The Kestrel is already almost a clone of the Epic, they had to do something to differentiate them. The lower operating costs of the TPE does that for them.

That's not at all surprising, the 777 was developed in the early 90s (it was certified in 1995), eons ago in software time. Today there are DVD players with more lines of code than the 777. The Eclipse was certified 11 years later, a huge difference.

The 777 had 2.5 million lines of code written for it. The Chevy Volt has several times that much. You can see where the 777 ranks among other common products in this cool graphic. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... s-of-code/

Some of the things that aren't a disadvantage on the TPE (Prop fx is assured in most failure modes) sadly stops being the case on larger single shaft designs.

Props failing to feather is the biggest thing that will kill you in the E-2 and C-2.

There's an E-2 on the bottom of the Arabian Sea with a friend of mine in it because of that.

On MU-2 / King Air sized planes, it's not a big problem, as you said, they go to feather with a loss of oil. The 4 blade prop on a T56 pitchlocks with a loss of oil, and the 8 blade is hydraulically locked for longer than you'd stay airborne with it at low pitch and not running.

Don't forget FADEC on the TPE331.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... o-form-ONE

Can 2 marginal companies make one whole one? Doubtful.

One Half Aviation?

Mike C.

One Half Aviation?

Mike C.

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.

Weird, non standard, odd, issues, unexpandable. The system has the feel of something cobbled together, and that's because it was. IS&S panels, Chelton FMS software, Honeywell radios, Garmin transponder, and so on.

Some of the issues were detailed in various threads, like this one:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=88575


Wonder how the Mustang got a better safety record without it?

Mike C.

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.

Weird, non standard, odd, issues, unexpandable. The system has the feel of something cobbled together, and that's because it was. IS&S panels, Chelton FMS software, Honeywell radios, Garmin transponder, and so on.

Some of the issues were detailed in various threads, like this one:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=88575


Wonder how the Mustang got a better safety record without it?

Mike C.

A few random thoughts:

-- Alan Klapmeier almost killed Cirrus by chasing his vision of a company to compete with Cessna. He wanted the full range from piston through jets. So consider this a step toward that vision.
-- Multiple people have told me that Alan Klapmeier was the guy behind the all glass cockpit and pushed Avidyne to get the Entegra certified. He was also the one who dumped Avidyne when Garmin came with a better solution (or more popular).
-- Why would the new combined company want to continue to maintain custom avionics? Look at Cirrus and Kestrel announcements. Both companies go with existing solutions for any part which has been commoditized. Avionics are now largely commoditized.
-- The combined companies probably have way to much space and need to consolidate to one location. Kestrel already had logistic issues and costs be being split between Wisconsin and Maine.


Tim

Yes.

Mustangs outnumber Eclipse almost 2 to 1 (probably over 2 to 1 when consider retired Eclipse airframes), they fly more hours per example, have had no fatal accidents, have had fewer non fatal accidents, and, subjectively, the non fatal accidents seem less connected to the airplane's design than the Eclipse. For example, no Mustang has had something like the MDW incident, a fatal accident narrowly averted for the Eclipse.

All that translates into a better safety record since the Mustang fleet has had about 3X the exposure of the Eclipse fleet.

Whatever advantage Avio may bring to the Eclipse, the fact there are so many variations now in the equipment level is contrary to safety (oddly enough, something Eclipse #1 understood that but they obviously bungled the homogenous fleet idea).

Every Mustang is basically the same so the training and sims all work for everyone's airplane properly.

Mike C.

So the next step is the Chinese buy One Aviation and merge it with Cirrus they already own. There you go, piston single, turboprop single, twin jet. Bundling.

Mike C.

Yes.

Mustangs outnumber Eclipse almost 2 to 1 (probably over 2 to 1 when consider retired Eclipse airframes), they fly more hours per example, have had no fatal accidents, have had fewer non fatal accidents, and, subjectively, the non fatal accidents seem less connected to the airplane's design than the Eclipse. For example, no Mustang has had something like the MDW incident, a fatal accident narrowly averted for the Eclipse.

All that translates into a better safety record since the Mustang fleet has had about 3X the exposure of the Eclipse fleet.

Whatever advantage Avio may bring to the Eclipse, the fact there are so many variations now in the equipment level is contrary to safety (oddly enough, something Eclipse #1 understood that but they obviously bungled the homogenous fleet idea).

Every Mustang is basically the same so the training and sims all work for everyone's airplane properly.

Mike C.