Beechcraft sold

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Cessna builds quantity
Beech builds quality
Piper builds junk

Ah, the old Ford vs Chevy argument again. Sound and fury,
signifying...nothing


I've owned two Pipers as well. N4201Z, N7474D

One, I picked up brand new at the factory in Loch Haven. There I went
through the factory and shook William Piper's hand. I also had a brand new
private pilot's certificate in my pocket with 43 hours TT.

I wouldn't mind driving a 1963 1/2 Ford Fairlane 500 with the 427 engine
either.

There is no doubt that Beech builds to a much higher quality than Cessna,
Piper. That's why they sell so many King Airs.


Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in 2392
feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm, the King
Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.

In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled
maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times. Last
August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".


--
Matt

That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!

Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.

With a few notable exceptions, ugly designs don't make it.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"karl gruber" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in 2392
feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm, the King
Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.

In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled
maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times. Last
August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".


--
Matt

That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!

Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.

With a few notable exceptions, ugly designs don't make it.

Your'e right they are ugly.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

TxSrv writes:

Hey moron, investors in big companies here are not romantic about
their company's products.

That depends on the investor.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

TxSrv writes:

Raytheon's aircraft subsidiary was making $200 million, or a
lousy 6% on the $3.3 billion to purchase it. Only a moron would
think this is a way to make a quick buck.

What makes you think the buyers intend to continue operating the
company?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"karl gruber" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in 2392
feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm, the King
Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.

In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled
maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times. Last
August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".


--
Matt

That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!

Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.

Their design goal was...what?

With a few notable exceptions, ugly designs don't make it.

Whatever.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"karl gruber" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT in 2392
feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of 1,300 nm, the
King Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs. 2355'.

In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats filled
maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of those times.
Last August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".


--
Matt

That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!

Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.

Their design goal was...what?

The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They now
must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original design goals
are out the window.

Recently, Dave Stadt posted:

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"karl gruber" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT
in 2392 feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of
1,300 nm, the King Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs.
2355'.

In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats
filled maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of
those times. Last August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".


--
Matt

That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!

Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.

Their design goal was...what?

The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They
now must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original
design goals are out the window.

I don't think this is an accurate statement. Their original objectives
couldn't be met with the new Williams engine that was under development,
true. However, their design goals have remained the same AFAICT; the
airframe is pretty much the same, the performance has improved, and the
price is still desirable to those who have purchased it in advance. From
where I sit, it doesn't look all that different from the introduction of
any other revolutionary aircraft. And, I really like the company's
attitude w/r/t training and purchase qualifications.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Dave Stadt posted:

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"karl gruber" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


BTW, an Eclipse 500 at SL will TO in 2297 feet, a King Air C90GT
in 2392 feet. The E500 has an IFR range with four occupants of
1,300 nm, the King Air has 931nm range. For landing, 2155' vs.
2355'.

In the six years I've had my B36-TN, I've had five of six seats
filled maybe ten times, and that was the whole family, nine of
those times. Last August, my wife and I became "empty nesters".


--
Matt

That's assuming the Eclipse will ever be built!

Besides not meeting their design goal it is just plane UGLY.

Their design goal was...what?

The initial design was based on an engine that didn't pan out. They
now must use a heavier engine which means nearly all their original
design goals are out the window.

I don't think this is an accurate statement. Their original objectives
couldn't be met with the new Williams engine that was under development,
true. However, their design goals have remained the same AFAICT; the
airframe is pretty much the same, the performance has improved, and the
price is still desirable to those who have purchased it in advance. From
where I sit, it doesn't look all that different from the introduction of
any other revolutionary aircraft. And, I really like the company's
attitude w/r/t training and purchase qualifications.

Neil


If only they had an airplane.

One, I picked up brand new at the factory in Loch Haven. There I went
through the factory and shook William Piper's hand. I also had a brand new
private pilot's certificate in my pocket with 43 hours TT.

THAT is cool.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"