
there are pilots with poor judgment there. But there is no way you can tell
me it is not possible for a businessman who takes piloting very seriously to
fly a Malibu or P210 or other high performance piston single 100 hours per
year to a professional and highly acceptable level. I reject the argument
that someone cannot do this well because he has other things on his mind --
if that were the case then we should ground airline pilots going through
divorce and we should also ground all airline pilots this year since they
all have huge financial stress. Along these lines, there is no NTSB or
other document that has ever suggested a 100-hour per year pilot who attends
recurrent training cannot safely fly a Malibu - no such document exists.

Yes, I am a light aircraft instructor. I also fly a high performance piston
single for personal trips. I fly over 400 hours per year. It so happens I
am also a physician. Yes, I believe I fly to professional standards. And
I know lots of my students who are entrepreneurs or partners in various
professional practices and fly 100-150 hours per year and whom I would
entrust to fly my children. And I know such pilots whom I would prefer not
to fly with. Each case is different -- let us not generalize.

As for the new light jets, I will say upfront that I do not have experience
with jets so I will to some extent defer to your judgment. It certainly is
intuitively understandable that the skills to fly at 400 knots are quite
different than those to fly at 200 knots. I do have lots of concern
regarding how a piston pilot will be able to step-up to such jets; perhaps
it will require an extensive mentoring process by which a new VLJ pilot
flies as copilot for a year or so after buying such a jet. Perhaps you can
suggest other training and proficiency standards. I suspect the "dropout"
rate for new VLJ pilots will be a lot higher than for new high performance
piston pilots. Set the bar as high as you want but I think it is quite
unfair to overgeneralize and say de facto that a 100 hour per year pilot
cannot be professional in flying a VLJ; set your criteria based on
performance, not by an unrealistically high minimum number of annual flight
hours and certainly not by some stereotype of who you think is qualified to
be a pilot.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Don Hammer]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:52:24 -0400, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>That puts things into a bit of perspective but let us clarify this a bit
>more.
>
>First of all, let us talk about high performance piston singles. No doubt
>there are pilots with poor judgment there. But there is no way you can tell
>me it is not possible for a businessman who takes piloting very seriously to

>Yes, I am a light aircraft instructor. I also fly a high performance piston
>single for personal trips. I fly over 400 hours per year. It so happens I
>am also a physician. Yes, I believe I fly to professional standards. And
>I know lots of my students who are entrepreneurs or partners in various
>professional practices and fly 100-150 hours per year and whom I would
>entrust to fly my children. And I know such pilots whom I would prefer not
>to fly with. Each case is different -- let us not generalize.
>

Love this forum for the conversation it stimulates.

I have two physician friends that are pilots.

#1 - Great pilot. Owns a homebuilt Glassair and a glider. No ego.
You have to ask him what he does for a living to find out. Flys maybe
150 hours a year. I'd go to the moon with him. Takes flying very
seriously.

#2 - Scares the hell out of me. Owns a Bonanza and will probably
partner with another on an Eclipse if he lives long enough to get it.
Flys about 250 hours a year commuting to his other house and boat.
Eat up with the god syndrom and makes stupid decisions in most
everything he does except when he's cutting on someone.

#1 and possibly guys like you don't worry me a bit. My concern is
until the VLJ's come out, all the #2's killing themselves in light
aircraft have been off the public radar screen. As soon as that
starts happening in jets things will not be the same.

Think we have beat this to death. Good luck and keep the blue side
up.

P.S. Sometimes there is truth in humor. One of my favorites -

The three most dangerous things in aviation are -

1. A doctor in a Bonanza
2. A baseball player in a Citation
3. Two flight instructors in a Cessna 150

Have a good one.

[Nathan Young]

On 4 Jul 2005 16:19:54 -0700, "karl gruber" >
wrote:

>You can still buy a MUCH better used Learjet for the same money.

Aren't the op costs for a Lear 23/24/25 extremely high? And no single
pilot ops? Hence the sub $1M pricetag?

