Meet Eclipse 550
The 550 continued the Eclipse 500 design under Eclipse Aerospace and later One Aviation. It retains the compact, low-wing, twin-engine configuration and six-seat cabin arrangement of that lineage. The real aircraft was certified for single-pilot operation. Simulator avionics and support generations are listed with the particular developer product.
History & design
Development milestones
Developed from: Eclipse 500
Wikipedia contributors · Eclipse 550 ↗Eclipse 550 · family/variant named by the source · Wikipedia revision 1346505788
In your simulator
Systems, equipment and documentation for each developer’s aircraft.
Eclipse 550
Aerobask
Aircraft · Released
| Product | Simulator | Product type |
|---|---|---|
| Eclipse 550 NG ↗Released | X-Plane 11 | Aircraft |
Aircraft specifications
Published figures for the named real-aircraft variant. Simulator equipment and performance can differ.
| Specification | Published value |
|---|---|
| Length | 33.5 ft (10.2 m) |
| Wingspan | 37.9 ft (11.6 m) |
| Height | 11 ft (3.4 m) |
| Empty weight | 3,634 lb (1,648 kg) |
| Gross weight | 6,034 lb (2,737 kg) |
| Max takeoff weight | 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) |
| Powerplant | 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PW610F turbofan , 900 lbf (4.0 kN) thrust each |
| Maximum speed | 432 mph (694 km/h, 375 kn) |
| Range | 1,295 mi (2,084 km, 1,125 nmi) |
| Service ceiling | 41,000 ft (12,000 m) |
| Rate of climb | 3,456 ft/min (17.56 m/s) |
In pictures
Photographs show the variants, related designs and historical examples identified in their captions.
Manuals & resources
Read the original documentation from the people who created it. Manuals open on their publisher’s website.
Aircraft background
Eclipse 550Wikipedia contributors · Research background · retrieved 2026-09-12Product
Eclipse 550 NGAerobask · Official developer / designated store catalogue · checked 2026-09-12Discuss this aircraft
Questions, observations and useful sources from the community.
Open aircraft discussions →Content expanded · What’s new
Something missing or a source that needs attention?
Suggest a correction ↗
