BT - Is the VLJ dead? Better question: Is the VLJ even possible? • BeechTalk.com • Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group Web Forums BT - Is the VLJ dead? Better question: Is the VLJ even possible?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 07:06

[ Removed ]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 07:22

P&W just layed off 400 workers in their engine plant in Montreal, I guess it must be all those engines that they were supposed to build for Eclipse and they never did.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 09:41

Using the Eclipse as an example of a VLJ is in-accurate. A VLJ should not only be light and inexpensive, but also inexpensive to operate.

Does it cost any less to operate an Eclipse than it does to operate a Premier 1? I say no.

A VLJ has got to be "single engine". It's got to be cheap to buy AND cheap to operate. Otherwise they'll get beat down by anything with a "prop".

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 09:46

[ Removed ]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 10:01

Username Protected wrote:

Nothing beats the economy of a prop Jason, that's the problem.

Agreed.

But nobody has build a single engine jet like the D-Jet. It won't be as efficient as my Bo but it will still be efficient for the speed and utility I'll be getting.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 10:29

Username Protected wrote:

Nothing beats the economy of a prop Jason, that's the problem.

Agreed.

But nobody has build a single engine jet like the D-Jet. It won't be as efficient as my Bo but it will still be efficient for the speed and utility I'll be getting.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 10:29

[ Removed ]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 10:36

Username Protected wrote:

Buy one of these! It will go just as fast have more room and will cost less to operate.

http://earthflight.com/TBM_850_44N_ORL.html

Russ

It's more than $1.8 million. Yes, I've looked at them a lot.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 10:36

Username Protected wrote:

You got 3000 posts Jason, get a life !!! :hide:

Jeez. Glad you noticed.

I truly do need a life. Must stop talking about airplanes.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 11:23

[ Removed ]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 11:28

Goyer's boss Mac McClellan has been saying this for 10 years. If you do the math and forget fantasies like a "national point-to-point air taxi service" it's not rocket science. Beech knows what it really costs to do a "mass market" jet; that's why they haven't tried.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 19:19

There is no free lunch, is there? I would be lying if I said I didn't want to believe Eclipse could pull it off but the truth is I wouldn't have bought one even if I could've afforded it. I thought the Eclipse was a gorgeous little airplane but, looking at the useful load, range and speed, I was amazed that you could do better on less $$$$ with a turboprop. None of the other concept VLJs are much better. If there's no corporate travel motive driving the market, the whole concept has to fail.

Sigh!

Steve

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 19:41

CJ's seem like a logical next step up. They're pretty inexpensive.

Any idea on operating costs?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 19:48

Not to add to your post count, but what's a CJ?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 21:07

Username Protected wrote:

Not to add to your post count, but what's a CJ?

A Cessna CitationJet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 21:16

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 21:28

Seems to me that a $1MM 6 pax twinjet might indeed be "possible" but only if the production rate were very high, like 10-20 thousand per year. Given that the market for such a jet isn't likely to support more than a tiny fraction of that volume I'd say it's not "practical" and isn't likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Oct 2009, 21:49

It would seem to me that the feasibility of VLJs is increasing with time. As I understand it the barrier costs lie in the unobtanium that is required to build the engines.

With the market downturn I would expect that metallurgy inspection equipment, foundry and forming technology, ore prices, unmaintained patents, etc. would be gravitating unobtanium prices closer to affordability for the public domain. What am I missing?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Oct 2009, 00:23

Crickets.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Oct 2009, 03:18

[ Removed ]