that is a good looking jet @shenanigans61:

it's all because the Williams engine didn't work out.
Props to Eclipse for sticking to their design.

helldiver

You can carry 580 pounds when your tank is full?.. You can't even hold 4 average sized dude in there to show off what you got.

jason724

where are the flaps. how does it turn

Formito

One engine eh? Hope that fscker doesn't break...

Xavoc

Ugh. I love aviation and all, but seriously? A 4 seater jet costing $1.35 million at 330 knots? Please. It's little more than a high performance 172 at 5 times the price. Plus, Jet A prices versus the already expensive 100LL? I'll pass.

shenanigans61

i want one.

baconfrenzy

sports car that can fly.. i'll take it!

katatonic1

What? You would either have to have a pilot, which would suck, or be certified to fly jet aircraft. If you can't fly a jet, why not just buy a slightly larger and much more comfortable plane for a comparable price?

The Magnificen7

@four12: I wouldn't want to afford it unless I had a few billion sitting in the bank.

shenanigans61

@Formito: Elevons in the tail, I am guessing (flaps don't make planes turn anyway, although some planes have flaperons in the wings).

DangerousLiberal

@shenanigans61: If you have to ask how much... you can't afford it.

four12

The specs on this plane are sad, like the previous poster said, you could own five 172's (or if you have that much spare cash, a Caravan) for that price and get more payload, cheaper fuel, and get there maybe an hour or so later.

580lbs? That's two skinny dudes and their trophy wives.

bwohlgemuth

@Formito: I'm guessing you mean rudder. Flaps are used during landing to create more lift to allow for slower landing speeds. This aircraft uses what Beachcraft term a 'ruddervator' which is a combination of rudder & elevator. Have a look at the Beachcraft Bonaza V-tail BE35 model.

hsczyrba

Why don't they design a deploying parachute for this so that if your only engine cuts out you don't die?

Noobs-R-Us

>>>>It's little more than a high performance 172 at 5 times the price.

Except your 172 can't get into class Alpha airspace and fly over weather. Apples and oranges.

>>>>One engine eh? Hope that fscker doesn't break...

If you examine single versus twin turboprops, you'll find that the fatality rate is actually LOWER in the singles. This is due to a number of reasons. First, with singles, a slower stall speed is mandated, and forced landings are not nearly as dangerous as in multis.

Also, the asymmetric thrust that results from an engine failure in a twin is often mismanaged, resulting in horrible crashes and fatalities all around.

In short, a single is not inherently more dangerous to operate.

>>>>You can carry 580 pounds when your tank is full?.. You can't even hold 4 average sized dude in there to show off what you got.

Virtually every other airplane, from King Airs to Learjets to Boeing 767s have this same "problem"....which is to say, isn't a problem at all.

It's a given that you'll only ever carry as many people as there are seats in the airplane. So when designing the fuel tanks, why would you limit the fuel capacity just so the pilot can fly with full fuel and seats?

You wouldn't.

Instead, you'd add as much fuel capacity as feasible. This way, if the pilot prefers range to payload, he or she can carry a ton of fuel in lieu of fuel and full seats.

>>>>You would either have to have a pilot, which would suck, or be certified to fly jet aircraft.

Actually, because the aircraft is powered by a turbojet engine (as per the FAAs definition), you'd need both. You'd need your pilot certification as well as a type-rating for that particular aircraft.

Anything less would be dangerous and stupid, anyway. Training is ALWAYS money well spent, and the very LAST place you'd ever want to try to save a few bucks.

GizMadone

Uh to everyone who says the max useful load is 580lbs, you might want to watch the video again as it says 580lbs for fuel. The useful load for this plane is 1850lbs meaning that with full fuel (580lbs) you have 1260lbs left for people and baggage.

[www.eclipseconceptjet.com]

gexor

@gexor: "Full Fuel Payload" is the amount of stuff you can put in after you have a full load of fuel, I believe, not how much a full load of fuel weighs. This appears to be what everyone else on the internets thinks at least :)

raleel

>>>>Why don't they design a deploying parachute for this so that if your only engine cuts out you don't die?

Because chances are, if your only engine DOES cut out, you WON'T die.

It's not like the movies. Engine failures do not cause you to instantly enter a death spiral and auger into the ground.

