Skip to comments.
New breed of 'very light jets' poised for takeoff in 2006
The Boston Globe ^
| January 2, 2006
| Peter J. Howe
Posted on 01/02/2006 8:22:22 AM PST by george76
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
1
posted on
01/02/2006 8:22:24 AM PST
by
george76
To: george76
i want one, been watching it for years, it was suppose to ne 775-950 k
1.5 is a bit out of my budget
2
posted on
01/02/2006 8:32:00 AM PST
by
Flavius
(Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
To: george76
Pending final certification by the Federal Aviation Administration this winter...Eclipse's six-seater E500 could be taking to the skies in July. I want one.
3
posted on
01/02/2006 8:32:51 AM PST
by
Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
To: Flavius
Fractional fee ownership will be interesting to watch.
Sharing the purchase price and maintenance should be allot cheaper than a larger jet.
Landing in shorter runways should be a big bonus for many folks.
4
posted on
01/02/2006 8:36:36 AM PST
by
george76
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
To: Aeronaut
One for the Aviation list.
5
posted on
01/02/2006 8:40:13 AM PST
by
GaltMeister
(“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”)
To: GaltMeister; Ditto
6
posted on
01/02/2006 8:41:55 AM PST
by
george76
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
To: george76
yes i agree, overall this is extremely cool
7
posted on
01/02/2006 8:42:12 AM PST
by
Flavius
(Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
To: Flavius
1.5 is a bit out of my budget
Rent it instead when you need it. If they charge $300-$400 per hour for a jet sans pilot a couple of people could cost justify using it in rural areas where tickets typically cost $300-$400 per person regardless of destination.
8
posted on
01/02/2006 8:42:19 AM PST
by
Milhous
(Sarcasm - the last refuge of an empty mind.)
To: All
Pardon me for not jumping on the bandwagon, but I have become weary of hearing announcement after announcement of new aviation breakthroughs and then when I read about them I discover
THAT THEY DON'T GO ANY FASTER WHATSOEVER THAN 25 YEARS AGO.
Airplane makers care only about lower fuel costs. I care about not spending my life sitting on an airplane droning along at 400 knots. Yeah, I know they are playing games with this announcment and comparing them to Cessna 172s, but after that is out of their mouth they then leap forward to talk about chasing high end business travelers.
I will give them this. I will likely drive a shorter distance to and from the airport, but what are they going to do with TSA announces they have to expand staff 5 zillion % to put security at all these minor strips?
9
posted on
01/02/2006 8:48:30 AM PST
by
Owen
To: Milhous
Air taxi and charter services should love this six seater jet.
Moving over 425 per hour should get allot of us to where we want to be.
10
posted on
01/02/2006 8:48:52 AM PST
by
george76
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
To: Flavius
"1.5 is a bit out of my budget"
Yeah, mine too. I think I'll wait a couple ofyears and pick up a pre-ownded jet for maybe $800K. ;)
To: george76
12
posted on
01/02/2006 8:57:09 AM PST
by
martinidon
(Bush won sKerry lost and Soro's is out millions for nothing!)
To: GaltMeister
Pussy Galore's Flying Circus?
13
posted on
01/02/2006 8:58:58 AM PST
by
fish hawk
(creatio ex nihilo)
To: george76
I read the article at Rocky Mountain News, and (unless I missed it) didn't see a range for this pup.
Has anyone seen a max range figure for it?
14
posted on
01/02/2006 9:00:21 AM PST
by
Babu
To: Babu
"a generous range of 1,280 nautical miles."
"A 41,000-foot ceiling avoids most severe weather, and this extraordinary jet gives you access to more than 10,000 airports..."
15
posted on
01/02/2006 9:02:27 AM PST
by
george76
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
To: Babu
16
posted on
01/02/2006 9:04:34 AM PST
by
martinidon
(Bush won sKerry lost and Soro's is out millions for nothing!)
To: martinidon
Thank you. The site was very useful.
17
posted on
01/02/2006 9:07:25 AM PST
by
george76
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
To: Owen
Here's the problem: thanks to increasingly tighter air traffic control procedures, flying faster won't get you any more benefits unless you're flying intercontinental flights. Those increased ATC controls was why Convair wasn't able to sell that many 880 and 990 models during the 1960's.
To: GaltMeister; Tijeras_Slim; FireTrack; Pukin Dog; citabria; B Knotts; kilowhskey; cyphergirl; ...
19
posted on
01/02/2006 9:09:43 AM PST
by
Aeronaut
(It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war began.)
To: Aeronaut
It is the way General Aviation is evolving. 20 years from now there will probably not be any piston aircraft in production.
20
posted on
01/02/2006 9:14:12 AM PST
by
Pusterfuss
(Proud member: Minnesotans for Global Warming)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson