On 27 Feb 2005 22:10:37 -0800, "
wrote:

Your other concerns are worthy of consideration. As this project is
hardly a day old, I think the details can be worked out eventually and
it is too soon to say: "oops , no pilot, no aeronautical engineer, no
billion dollars, oh well!!"

The difficulty is, I'm suspecting you have absolutely no idea what goes into
designing and building an aircraft. I doubt anyone in this newsgroup objects to
discussing new aircraft concepts and alternate ways of efficient flight. I'm
certainly not objecting to you posting about a new airplane concept.

The problem is that you are posting to this group on a hunt for *investors*,
claiming a prototype cost of $250,000, when you:

A. Aren't a pilot
B. Aren't an engineer
C. Have assembled a aircraft design team without an aeronautical engineer
D. Don't know what it takes to build, analyze, static test, or flight test an
aircraft.
E. Aren't familiar with the FAA rules for certifying aircraft.
F. Haven't done a shred of research on the field to know of the other small
jets being developed by companies that HAVE all the above experience. For
example:

http://www.aerocompinc.com/airplanes/CA-Jet/index.htm

Now, pretend I'm a potential investor. The above company, Aerocomp, has been
building small airplanes for ten years, including several turboprop models.
Explain to me why I should invest in your plane instead of theirs.

Finally, I didn't see any mention on the Eclipse web page of their aircraft
having a parachute for airframe recovery, as you claim. They are carrying a
spin-recovery chute during flight testing, a normal precaution. Their
performance page lists a stall speed of 67 knots, which means it will glide
quite nicely without a chute.

Ron Wanttaja