If I was paying for a jet, I'd want a real jet.
Eclipse, SF50, even Mustangs are too small, too slow with too many compromise.
Min CJ2+, M2, Phenom 300. 8 seat +.

Marc,

I think "real jet" is a matter of opinion, perspective and need not model. For example, I fly by myself a great deal and never exceed 4 people. I don't need to haul more than that for any reason. Far more than half my trips are under 500 miles. The ones that are not will still be much more comfortable in a jet with pressurization and over most of the weather than in a piston single. The CJ2+ and Phenom 300 are simply too big for me in my opinion. I've seriously considered the CJ and its newer variants. My only issue with it is the very uncomfortable cockpit. So, a "real jet" for me includes the Eclipse, Mustang, CJ line and maybe the Phenom 100.

Actually, for over half of the transportation needs I have the Cirrus is the perfect airplane. For the balance first class airline tickets are far cheaper. But if I can I'd like to fly my own version of a "real jet" while I have time, health and money to do it. What's truly wonderful in all of this is there aren't any bad choices only less optimal ones. Figuring out the optimal one is the challenge and the hunt much of the fun.

Not me! I don't think it makes any sense at all and I'm not in a position to do it despite not making any sense.

For you the Eclipse wasn't just inexpensive it was free apparently. I don't expect to do that well with any airplane and so I've haven't been disappointed so far.

Just to elaborate a little so we don't wind up confusing everybody:

Yours was SN 32, correct me if I've got that wrong, a non-ETT, non-NG, non-upgraded plane. That was the earliest version released, the first 38 airplanes delivered. All but a handful of them were later upgraded with the extended range tip tanks, aerodynamic modifications, bullet fairing, pylon redesign, MLG fairing, FADEC changes and other improvements.

For those unfamiliar, the deal is this: those earliest non-upgraded planes have a 905 nm NBAA range and a max cruise speed of 356 KTAS. So, you bet, they are less capable of flying westbound in heavy winds than any of the upgraded aircraft. The ETT mod raised cruise speed to 370 knots and, most importantly, raised the NBAA IFR range to 1125 nm, an increase of 220 nm.

We routinely fly our plane from the Bahamas to the Phoenix area several times each winter. We make a Customs stop in south Florida and a single additional fuel stop somewhere in Texas. I don't think we've ever had trouble making that work because the 1125 nm range gives a fair amount of leeway for heavy headwinds. I completely agree that people should ideally avoid the few non-ETT Eclipse aircraft still in existence because their range is shorter and their performance is lower. Those planes are all non-FIKI, have no integrated RNAV capability, and are supported only "as able" due to unique parts no longer being produced.

All versions of the plane above the early non-ETT version--i.e. all Eclipse aircraft from NG 1.3 to the latest 550 iteration--have the full performance envelope the design is capable of, but the non-ETT's do not.



Agree completely. Owning the jet is life-changing, and the Eclipse makes it affordable for many people for whom a jet would otherwise be beyond reach.

Ken

905nm and 356 kts are very optimistic for a pre-ETT. I never saw over 330 in the pre-ett bird I flew. And 1125 range is optimistic for an ETT. Sure, I've done a 1465nm flight in a Pre-ETT and landed with 300 lbs, but I've also departed full fuel in an upgraded plane, flew 500 nm down the road and landed with only 200 lbs. It is really hard to buck 120 knot headwinds in an Eclipse, it's far more difficult than with a real jet. 1125 mile IFR range and 370 knots are not quite outright lies, but I would say definitely are misleading numbers. Can both be done? Yes, when the stars line up- and definitely not at the same time.

Plan a 1100 nm flight against an average 100 knot westbound headwind as is typical in winter, with your fuel stop somewhere requiring the filing of an alternate let's say 75 miles away. You will discover that you cannot make the ~550 mile leg with legal fuel reserves. You also cannot put 4 adults in the plane and legally depart with full fuel. Now, let's say those 4 adults want to go on a ski trip to a destination just 900 miles away and everyone wants to bring their winter weather clothing and ski boots. To stay legal in this jet westbound in the winter, you will be making 2 fuel stops, 3 legs for a 900 mile flight. Yet, on the flight home which will be done non-stop, you can bet that Eclipse owner will take a picture of his 430 knot ground speed, brag to all of his friends, and post it online to show everyone how amazing Eclipse jets are.

