Welcome to COPA!
I find that planning on fuel burns of 500# for the first hour and then 400# for the second and third hours is pretty accurate, which yields an average of 65 gallons per hour in my Eclipse.
Thank you Jack. That headroom is impressive.
Great post. Thank you for your insight. /s/ Tom Milam, Jr.
Mr. Jack Long. Thank you for the information. I cannot fit comfortably into a Meridian. Sorta OK with a TBM 700. The Mustang is very comfortable.
My problem, we go into the mountains of Colorado on a regular basis. Buena Vista and Leadville, 8,000 and 10,000 respectively. Density Altitude in the Summer can be as high as 13,000+ feet. Turbine aircraft have a problem at that point. You have to take off light in the afternoons. If I am not mistaken, the PC-12 can take off at gross weight in the worst situation. The runways are 8,500 and 7,000 feet long, respectively.
I love the PC-12. Will be upgrading in the next year. We currently have a 2007 Cirrus SR22 TN G3. The airplane does great and the pilot is doing better. We operate mostly out of Buena Vista, 8,000 and 8,500. Several PC-12s have come in. We have seen a Cessna Citation X there. One of the Hollywood types.
Question: do you like the PC-12?
Thanks, Tom
Hi Richard Allen:
Do yo still like your Eclipse. Are you considering the 550?
My question to you: Is the type rating extremely difficult. I am a good Cirrus driver. However, I have heard that it is extremely difficult to get a type rating.
Thanks, /s/ Tom Milam, Jr.
p.s. I may consider a used PC-12 next year.
Mr. Richard Alden:
Thank you for the response. For a lot of reasons, I am considering upgrading to a PC-12 next year. We have found a place in Ireland on the West Coast.
There are several used PC12s, that appear to have been well taken care of. In addition, the engine is apparently bullet proof.
I love our Cirrus. I went from a Piper Dakota to the Cirrus. It was a steep learning curve. Still working on it. But it is getting better. I never want to fly again without weather, terrain, and traffic. The Cirrus does this well.
thanks, /s Tom Milam, Jr.
Mr. Gordon Feingold:
Thank you for the response. I thought that I was going to have trouble with joystick. It lasted half way through the takeoff roll. Once I stopped worrying about it, it ceased to be a problem for me.
Thanks, /s/ Tom Milam, Jr.
I moved from the Cirrus to the Eclipse. I am 6’6" and cannot fit in the Meridian or
the Mustang. The Mustang is close, and I
know some big guys fly it, but I just can’t quite fold myself into the front
seat. I fit in the Eclipse because it has a side stick; the center yoke of the Mustang is right up against my knees. I know there are some 6’3" pilots flying the Mustang, though. The TBM seemed OK to me, for pilot legroom, and I haven’t tried the Pilatus.
The Eclipse is easy to hand fly. It is stable and responsive. Like the Cirrus, mastering the panel and IFR
procedures takes more time than learning to fly the pattern. The type rating was demanding but certainly
feasible; there are a few hundred type rated Eclipse pilots, and there will be more. If you take time to study in advance, and
maybe fly a couple times with other Eclipse pilots, you’ll manage a type rating with no problem. I’d be perfectly happy flying a TBM or
Pilatus, but admit I do like having two engines, and also like flying
at jet speeds and altitudes.
Whatever you decide, you’ll have a great airplane to
fly. You can’t go wrong with any of these options.
Love it more and more each year. Thinking about a new plane in the next year or two and can’t imagine it will be anything but a newer Pilatus.
Just got back from AirVenture and forced my wife to sit in every even roughly comparable plane there (both Phenoms - 100 and 300, Mustang, Eclipse, CJ4, TBM, King Air 250 and 350 and Merdian). The Phenom 300 was the only one that even got an “eh, maybe…” from her even after telling her how much faster some of the other birds were. We both just love the huge cabin, cargo door, airport flexibility and just general versatility of the PC-12…it can do about anything you want to do, just slower. Also, the company is fantastic in terms of service and rock-solid financially.
Great plane backed by a great company…hard to beat unless speed is at the top of your priority list in which case there are a lot of planes that are faster and less expensive. For us, an hour or so extra on a long trip just isn’t a big deal.
JL
Dear Channing:
Several people have told me that the Eclipse is very comfortable for tall pilots. I am glad to hear that is a doable thing.
Thanks, Tom
I am 6’4" tall
Quick question: Did you sit in the Kestryl mockup?
Jack:
Quick question: Did you sit in the Kesteryl mockup?
Thanks =, Tom
Tom – If you want the most leg room for a tall pilot, buy a
35-year-old Cessna 182RG. It has more
leg room in front than any of these airplanes.
If you’re 6’4" you’ll fit in all these planes, except
the Meridian. The Mustang might be
tight. In the end, your choice of plane
comes down to your mission. If you want
to land on water, buy a seaplane. If you
want to go supersonic, buy an SR-71. If
you expect to land at a lot of high elevation airports on warm days, you might
want the better short field performance of a turboprop. Eclipse has developed anti-skid brakes, which will greatly shorten the landing roll when necessary. If you want to impress passengers, get a
larger cabin, e.g. the PC12 or Mustang or Phenom.
I fly the Eclipse, and I like it, but I like flying
anything. I’m just as thrilled to fly a
Piper Cub (but not if I have to go from Boston to L.A.!). I usually fly my Eclipse with just 4 seats,
and the two rear seats have more leg room than first class on an airliner. I look forward to every flight, and my
passengers love the leg room.
