An apology to Kevin O'Brien

Richard Riley wrote:

So I raise a glass of vintage Port in your general direction, Kevin.
You are right, I was wrong.

RR

RR a man of honour, I salute You.

Owe R.

"Richard Riley" wrote in message ...


I now think that Kevin is right. Not for any of the reasons we talked
about, but because of this -

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/inthe...content_id=853

Some back of an envelope math says this stuff should be way more
profitable than any small jet aircraft. All they have to do is
license it. And cash the checks.

So I raise a glass of vintage Port in your general direction, Kevin.
You are right, I was wrong.

RR


It is not so much that the company has any specific product; it is the attitude behind the products that will make or
break the company. Eclipse has a great attitude...

On 2005-08-17 00:13:19 -0400, Richard Riley said:


I now think that Kevin is right. Not for any of the reasons we talked
about, but because of this -
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/inthe...content_id=853

Some


Some back of an envelope math says this stuff should be way more
profitable than any small jet aircraft.

Holy mackerel, Richard. I knew nothing about this Halon replacement.
This is the biggest thing since Crocker Snow got the specs on USAAC
fire extinguishers changed in 1938 or so (after his famous black
Stearman, with, IIRC, Frank Hawks's engine, burned).

I do think the Eclipse VLJ is a fundamentally profitable line of
business for another reason -- Eclipse's highly automated production
line. I have an interview with Vern Raburn that I have yet to
transcribe where he talks with some pride about the effect his factory
had on Dale Klapmeier, who was sure that they had the ultimate plane
factory up in Duluth.

Another thing to bear in mind is that even a Citation Mustang is
basically a bespoke product, like a Savile Row suit. Most planes are.
Some makes are notorious. I learned a lot from my brief ownership of a
repair station. With what you pay for airframe parts they ought to fit.
Some craft, they do. (Cessnas are actually pretty good). Some require a
day's hand fitting. Some require more than that -- some, the parts are
rough approximations.

Yes, even turbine aircraft.

The Eclipse could be the first GA plane to fully meet with Eli
Whitney's approval.

Of course, putting in a running change in the production line means the
manufacturer has the Hobson's choice of whether to fork his maintenance
tree, or whether to refit his fleet. And the economics of this changes
with every new plane off the line. Look at Cirrus -- they had two or
three mandatory SBs early in the life of their airframe. If they do it
now, there are 2,000+ airframes out there (of two different generations
of design, which effects fitment of parts).

Same-same Columbia. They have enough planes out there now that they
have to be feeling a mite squirrely about changing things.

These are prop vendors, but this is the scale where Eclipse will operate.

Neither Cessna nor Eclipse think the Mustang competes with the Eclipse
500. Note the significance of the Eclipse having a model number, BTW.
Cessna mostly sells to people who have owned other airplanes before.
Eclipse is deliberately targeting new blood, as is Adam.

Survival of Adam is more problematical than Eclipse. Both Adam and
Eclipse have discovered the rule that everybody knows, but somehow
thinks his own project will be an exception to: Certification takes
longer and costs more than scheduled or budgeted. And the effects on
budget and schedule are mostly independent: meaning you can't solve a
schedule problem by application of cubic money.

That ought to hang in every executive suite in a poster done in the
style of WWII hortatory poster art.

And... I'll take a drink with you tonight, although we be 3,000 miles away.

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.