Talk:Eclipse 500

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Isn't it still NT? What part runs on uClinux? re. "The aircraft's electronic control systems were originally designed around a Windows NT variant operating system. This concept has since been superceded by a ColdFire RISC based system which uses a uClinux kernel." What, exactly, does "electronic control systems" refer to here? I would assume that the flight controls are still via traditional cables. Are we talking about the FADEC? Or the Avidyne avionics? If the writer was referring to the Avidyne intergrated flight deck (at least the MFD), the system still runs Windows NT. I refer you to a recent interview with Avidyne CEO Dan Schwinn at http://www.aero-news.net/. In response to the question "At one time you ran on the NT kernel?", Mr. Schwinn says "All of our MFD stuff runs on embedded NT." So what part runs on uClinux? See http://www.aero-news.net/news/featurestories.cfm?ContentBlockID=e14a3aa2-4191-4980-b601-e1a9ab88de87&Dynamic=1. See also http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=127dbb72-d6fb-46b9-ae26-a9a96e1bde47&Dynamic=1 for links to all six parts of the interview. CConrad 03:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV

far cheaper than any existing corporate jet (the closest comparable is the still-in-development Cessna 510 Mustang, projected to cost approximately twice as much when introduced in 2006).

I really don't like this sort of mentioning in an encyclopedia. It's a selective interpretation of facts used to favorably portray the E500. A reader should never think "wow, this is a great product" from reading an encyclopedia article; that's a sign of POV writing I think. "closest comparable" is even arguable, as Cessna claims that the Mustang does not compete with the E500. I'm removing the lame comparison; analysis like that belongs in a magazine or newspaper article, not an encyclopedia.

The fact that, if completed and certified, it is projected to be much cheaper than any other corporate jet, is highly relevant to the article. It's basically the Eclipse's defining feature. The point with comparing it to the Mustang was not to imply that the Eclipse is the Mustang's equal in terms of capabilities, merely that the Mustang is the cheapest executive jet from any of the established manufacturers. I'm rephrasing and putting back in. -Robert Merkel 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How about mentioning the fact that the price point on the Eclipse 500 is cost based, rather than market based? This has been mentioned by Vern several times, and goes to show the difference in pricing strategies between Eclipse and other aircraft OEMs.

[edit] Rutan ancestry?

I got to see this up close and personal today, as it was at Mojave, in my hangar, getting ready for some crosswind landing tests. Impressive aircraft. According the the chief pilot, the aircraft design originated with Rutan's V-Jet II for Williams. It was thus originally designed to be a composite structure. Rather ironic that it has morphed into a leading-edge-technology aluminum construction. If successful commercially, aluminum structure once again may be seen as having definite advantages over some composites in some applications. Anyway, I don't think my interview with the pilot qualifies as a reliable reference, so I'll research more...but if true, this aspect should definitly be brought out in the article. Akradecki 06:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Researched this, found a bunch of info, so I've written a page on the V-Jet II, expanded the Williams International page and expanded and organized this article. Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes in the rewrite. Akradecki 05:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I've flown in the plane and have a comment about the "1st" v "2nd" claim.. According to the FAA registration, the Mustang in Ca is registered as experimental and operates under a temporary cert. The Eclipse 500's first plane in CA is regestered under the "standard" category and is "ready to go". In addition Eclipse has the next five planes also ready for release. In fact number two has been carrying owners on demo flights since late Sept.

I am also really bothered by the "1st" v "2nd" claim here. Encyclopedia entries should not be an advertisement for either the subject covered OR any related subjects. It really seems like the introduction to the Eclipse 500 should be more general and not some sort of victory lap for anyone (including Cessna). The claims for "first" depend upon some complicated processes that should be relegated to the production section. If it is O.K., I am going to cut the section from the top discussing the "1st" and "2nd" claims and put it in the discussion of the larger production and certification discussion. I think that is where it belongs to avoid POV issues. comment added by DocMara 06:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem if you would like to move it, but it actually is more important, and more encyclopedic than you might realize. History shows us that sometimes being second to market can doom a product to never catching up, although on some occasions, being second is a distinctive advantage (ie, DC-7 vs L-1049). Oh, and by the way, I really appreciate you posting your proposal here first...too many editors don't show that kind of respect to the rest of the community. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at crafting language that reflects that. I completely agree that it is information important enough to include in the description, but feel that history has yet to judge on what is or not important out of the possible distinctions that could be pointed out about the plane (my earlier issue with equating amenities with toilets-it's important, but only time will tell HOW important this is). There is a great deal of controversy and healthy competition about framing the discussion of VLJs/microjets, and I just want to be sure that we contextualize these things carefully. I'll wait to see how others weigh in before I make the edits, but I feel uncomfortable importing language that Eclipse/Cessna/DayJet/Diamond/Honda/whoever would use in their press releases without context (or without a definitive answer from history-the switch in engines should have been fatal to Eclipse if history is any guide, and that has not yet been borne out). Thanks for walking me through this process.DocMara 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)DocMara

For some really good dirt it's amazing that the manager at Eclipse in charge of manufacturing was hired away from Cessna, and in June 06 quit Eclipse for personal reasons. Now he's in charge of the Mustang program for Cessna. 75.44.18.20 06:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the first concept was called "Pronto". Don't know when the name changed to Eclipse 500, but Pronto was the name given to Rutan's design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.216.26.211 (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't print this page

Firefox can't do a print preview of the page, it gets stuck trying (100%CPU). IE is able to do a preview, but when the whole page is printed, the printer stopped at page 5 of 8, and displayed an out of memory on image. All the images's size are fairly small, so I don't know what's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.111.95 (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are the engines tail mounted?

I seem to recall that the engines are mounted forward of the banjo spar in the empennage, therefore it would be an aft fuselage mounted engine rather than a tail mounted engine. Unless there is exception to this, I propose the first paragraph to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.216.26.211 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)