One Aviation Facing Further Evictions

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

One Aviation is on the brink of eviction from its facilities at Albuquerque International Sunport (ABQ), according to AIN. The company allegedly owes the City of Albuquerque more than $895,000 in back rent. This development is the latest in a series of struggles for One Aviation, including two rounds of layoffs in 2017, eviction from its Brunswick, Maine, hangar facility for failing to pay rent last October, and potential legal action from the state of Wisconsin for failure to keep up with payments on more than $3.5 million in loans.

The City of Albuquerque issued a Notice to Surrender Property or Cure Default on April 26, giving One Aviation until May 8 to either pay or leave. In terms of what the city has planned for the facilities, the Albuquerque Journal reports that $250,000 in economic development incentives are under consideration for charter company CSI Aviation to “renovate the former headquarters of Eclipse Aerospace.” The project is expected to go before the Albuquerque City Council in May.

One Aviation was formed by a merger of Eclipse Aerospace and Kestrel Aircraft in 2015. The company has been developing the Kestrel 350 single-engine turboprop and the Eclipse EA700 (Project Canada) twinjet. The Kestrel 350 first flew in 2006, but the project has taken a backseat to the EA700. So far, only the EA700’s wing—attached to a modified Eclipse 500—has undergone flight testing.

Comments (3)

Remember a couple decades ago when the Very Light Jet (VLJ) was the future?

Twenty years from now the Electric Multi-Rotor aircraft companies will be getting eviction notices. Why can't these revolutionaries just concentrate on what our fathers started? The proven designs can always use improvement. The biggest improvement would be attacking the liability issue. No new development will ever be successful until the production and maintenance cost come down.

Posted by: Klaus Marx | May 3, 2018 2:37 PM    Report this comment

Klaus,

While I agree in some ways, concentrating on the past will not move things forward. Indeed, part of the problem is the past. Those piston engines are nice, but do they compare with jet or turboprop engines in terms of performance? The problem, of course, when it comes to turbine based engines is the cost. Much of that cost is in rare / high-end materials and labor, which is hard to bring down cost-wise. If electric engines, hybrid or otherwise, were to improve efficiencies over standard pistons people would be ecstatic. Doubly so if significant cost savings could be made while boosting performance.

Pistons aren't scared of turbines, the costs are too far out of line.The thing that probably "scares" most turbine builders isn't going to be piston engines per se, the performance is out of line. Take one moment and imagine an engine (or series of engines) that could produce the equivalent of 500hp - 1500hp (battery or hybrid powered) that could fit into the space of say an IO-320/IO-550 or RR500/PTA-6.

Now both get worried. Set the electric from 500hp down to say 180hp-300hp, and you've got a viable engine to replace most engines. If it's a hybrid, I'm working the with the assumption the whole package (electric moter/generator) fits where the old engine was of course. The package would probably be lighter, so some weight might have to be used for CG purposes, but the fuel tanks wouldn't be as big in a hybrid.

Pie in the sky? Currently I agree. However, what would you give to have a reliable electric engine that used a generator consuming 1/2 the fuel you currently use for the same performance? Now see the ever increasing gains as you go up the list vs LOP: 2-3 gal/hr for a 172 180hp, 4-6gal/hr for a midsize 250hp, 7-10 for 300hp, or how about a TBM that used 20 odd gallons per hour at full throttle? Baron 58's that use 15gph?

Heck, the heaters might use more gas than the generator.

Of course this is all fantasy, until someone brighter than myself makes it plausible. Then again powered flight was pie in the sky until it happened.

Posted by: Joe Servov | May 3, 2018 4:27 PM    Report this comment

Selling a handful of airplanes per year will never recoup development costs. Money has to be invested in development, production of the prototype, flight testing,destructive testing, then proving that your factory can duplicate the finished product once approved. How does a company get those development costs back selling a few airplanes a year? How does an investor get a return on his/her investment when production capability can only produce a handful a year? So, unless one can design, engineer, certify, and mass produce a product that numbers at least in the hundreds if not thousands, there is no economical way to produce a " better mousetrap". Cessna had 1600 orders for the 162 and saw no light at the end of the tunnel. Want a Kestrel PT-6 powered pressurized flying SUV?...build it your self. Even the Klapmeier magic will not overcome today's regulatory process and dismal new aircraft sales. There is no way to make money selling and only building a handful of airplanes per year.

Posted by: Jim Holdeman | May 4, 2018 11:55 AM    Report this comment

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Forgot password?

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration