It's "Raburn", not Raeburn. And it's none of anyone's business where he's at.

Eclipse will continue to live on and will continue to be a good aircraft. Mods will be completed despite this mess. Company assets are now on the cheap. There is money to be made supporting these aircraft. There are 250 jets out there.

 

You are correct. Eclipse has a good product which will remain in demand to air taxi services etc. Now's the time to buy them. Anyone have a spare 50 mil??

 

Are you an investor? Your point of view is shared by what seems to be less than 10% of the industry.

 

Phil Friedman, CEO of Harlow Aerostructures has or will very soon bid on Eclipse's remaining assets. Harlow has been in the aerospace industry since 1954.

The "500" has a great price-point, like any other child...and a business is essentially a child, unless disiplined correctly it will grow to be un-productive. So much for my metaphores.

Friedman has a proven track-record.

I'm more concerned with what Textron's going to do next.

 

It also has a myriad of problems, that do not have simple solutions.

 

...Meaning?

Textron is struggling like so many tech stocks are these days, they peaked at about $75 a share last year and this year they have actually been threatened with getting delisted on the stock exchange due to the drastic loss in value; I think it's around $5 now. So they are struggling. They have said in recent statements they are not ready to sell any core assets and the useless financial arm is gone already. You should refer to their own statements. But I have heard not a word about bankruptcy, selling any core assets, or any their having any interest in buying more assets.

 

I've heard they (Textron) may spin-off Cessna AND Bell, but who knows. Lots of naysayers. May not be too bad an idea considering whats going on with 100LL. With "Swift" fuel weighing in at 7lbs per gallon (compared to 100LL at 6) Cessna's going to have to re-configure aerodynamic weight ratios. What do you think Cub?

 

And I am among them. The news flash about Textron might sell this and might sell that is not supported by their public statements, and in fact the idea was negated publicly by CEO Lewis Campbell.

I am honestly caught a little out of the loop on the Swift fuel subject. Thanks for the heads up, and it sounds like a great fuel. I have several friends from Purdue's graduate aerospace school but no one mentioned it. Apparently John Rusek is an adjunct professor which means basically he just does research and doesn't teach very much. Aerodynamic weight ratios as you call them are not adjustable after the values are set for a particular aircraft design, although you are correct that they are connected. Aircraft thrust to drag and weight to lift ratios are chosen and finalized after extensive work with goal-seeking iterative equations. You do not adjust them very much after the design values are found. This stage is finished very early in the design cycle.

Some thoughts on this subject:

1) Although aircraft design is very generally very weight sensitive, I do not by any means think there will be a huge impact on existing GA aircraft designs from a 17% increase in the fuel weight, IF the fuel is in use by 2011. It will have to come out of the useful load, but it is the same thing as adding 17% more fuel to the airplane which is not earthshaking at all. It will have little consequence although certain things will need to be addressed in operating manuals so people do not overlaod the airplanes. The saving grace is where the fuel is located, right around the CG.

2) No data has been produced by Lycoming or Continental or any other engine brands on whether this stuff is actually good for engines. Just having a high octane rating is promising, but we need the engine manufacturers to bless it with extensive testing before it's ok. The FAA as far as I know is not capable of comprehensive testing of piston engines although they have some labs here and there.

3) Biofuel is a great thing but the overall cost has not been proven less than it is for petroleum products. The verdict is still out from most parties on whether ethanol actually saves any money when all the costs are added from land use to loss in food crops to additional infrastructure. Of course, Swift fuel would offers advantages in renewability and reduced toxicity over avgas, but the market will negate anything that is not cost-effective.

If you are making this point then I agree, Swift fuel is an unknown quantity right now and the continued viability of General Aviation may be troublesome if it turns out it is more expensive than 100LL. Of course GA is always assured a place in the market because you need small aircraft for many purposes besides luxury goods. Cessna as a major asset of Textron is not by any means dependent on piston sales, as witnessed by their success during the 1985-1995 era in which they made none at all.

 

Kinda touchy about Raburn,aren't we? I think anyone who is interestedin the success or failure of a company like Eclipse deserves to know the facts

 

The eclipse is sort of a BLING BLING sort of thing. Even though it was a nice jet, I kind of looked at it as the poor mans jet. In my opinion, if you can't afford to buy a citation (even if you don't need the extra space, hence the Eclipse) then you can't afford to own a jet, period. Many people don't understand that.