If your engine fails, you pitch for the appropriate airspeed and glide. The vast, vast majority of the time, you'll still have plenty of options.

GizMadone

Me want. .. . Is there an economy verion? Leather isn't my thing. . .lol

--Tito--

It's a very nice looking plane, but If I'm going down in big fire ball, I prefer to go down with a 100+ others. I'm afraid of small planes (had a very bad experience).

shamoononon has a hebetudinous dog

Really what this is competing with are pressurized turboprops, like King Air or possibly something like a Piper Meridian. The Eclipse jets fly faster and higher, with a lower initial price tag. The trade off is MUCH higher operating costs. Fuel, maintenance, insurance, training, etc tend to favor props over jets at the expense of speed and versatility.

testmonket

@Mandatory_Field: All I lack is a pilot's licence, a jet rating, and a couple million... sigh.

Mandatory_Field

Everyone saying that it's a crappy jet should check out the Eclipse 500, the first -- and current -- model. Twin engines, higher payload and speed. I believe that (if you were one of the faithful who made a deposit while they were still designing the thing) that the price was around $.9 Million -- if I recall correctly. The 500 essentially changed General Aviation forever, and sparked everyone else to jump into the personal jet game. Full glass cockpit, innovative manufacturing techniques... I wanted one for more than two years before the first one rolled off the assembly line. Operating cost per mile is not that much more than the above-cited Cessna 172.

Mandatory_Field

Cirrus is building a very similar aircraft and are far more stable than Eclipse. [www.the-jet.com]

Chese

@Mandatory_Field: Not that I know what I'm talking about. I still believe in Moeller after all....

Mandatory_Field

@shenanigans61: What the hell kinda 172 are you looking at that pushes anywhere near 330 knots?

That said, I'll gladly take a 172 (or really a Commander) over this, or if you really need the speed, go for a Mooney Acclaim (242 knot cruise) at half the price of the Eclipse.

nucwin83

Quibbling over tech aside, it's a damn beautiful aircraft.

There isn't a bad angle to look at that thing from!

strider_mt2k

Now i wouldn't want the airforce spending 2 missiles on a drunk pilot heading for the high security areas.So a board with DONT DRINK AND FLY is a big requirement..That is if thats not the intention of some low life terrorist who die in the name of god and find out he's not the one in command of the afterlife era...however its a nice idea if it came a bit cheaper

seandvn

Nice plane but for a personal aircraft with my millions I'd by an updated Airwolf. Cant beat hovering for sheer coolness.

alukard

What happened to the good old tradition of slapping a "Gizmodo" tag on every airplane covered on, well, Gizmodo?

hanswurst0815

It flies by that joystick on the side? It probably does not even have any tactile feedback. I really prefer a full sized yoke. I'm not a fan of that kind of stick control at all.

drbuzz0

>>>>Now i wouldn't want the airforce spending 2 missiles on a drunk pilot heading for the high security areas.So a board with DONT DRINK AND FLY is a big requirement..That is if thats not the intention of some low life terrorist who die in the name of god and find out he's not the one in command of the afterlife era

This jet isn't any more susceptible to drunk pilots or terrorists than any other aircraft. So no...a board with DONT DRINK AND FLY is not a big requirement at all.

>>>>It flies by that joystick on the side? It probably does not even have any tactile feedback.

Why wouldn't a sidestick have any tactile feedback? Sidesticks are not inherently fly-by-wire, you know. It's got mechanical linkage like any traditional yoke, and thus, has feedback like any traditional yoke.

GizMadone

@GizMadone: if you know so much about planes, you are on the wrong blog!

hindsight2020

Zipcar should add these to their fleet!!!! This would be perfect for avoiding the traffic on I80 on the way to the Sierras :>

sfokevin

Eclipse Aviation is in something of a shambles at the moment. I'm not sure I'd put a deposite down until they figure out what the new management is going to to.

joelja

$1.3 Million! Cheap!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone in mccain's middle class will be able to afford one.

tonashideska

@drbuzz0: All I know is that my neighbor has a Cirrus SR-22 with a sidestick - and he loves it.

Stang70Fastback

Clever... IFR on one engine... very smart.

Ednonymous

1,250 nanometers = 7.7671399 × 10^-10 miles

That's got to be a mistake...

