Announced by e-mail today.

http://www.oneaviation.aero

Maybe they can also bring back the Eclipse400 jet if Cirrus gets any market traction..

It is like two poor people getting married, each hoping the other is rich.

Mike C.

Poor people? Eclipse is owned by UT.

This was a smart move for both companies. I look forward to seeing what how they will do in the future.

Not really.

"In April 2012 Greg Hayes, CFO of United Technologies, which owns Sikorsky, indicated that Sikorsky would not be investing any more money in Eclipse. Eclipse CEO Mason Holland quickly clarified that the company had not asked for any further investment and that Sikorsky's share stood at 42%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Aerospace

UT is a major investor, but not the "owner", and they have declared no more investment is forthcoming. Jeff Pino was the driving force behind the UT investment, and he "left" shortly after the deal.

Mike C.

are they still in Duluth MN (or was it superior?) Maybe this is old info

I believe Kestrel is in Superior, WI. I hope they suceed, the Kestrel is a nice aircraft on paper anyway.

I still can't believe a jet airplane leaves the factory in 2015 with tip tanks.

The Eclipse needs a new wing and a G1000.

The G1000 is far more important than the wing, IMO.

The Kestrel 350 does NOT need Avio.

Any bets on how long before Klapmeier ditches Avio? Extracting Avio is surely a chore form all it is entangled with, but the benefits would be enormous.

Mike C.

The small tip tanked eclipses are actually "cute" (dont have a better word) but i agree the large tip tanks are slightly dorky but i would take them in a heartbeat for that extra 30 min of range. A swept composite wing with internal fuel and winglets would perhaps make the eclipse cruise in the 420kt range on 58gph, very interesting idea!

I dont think they are going to do anything with the Kestrel and hope this deal was primarily designed to market and sell new Eclipses.

I would love for them to rip out the Avio but dont see this happening as it would basically require recertifying the airplane. Unlike a regular airplane, the Eclipse avionics ARE the airplane as everything flows through them, i mean everything. I think i read somewhere that there are more lines of code in the Eclipse than a Boeing 777.

Maybe they just hired bad coders in the first place - easy to write more than needed- but hard to believe that a plane with multiple redundant nav systems, multiple doors, many more types of flight controls etc would use less code.

RAS

Well they were a bunch of software people...who were convinced (as many coders are) that they were exceedingly more intelligent than all the established aerospace engineers that don't know how to innovate.

Well they were a bunch of software people...who were convinced (as many coders are) that they were exceedingly more intelligent than all the established aerospace engineers that don't know how to innovate.

So the system architecture being a kludge doesn't surprise me. Hubris

As some may remember, Avidyne was behind the development of the original Avio systems - they were the makers of the displays and software.

As Avidyne and Eclipse parted ways in 2007, the new Avio NG used displays built by Chelton, Garmin transponders and Honeywell radios. Nonetheless, Avio is one of the reasons I would be hesitant about getting into an Eclipse.

If they're smart, they license tech from Dynon (if Dynon chose to participate...).