In response to your question, I did not sit in the Kestrel. I am old fashioned enough, when buying an airplane, to focus on airplanes that are already certified.
Luckily for us, we have many choices. I have no doubt you’ll be happy with whatever
you get.
-Channing
Tom:
You already have a lot of good answers and here is my input. Every Eclipse owner I have met loves their Eclipse. My friends with Cirrus, Phenom-100, Mustang, TMB, Pilatus, etc. seem to have the same occasional aggravation of all airplane owners, but in the end really love their final choice.
The Eclipse type rating “was” more difficult than it needed to be when “Eclipse Aviation” was doing simulator training at AEG, Double Eagle, Albuquerque - with intense FAA oversight. The difficulty was compounded by a then inadequate autopilot and avionics suite. But with “Eclipse Aerospace” and other providers like Tom Norton, and the iFMS avionics suite, it is “now” such that any competent instrument rated pilot can get typed with reasonable effort. I would compare the difficulty to getting my instrument rating in a Cirrus immediately after passing my check ride in a 172. If you are considering the Eclipse at all, you should call Tom Norton to discuss how his 6’-6" frame fits various cockpits and his training syllabus. He can be reached at at (407) 951-2901 or Tom@NortonAviation.com
If you frequent the high altitude airports, be sure and get accurate information on the performance of your specific considerations. I also heard that a Pilatus can always go max gross, but when flying back from Vail with a friend in his PC-12 (not sure which year/model, but N51DJ) it could not make KEGE-KOCF nonstop (<1400nm) with 4-passengers, pilot, and luggage that day because of temperature/altitude issues.
Good luck with your choice, I am sure you will love what ever it is. Cheers, Steve.
Thank you Steven for the insights.
I will keep your email and plan to call Tom Norton, when the time comes.
I really wanted a Meridian, but could not fit comfortably.
/s/ Tom Milam
Yes, but did not really consider it seriously…a long way from being certified and not backed by a financially strong company with a long track record. I am not much of a risk taker when it comes to the corporate backing of what is a huge investment for me.
Even if it is built to specs, I am not seeing a huge difference between it and the TBM 850 other than a somewhat bigger cabin (but smaller than the PC12). I also don’t like the TPE331 engine versus the PT6.
Maybe it has a market as something in-between a PC12 and a TBM for folks that are willing to wait years and take the risk on the company, but that would be a very small niche. Only 38 TBMs were delivered last year…dividing that market further doesn’t seem like a wining business model to me.
JL
What is it about the TPE331 you don’t like? Kestrel has a 1200 hp PT6 on their flying prototype, but decided to go with the Honeywell. Cessna Caravans have and STC to remove the PT6 and install the Honeywell for better performance and economy I think.
I think we discussed that trip before, but for a VMC departure (or the “climb in visual conditions” version of the ODP which requires 4100-3), my bird can depart KEGE at gross weight, 30C, zero wind, using the upslope RWY 7 and still have a 32% margin in the over 50 FT distance and accelerate-stop capability.
If the weather was less than 4100-3 thus not allowing the climb in visual conditions option, not many planes can make the required 520 FT/NM through 12,000 MSL on a hot day at max gross. My bird could make that gradient up to about ISA +5 at gross weight. Not sure I’d be wanting to depart KEGE at less that 4100-3 weather anyway though…
JL
Noise, direct-shaft design versus free turbine design, availability of support, and the incredible track-record of the PT6…50 years of operation and more than 50,000 engines built.
As I mentioned above, I am not a risk-taker when it comes to airplanes and the PT6 is the overwhelming standard for tprops. As far as I know, there is only one OEM (Dornier 228) currently installing TPE331s on new planes.
The TPE331s are slightly more fuel efficient (as I understand it) and have a longer TBO, so they probably are the lower cost option over the life of the engine.
JL
Yes I sort of remembered that, without the details, so I included the tail number in case the model made a difference. I was only flying right seat, and not doing any of the pilots math, but was REALLY surprised when he said we could not make it non-stop. Also, don’t remember the weather being particularly bad, but the flight departed 9/19/2010 at 09:50 if others know how and care to find out. Wow, was it really 3-years ago - how time flies!
I might try the new Meridian at 6’4", probably depends on your proportions. I am 6’2" 200 lbs, a little leggy, and I am very comfortable in the newer PA46’s and often Iron Butt 5-7 hour legs (Mirage not Meridian) without complaint. I have flown the 2013 Meridian, and the cockpit is quite a bit roomier than the legacy birds. If you need a few inches over stock there is a Mod that really opens the seat up. Haven’t actually seen one, but here are some Pics from MMOPA. Sets the back of the seat over instead of in front of the wing spar. As far as the 2012/13 PA46’s the folding seats really open up the cabin, making it easy even for our most infirm to get into position. Talking about climb gradients, I think the Meridian has the best climb gradient of all the TP’s at max performance, close to 2000 fpm at 90 KIAS (use that rudder trim). From a recent Meridian driver, his biggest complaint upgrading to a PC12NG from a Meridian is that while in theory the PC12 should climb as well as the Meridian, the PC12 is temp limited high and hot, whereas the 1000HP Meridian PT6 derated to 500HP is never temp limited. Just his comment, I have no actual experience in the PC12. His other criticism was the eye opening operating and maintenance costs, to be expected. My only criticism of the Meridian is that it is a little range/payload limited for my missions which often require long legs or heavy cabin loads, both of which the Mirage does better.