JuiceDaddy

@JuiceDaddy: I think thats nautical miles not nanometers

kosai

Cirrus' The Jet will actually ship. Eclipse is in decline. And the Cirrus single engine jet comes with a ballistic parachute. Although people fly single engine IFR all the time in piston Cessnas and shit, and turbines are much more reliable than pistons, you lose the engine in low IFR, pull the chute. Problem solved.

deathbychichi

So this is kinda funny. The thing says 1250 nm instead of 1250 km. I don't think i really want something that goes about 1 micrometer .... :P

comfortablesofa

@Ednonymous:

No need to worry about IFR...AVIO flopped so from what I recall, the 500 has yet to be IFR certified.

@Mandatory_Field:

Wow...where are you getting your talking points from? While all of what you mentioned were promises, they failed on nearly every level... For one thing, the early deposit holders were forced to pony up $1.73 million, or they could opt for a refund + 3.14% interest calculated from 6 months after date of deposit.

The avionics is the biggest joke..AVIO is the equivalent of building something out of Legos, except half the parts are the dollar store brand Legos... If you want cheap, do cheap, but don't try to mix and match, things just don't fit together.. They should have just used the G1000 like the Diamond D-Jet and called it a day.

I'll leave you with a pic of the clusterfail of a forward cockpit view. Notice the Garmin GPS unit on top of the dash...it's there because AVIO's navigation underwhelmed the regulatory gods:

RedwoodFlyer

Yes!

Just one question: does it have a parachute? For the plane, I mean.

FritzLaurel

bah... no stripper pole. tony wouldn't set a foot in that plane.

krom

@comfortablesofa:

I assume you don't know anything about boats or plane.
That's nautical miles. Planes and boat uses that.

sebas0069

Buy a Paris Jet... google it, its faster and cheeper and made back in the 1970s... so much for progress... the paris jet kicked ass and still does for a 4 seat jet for 1 pilot?! No co-pilot needed... this is progress???

powerfloe

@GizMadone: Not according to the numerous deaths reported from private jets crashing lately. You did notice that this plane has a small ass wing right? Even with its flaps down, it would have problems gliding. With a full cabin, this thing is going to be a kamikaze missile. Also, if you're low in altitude, it would be hard for you to attain velocity now wouldn't you?

Noobs-R-Us

I would be concerned that in a stall the engine might quit due to lack of intake.

The scenario goes -

1. point nose up ...

2. engine intake blocked by bulging fuselage.

3. engine starves for air and dies.

4. fuel now spewing all over the place

5. fire!

6. mucho cajones needed to restart.

This has been known to happen with center engine jets in the past, and i noticed in the video that a even a small stall attitude was never attempted.

twoHats

@Noobs-R-Us: Actually, you'd be wrong here. The wings are actually designed to hold that particular size of aircraft afloat in case of engine failure. Wing size isn't always proportional to the size of the aircraft itself. I mean look at the MD-82. But, you can best bet that those wings will be able to sustain a safe glide landing in case of engine failure.

Also, why does everyone seem to be comparing this "jet" to a "prop"? The reason this thing is a cool as it is, is because of it's JET design... duh. So yes, you might be able to toat about in a Cessna prop, but then you'd be riding on old technology. Oh and I'd bet that any prop most assuredly cannot reach altitudes of 41,000 feet with speeds of 330 knots. So for what this aircraft offers... I think you really cannot compare the two. They are two completely different types of aircraft. Oh and props aren't cabin pressurized (unless it's commercial)... this is.

Tezlan

well boys... my idea simply is that... a man can afford a FERRARI ENZO should afford one of these in his collection of sporty items..... So no big deal yet the price is hot.... But after all its all about pride and passion.....

Fulcrum

Hmmm, yes, interesting, apart from the fact that Eclipse is now on shaky financial ground after laying off over 600 employees and being bought by a Russian businessman. Much better is the Cirrus SJ-50, which is bigger and cheaper.

sylinen

@Tezlan: Oh, I don't know about that. Many times jets have smaller wings because if it had too much it would create too much lift and too much drag. That's why most jets don't glide well, they tend to nose dive unless you can get sufficient air speed. Especially if it's carrying a full load. He he, I just said full load, he he heh heh...

Noobs-R-Us