|
The Eclipse Jet is a small twin engine jet aircraft that weighs 6000 pounds. It was conceived about 10 years ago as a single pilot operated small jet that a light twin owner could transition easily to, and cruise for 1000 nm at 360 KIAS with IFR reserves. The original plan was to use the lightweight Williams engines but during the evolution from the Burt Rutan design to a reality it was realized that the Williams would not have the power to give the aircraft the required Single Engine performance. The replacement engine was the Pratt and Whitney PW610F-A an absolute jewel of an engine whose tiny fan is a piece of art.
|
|
The new powerplant weighed around 350 pounds against the Williams’s 90 pounds. Obviously this extra weight on the tail caused some major re-design work and this, along with a number of unforeseen factors, caused a couple of years delay. A provisional Certification was awarded in 2006. Most of the peripheral components were installed but remained uncertified. When I was first introduced to the type there was no de-ice, no radar, no GPS, no autothrottles and the autopilot only worked in the basic modes. I had retired from Continental Airlines a few months earlier, was unemployed, bored and shortly thereafter was sitting in a DayJet initial class studying my brains out trying to get my head around the mind boggling Eclipse Jet logic.
Built by “computer nerds” the Eclipse was based around “revolutionary” concepts, everything was activated via Avio into the two main computers which were also prioritized. If you moved any switch, throttle, flap lever etc., the action was monitored by Avio and the computer then activated the appropriate circuit. The system also featured electronic circuit breakers that could be reset using the MCP. All these ideas were cool but completely different than anything I had dealt with before, the transition was difficult.
We spent a week after ground school up in Gainesville, Florida which was the second DayJet base taking our flight training in the aircraft with two fearless instructors. The first two days we spent our period prodding at the various Avio functions and trying to figure out how to set the trim when we had selected the fuel diagram. Once you got the hang of it though, Avio was a pretty neat concept. There were three large displays, the largest (MCP), about twice the size of the others was in the middle and was home to a standby horizon, the engine indicators and all the various system diagrams, the radar, gear/ flaps indications etc.There was a plan to have a moving map display there as well, but it, like many other systems, was not certified at the time.
|
The smaller displays (PFD) were in front of each pilot and contained a fairly conventional Glass ADI/HSI with the exception of the bright blue and brown colors and the radio selection tabs. The PFD’s had several function buttons on the side and bottom as well as a rotary frequency type selector. This was used to change the selected com frequency or to change the nav. freqs if Nav was selected. If it sounds counter-intuitive it is and it was, one of those things you only mastered by usage. There were several quirks and if you weren’t careful you could end up listening to radio 2 audio with radio 1 selected.
On the MCP, the system diagrams could be displayed by rocking the bottom selector switch to scroll across a file tab visual. Each tab had its own system annotated. Then by either twisting another rotary knob just like the one on the PFD or line selecting on the side of the display various functions could be accessed.
|
|
|
When a system was selected, a visual representation was presented and it was dynamic. By that I mean that if you changed something on the diagram it happened in the system. As an example, if you wanted to crossfeed fuel manually, you would rock over to the fuel tab and select the system. Then line select the function, Fuel pump on/off, Xfeed auto/open etc. The diagram would change and if you selected away to another system that one would stay in the new configuration. One of the things you had to check before each flight was the trim positions and this was done by selecting the flight control tab and then line selecting the control and then using the rotary knob to move it. It was as complicated as it sounds.
|
On our first flight, I was really nervous about over controlling as I had come straight off the industrial strength 757/767. The side stick controls are about nine inches long and there is no hydraulic boost, consequently, as there is minimal leverage, the control forces are quite large and my worries were unfounded. We used to say they did a great job of making a 6,000 pound aircraft fly like a 60,000 pound aircraft. It was heavy on the controls but as I found out later, when I lost all my instruments and the autopilot at 37,000 ft., it was quite stable at high altitude because of this.
|
On my first takeoff the Eclipse tracked fairly straight and rotation was easy but I found myself struggling with the control forces as the speed increased. The trim was slow and with only one arm on the stick I had to bring over my other hand to give that extra push. Anticipating the required trim would be an acquired skill.
To get used to the side-stick, we started our training by doing some visual manouvres such as steep turns. It was difficult to judge the amount of force required and I found myself under controlling and falling out of the turn. You had to make a conscious effort to hold in the required inputs, because the natural tendancy of the aircraft was to roll level with its non-hydraulically boosted controls. We soon felt comfortable enough to progress to some landings and takeoffs and headed back to Gainsville.
I initially found the Eclipse much easier to turn to the right, than the left. We entered a right base for runway 11 from the west and I was feeling good when we turned right onto final.
|
|
The wind however was blowing from the left and I had to cross control by holding the stick to the left with right rudder for the landing. My left arm was aching by the time we finished up that first period, you get used to it, but the position of your left arm feels really strange until you develop Popeye forearms.
|
We did most of our circling approaches at Cross City, Florida or Ocala, Florida. These were both uncontrolled airports and we could shoot numerous approaches without talking to a tower. We made that circling approach to 04 at Cross City so many time that one of the guys failed his check-ride by circling to 04 when the wind favored 22 out of habit.