I don't believe the ETT mod was that dramatic. It gained 25ish gallons of fuel but not that much speed. With the 3% increase in thrust and minor drag reductions, not much. Pre ETT goes 340 max, post ETT 355 max. It doesn't go 370 often unless really cold. Who cares. 25 gallons of Jet A goes an extra 100 miles, who cares. It's possible some pre ETT birds had a FADEC upgrade to increase thrust but I can't confirm this. Most of the speed increase was thrust increase not drag reduction.

Most of us pre ETT folk lowered our VFR fuel reserves to achieve post ETT range but the range on all the Eclipse versions I've flown in is max about 1000 miles. The P Baron can do this easily with a 1 hour reserve. In the Eclipse, I was always worried about running out of gas.

I loved my bird, nicest and tightest Eclipse I've flown.

Screw Eclipse for allowing the parting out of a 400 hour plane to occur. They forced this hand; I'd still be flying it if it was possible.

I had a free jet so I can't complain but my pretty bird didn't deserve to die because of business politics.

Mark

I seem to have struck a cord with you, using your example of name calling and following it up with the comment that is shows a lack of integrity was not a good choice of words, it was not my meaning that YOU lack integrity, I will give you that.

However to make a denigrating comment like "Village idiot" and follow it up with "but we love you" does not change the fact that you called him an idiot, nor does it make up for what can be seen a personal attack. I cannot see how that would change anybodies behavior on an internet forum, if that was your aim.
Similarly deprecating my writing style and understanding of the English language will not make me a better writer, typing it in green also does not make it less insulting.

Mike usually debates the point at hand, at times bluntly. However I have seen it as a reoccurring pattern on CPA and on Beechtalk that when some are not up to the task to counter his arguments that they would interject sarcasm or belittle Mike instead, that ads no value to the discussion at hand and attenuates the value of these forums especially for someone like me who is online more for the learning experience than posting.

Hilgard

If you want range buy a commander!

Yep, the extra 24 gallons in the tips gave the plane 160+ additional cruise miles. The rest of the 220 mile increased range came from the cleaning up of the aerodynamics, especially the tail bullet.


All I can say is I routinely see 360+; here's 368 KTAS at ISA - 1; that's not all that cold:




I hear ya.

Ken

Just a few comments I'd like to make regarding what is being said in this thread, and it kind of reminds me of a college course I took called "how to lie with statistics."

I always take every manufacturer's stated range with a grain of salt, because they base that number on a straight unrestricted climb to max certified ceiling, staying there, with a flight idle descent. Flying the east coast this is just not practical or realistic. With regards to all the VLJ's I find real world they are comfortable 800 nautical mile airplanes, and that is with good enough weather that an alternate isn't required. Throw in an alternate and that number can come down significantly.

Yes the Eclipse is a 375 knot airplane, but in over 500 hours of flying them I only saw that once, and that was at a negative ISA and At 29,000 feet and a 90 gallon an hour fuel burn. Predominately I flew the airplane at what I call the sweet spot, and that was at MCT, between FL 340 and FL370.

Usually at ISA I'd would see Mach .58 or about 358 knots. I never wanted to land with less then 350 lbs of fuel, and I found I'd block average 85 gallons an hour on most of my 750 nm trips.

I only flew the airplance once at FL400 because soon after the AD came out limiting the plane to lower altitudes. It was Delaware back to Florida and going high did allow me to make it non stop against a strong head wind. As I remember fuel burn was down around 300 lbs an hour with a true airspeed of 319 knots and a ground speed of 250 knots.

I wasn't so lucky in that the three planes I managed all were about the same, in that they were plagued by constant problems. I found that "most" others that I talked to had similar experiences but a few lucky ones had few to no problems with their jets. I developed my own theory and conclusion on this, and that was the airplane didn't seem to like high humid environments. Seemed like those operating in dry areas with low humidity had less problems.