-Nathan

[Richard Kaplan]

So in the end we agree... there are good and bad apples in every bunch.
Judge each by its merits and do not generalize.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Don Hammer]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 22:20:00 -0400, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>
>So in the end we agree... there are good and bad apples in every bunch.
>Judge each by its merits and do not generalize.
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>

Guess we do. There are incompetents out there that will now be able
to afford a jet! ;-)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Don Hammer > posted:

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 22:20:00 -0400, "Richard Kaplan"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So in the end we agree... there are good and bad apples in every
>> bunch. Judge each by its merits and do not generalize.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Richard Kaplan
>>
>> www.flyimc.com
>>
>
> Guess we do. There are incompetents out there that will now be able
> to afford a jet! ;-)
>
Jets were always affordable, if one could afford $800k + for an airplane.
Look in Trade-A-Plane for an L39 or Mig.

I think it's a very responsible move on the part of Eclipse that they
won't sell you one of theirs if you can't pass the training.

Neil

[B. Jensen]

As a guy who spends 90% of his time above FL310, I have some different
concerns about the Eclipse and VLJ's (very light jets) in general.

Class A airspace continues to become saturated as airlines have added,
and continue to add, RJ's. Also, the success and increase of jet
fractional ownerships and corporate jets has changed the demographics of
the upper flight levels since 9-11. To make room for all this traffic,
the US has gone to RVSM, but the ATC system is STILL old fashioned in
the way they handle all this traffic and pilots that fly up there must
be very diligent! It's not the controller's fault, it's the government
and their reluctance to upgrade an antiquated system.

With the explosion of RJ's and the sad fact that the airlines flying
these aircraft are unwilling to pay their pilots a decent salary for
flying them, the experience level and hiring criteria has been greatly
reduced. The FAA, NTSB, and aircraft insurance company's are realizing
that this is causing safety concerns and has contributed low experience
in the cockpit to some recent RJ incidents. High performance aircraft
and low experienced pilots is a dangerous mix.

My concern with VLJ's is that pilots with hefty bank accounts can afford
them, but all the training in the world won't make up for the experience
they need to fly them safely. That can only be obtained one way...by
actually flying. You can fly a simulator all day for many days, but it
is no substitute for the "real" thing.

This isn't something new, we have seen this scenario from the early
years in aviation. ie. the "more money than ability" saga with piloting
airplanes. The only worse scenario is the "more money and EGO than
ability" saga. The Beechcraft Bonanza was sort of the "VLJ" of the 60's
& 70's...if you know what I mean. (even though is was / is a great
airplane)

The airlines have handled this experience problem by hiring experienced
pilots to begin with, putting these pilots through stringent training,
and then pairing them up with 1 or 2 experienced pilots in the cockpit
as they began their career. Usually a new pilot at the airlines waited
and flew as a copilot for 8-12 years before their seniority allowed them
to move up to the Captain seat. By then, they had a fair amount of
experience and were ready. Unfortunately, this won't be the case with
the VLJ revolution.

Hopefully my concerns will not bear fruit, but I am very skeptical about
this new era we about to enter with very high performance aircraft,
flown by very low performance pilots, in a very overloaded environment,
and controlled by a very old fashioned ATC system.

Best,

BJ



Neil Gould wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I was very impressed by the article on the Eclipse 500 in the latest AOPA
>magazine. After so much skepticism, criticism, and so forth, it appears
>that the promised aircraft is about to be delivered. I was particularly
>impressed by the description of the development process, and by the
>comprehensive training program that is being created. It's nice to see
>such forward-thinking being implemented in today's GA environment.
>
>What is your reaction to this plane?
>
>Neil
>
>
>
>

[Richard Kaplan]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message

> I think it's a very responsible move on the part of Eclipse that they
> won't sell you one of theirs if you can't pass the training.

That is a meaningless move since it will not be long until there is a market
for used Eclipse jets.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com