Overall the aircraft was totally manageable in the air, high control forces and a need to anticipate trim position were always there but in maneuvers it flew very honestly and was a pleasure to throw about. As ex airline pilots trying as to be smooth we were a hesitant to really put in the needed inputs, but our instructors with GA and Aerobatic skills demonstrated what it could do and soon we were completing wing overs, steep turns etc. with great panache. They really were a great help.
|
|
On the ground the aircraft was easy to taxi and the brakes were sufficient to turn to the left and right and keep the speed under control from the residual engine thrust. The gear was of the trailing link variety making for a smooth touchdown under most conditions. Unfortunately when landing from the touchdown speed of around 70 Kts there was a tendency, unless you were completely straight with little or no rudder input, for the aircraft to dart to the left or right requiring a heavy input on the opposite brake. During the DayJet operations we had quite a few tire blowouts due this and landing at too high a touchdown speed. A new tire was approved a couple of years ago I’m told, and that almost completely eliminated the problem. This was the aircrafts biggest failure in my opinion and it made you really leery of the brakes and extra vigilant landing on short or narrow runways.
|
|
DayJet operated under part 135 of the FAA regulations as an air taxi/ charter type operation all over Florida and so during my six months there, before the company folded, I flew about 300 hours in the aircraft. On one flight we were up at FL370 with five people aboard, throttled back to 75% and trueing out at 350 Kts with a slight tailwind. Our fuel burn was 7 miles to the gallon. Absolutely amazing, like any big SUV at 70 mph. The interior was quite roomy and there was plenty of room for my 6’ 4” frame with fairly low noise levels.
Problems: The most glaring design flaw of the Eclipse was the location of the static ports, up on top of the nose. Anytime it rained the static system filled up with water which of course froze at high altitude. That is what happened to me at FL370 as I mentioned earlier. All the inside switches and levers that looked so nice, were a little flimsy and one Eclipse owner going around during a missed approach pushed up the throttles a little too hard and broke the quadrant. The engines were stuck at max power with their rheostats broken. Some of the time when you turned on the battery switch, only some of the systems would boot up. I used to call it the Fisher-Price jet.
At DayJet we had several variants of the aircraft. The original design featured small wingtip tanks. On the next variant the “ETT” the tip tanks were larger. There were also some aircraft with aerodynamic mods to the wheel wells and with gap seals on various controls. These were all designed to achieve the original promised range figures and improved performance significantly.
|
One of my DayJet colleagues Jerry, who now spends his time training Eclipse pilots, tells me that Avio has evolved a lot since 2007 and is a much more user friendly. The aircraft were later fitted with a Garmin 400W under each PFD. They link into Avio and provide taxi and approach charts on the MFD on versions 1.5 and 1.7. and a moving map presentation as well as full autopilot function. Jerry also tells me there is a full IFMC on version 2.0 now, although there was minimal pilot input in its design and it shows.
|
|
Unfortunately, I didn’t see any of these developments and had to hand-fly each approach. When we selected the Approach mode, the flight director disappeared; now you can now couple up and enjoy the ride. The radar, De-ice, autothrottles etc. are all working so it must be a very different machine. My recollections are several years old, and it seems now, as though the Eclipse is finally reaching maturity. I hope they relocated the static ports.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SHEET
| Eclipse 500 |
| Specifications |
| Powerplants |
2 Pratt & Whitney PW610F, 900 lbst each |
| Length |
33 ft 1 in |
| Height |
11 ft |
| Wingspan |
37 ft 3 in |
| Seats |
5-6, including cockpit |
| Cabin length |
12 ft 4 in |
| Cabin width |
4 ft 8 in |
| Cabin height |
4 ft 2 in |
| Empty weight |
3,390 lb |
| Max ramp weight |
5,680 lb |
| Max gross weight |
5,680 lb |
| Useful load |
2,250 lb |
| Payload w/full fuel |
710 lb |
| Max takeoff weight |
5,640 lb |
| Max landing weight |
5,360 lb |
| Fuel capacity |
230 gal (1,540 lb) |
| Performance |
| Takeoff distance, ground roll |
2,155 ft |
| Rate of climb, sea level |
2,990 fpm |
| Single-engine ROC, sea level |
888 fpm |
| Max cruise speed |
375 KTAS |
| Range, NBAA IFR |
1,280 nm |
| Range, 45-minute reserve |
1,395 nm |
| Max operating altitude |
41,000 ft |
| Single-engine service ceiling |
25,000 ft |
| Landing distance, ground roll |
2,040 ft |
| Limiting and Recommended Airspeeds |
| VFE (max flap extended) |
250 KIAS |
| VLE (max gear extended) |
285 KIAS |
| VLO (max gear operating) |
250 KIAS |
| VMO/MMO |
285 KIAS/Mach 0.64 |
| VSO (stall, in landing configuration) |
67 KIAS |
The Eclipse 550
Eclipse Aerospace announced at NBAA 2011 that we are now taking orders for our new production jet, the Eclipse 550. The new Eclipse model will be built upon the same airframe and contain improved avionics, including Synthetic Vision, Enhanced Vision, Auto Throttles, and improved microprocessors. Deliveries of the Eclipse 550 are expected to begin in 2013
|