So the after all these years the debate goes on regarding the Eclispe. I have know Ken many years, and I can say he truly is a great guy and has had a tremendously positive experience with his jet.

For him as he says it has been life changing. But then again he has been very fortunate. He bought in at the right time at a very low price, and got a jet that was reliable and had few if any problems. He flys it light so he gets good performance, and for him it has been a great plane. Most others haven't been as fortunate, and I doubt if it was today at current new prices if he would be in a position to buy an Eclipse.

I think it all boils down to perspective. Perhaps this sums it up perfectly.

Hi Dave,

Yes indeed. The 1125 nm range I cited is, like all jet and turboprop NBAA range figures, governed by a specified protocol that does not entirely match real-world operations:



It's primarily intended to be used in order to compare one aircraft to another by comparing a standardized flight profile. So, for instance, a prospective buyer who knows that the Mustang NBAA range is 1150 nm will know that he can expect slightly greater (but not a lot greater) range than the Eclipse with its 1125 nm range and better yet than a C90 with its 1017 nm NBAA range.

In the real world, as you suggest, no aircraft is likely to travel its NBAA range without sacrificing reserves.

Ken

Hey Mike, that's been bugging me overnight so I wanted to ask a couple of questions, please:

1. How did it come about that you had to ground the plane and part it out--loss of support?

2. What were the mechanics of parting out the plane--who does that kind of thing? I recently had an owner contact me looking for a plane that is being parted out because he wanted some interior parts for a custom project he had in mind for his own plane. I didn't have all that much info to give him.

I'm very sorry it worked out the way it did for you.

Ken

Dave
I assume based on your post you where flying the eclipse in 07-08.
This is when they where making the aircraft at a high production rate.
They actually were making a aircraft a day at one point.

The production rate and new design led to reliability issues like you experienced.

Eclipse has made many changes to the aircraft over the years and my experience and the pilots I know have good experience.

With the ability to fly to 41k feet I fly routinely from nj to Florida in around 3 hours and almost always less than 200 gallons

I flight plan going west 800 miles and always land fat on fuel.

So things have changed for the better in the last 7 years at least with the Eclipse

Hey Mike, that's been bugging me overnight so I wanted to ask a couple of questions, please:

1. How did it come about that you had to ground the plane and part it out--loss of support?

2. What were the mechanics of parting out the plane--who does that kind of thing? I recently had an owner contact me looking for a plane that is being parted out because he wanted some interior parts for a custom project he had in mind for his own plane. I didn't have all that much info to give him.

I'm very sorry it worked out the way it did for you.

Ken

I couldn't agree more about the humidity comment above. Eclipses hate humidity and they hate cold even more. If below 50 degrees, the avionics would get real finnicky and sometimes wouldn't even boot up until the sun heated her up. If really cold or wet outside up high, plan on lots of radio noises and plan for possible Air France style data agreements. I've had a 1.5 and 1.7 and an IFMS do all these things so I don't think its an Avionics upgrade issue.

I know of Eclipses that work great in Alaska and then flip out after staying in Florida for a few months and then start working great again when returned to Alaska. I think the Byte Flight data buses corrode a tad and then it causes mayhem to ensue. It's also near impossible to trace the problem to a single area or connector so there are issues that some people just end up living with.

For a historical reference, the Byte Flight people invented the BMW I Drive system in the 7 Series. Notice you almost never see ancient 7 Series driving around because when this stuff breaks, they usually go the junkyard because it's impossible to fix this stuff economically. It's not like a single wire going to the switch going to a motor, all these systems are running together through large computer controlled data buses. And for an airplane that might live 30-50 years, this makes the aircraft about as repairable as an iphone or personal computer which is not so much. A Jet is not supposed to be a disposable consumer product like a printer or phone.

This computer stuff was supposed to make the airplane live forever and never be obsolete but the reality of it is that is does exactly the opposite.

Due to this, I think most of the fleet will disappear when requiring $600-700K engine overhauls just as most of the early Citation fleet is doing right now.

Still a fun airplane despite this stuff!