Beechcraft sold

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
t...

"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.


The price was also to be under 1 million. Thats out the door.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:08:08 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


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.



Two acquaintances of mine fly Caravans for Linear Air, out of
Westchester & Bedford. They have 30 Eclipses on order. AFAIK, they
were very close to certification, so I'm sure they will be built.

Eclipse received certification back at the end of October.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
t...

"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.

Um...nope, the Williams engine couldn't make required thrust/weight specs,
but the P&W is actually lighter than the original Williams spec.

Their design goals are met.

BTW, in such a "clean sheet" design, it's not uncommon for some specs to
differ from the original "wish list".

Read their specs listed on their website compared to their competition.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. net...

"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.
They received certification in October and they've a few ready to go out the
door.

Eclipse 500

Recently, Dave Stadt posted:

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

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.


If only they had an airplane.

What do you call those things that they have been flying around and have
gotten certification for?

Neil

Recently, Aluckyguess posted:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
t...

"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.


The price was also to be under 1 million. Thats out the door.

That would matter is if those who put money down bailed out of their deal
or those looking to buy started looking elsewhere, which doesn't appear to
be the case. The price of an E500 is still quite competitive in the VLJ
market.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. net...
Eclipse 500

Recently, Dave Stadt posted:

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

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.


If only they had an airplane.

What do you call those things that they have been flying around and have
gotten certification for?

Neil

Have they delivered any to customers?

Recently, Dave Stadt posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Eclipse 500

Recently, Dave Stadt posted:

If only they had an airplane.

What do you call those things that they have been flying around and
have gotten certification for?


Have they delivered any to customers?

I wouldn't know. What difference would that make to their design goals?

Neil

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

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Eclipse 500

Recently, Dave Stadt posted:

If only they had an airplane.

What do you call those things that they have been flying around and
have gotten certification for?


Have they delivered any to customers?

I wouldn't know. What difference would that make to their design goals?

Neil


Design. market and sell but don't deliver. Certainly a unique strategy.

Recently, Dave Stadt posted:

Design. market and sell but don't deliver. Certainly a unique
strategy.

What has it been, around 4 years? Frankly, I think that it is a
respectable accomplishment to start a company, design a VLJ from the
ground up, get it certified, develop a comprehensive training program
(from what I understand, some purchasers have already participated in it)
and make sales all within that time frame. Who else is delivering a VLJ
today?

Neil