BeechTalk - BT - Is the VLJ dead? Better question: Is the VLJ even possible?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Oct 2009, 10:15

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[/quote]

Really nice, my dream aircraft, 306 kts on 59 gph max cruise, I could see Jason in there.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Oct 2009, 11:20

Quote:

In his mind, a VLJ was a truly personal airplane, something that the same guy that flies a Baron would feel comfortable hopping into.

Reading about the training experiences of Eclipse owners, you had to get your ATP rating to make your insurance company comfortable with you hopping into an Eclipse. Not exactly a personal airplane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Oct 2009, 12:03

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

In his mind, a VLJ was a truly personal airplane, something that the same guy that flies a Baron would feel comfortable hopping into.

Reading about the training experiences of Eclipse owners, you had to get your ATP rating to make your insurance company comfortable with you hopping into an Eclipse. Not exactly a personal airplane.

Don,

Well, a type rating is the same as an ATP ride, and there's an argument to have that kind of training in any high performance plane... even a Baron or Bonanza... And, it's not hard. Yes, it's a small, easy to fly, personal plane. And most of these small jets and turboprops are easier to fly than a Baron.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Oct 2009, 12:39

I bet jets are easier to fly than a Baron or Bonanza... A former F16 pilot said he gave up flying small planes because the workload is too high. A Citation pilot I met in Vegas said he would trade places with me any day (He would rather fly my Debonair, I could fly his Citation). Huh?

What I don't get, is if turbine engines are more reliable and there is more automation, why does it take so much more training to get insured in a turbine?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Oct 2009, 12:55

Username Protected wrote:

.....

What I don't get, is if turbine engines are more reliable and there is more automation, why does it take so much more training to get insured in a turbine?

Don,

It really doesn't make much sense... however, often there are more systems and parts to turbine flying, and more airspace. Also, wealthier people end up in these planes and big law suits have a way of happening. Also, things happen faster and one has to thing ahead of the plane, more so, than in a plane going 50 or 100 kts slower.

So, just get a slow King Air.... should be a piece of cake. About the same speed as a Baron, easier to fly, barely gets into the flight levels. And a joy to fly... easy to keep up with. Go get one!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Oct 2009, 17:23

Username Protected wrote:

I bet jets are easier to fly than a Baron or Bonanza... A former F16 pilot said he gave up flying small planes because the workload is too high. A Citation pilot I met in Vegas said he would trade places with me any day (He would rather fly my Debonair, I could fly his Citation). Huh?

What I don't get, is if turbine engines are more reliable and there is more automation, why does it take so much more training to get insured in a turbine?

Yeah, the big iron is sooooo automated. Boring as hell to fly just to monitor "George" all of the time. The problem is there are so many things that can go wrong. It takes a lot of training to cover the most probable ones. That is where the quote " Hours of sheer boredom interrupted by moments of sheer terror" comes from.

That is why I like to fly my Bo', much simpler to fly. One battery, one alternator, and one engine. If the engine quits, you are landing now. If the alternator quits, you are landing soon. No deicing equipment, so I don't fly in ice. No radar, so I don't fly near thunderstorms.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Oct 2009, 11:29

Back ON TOPIC:

Quote:

Eclipse sets price for upgrades; no decision on restarting production until 2010
Owners of the Eclipse 500 very light jet will have to pay $149,000 to have each jet's avionics and de-icing systems upgraded. In some cases, the price could be even higher, depending on how old the planes are and the equipment they have installed, Eclipse Aerospace told its customers in a memo last week. The avionics upgrades will allow pilots to fly coupled autopilot approaches as well as WAAS precision approaches, and it enables the plane's Stormscope. But it doesn't have full flight management system (FMS) capabilities, nor does the system support auto-throttles or XM satellite weather. Eclipse Aerospace said it won't decide until sometime next year whether to restart production of new aircraft. Much of the company's energy in the last month has been focused on getting the plane's suppliers on board to provide parts for upgrades and other maintenance needs, as well as getting new type certificates from the FAA and European regulators. There are other potentially serious issues that the company will have to address down the road. Among them, the Eclipse 500 airframe has a 10,000-hour service life. After that, it's unclear whether the planes will remain airworthy.

Hot cha.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Oct 2009, 14:30

Wow, That sucks.

But who is going to do the work on them?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Oct 2009, 14:45

There could be a very light jet that is affordable. Here is what I would like to see - a single engine, skinny fuselage, very light (3000 pound max takeoff weight) two seater. The skinny fuselage keeps the drag very low, and the seating would be one behind the other. The engine would be about 700 pounds of thrust - about half of the Diamond D-jet. It would be pressurized to 5.5 psi, providing an 8000 foot cabin at the jet's max altitude of 25,000 feet. The engine would be derated so that it has very little power left at 25,000 feet. But the key is the fuel burn would be very low - 30 gph at max cruise, and less than 20 at long range cruise. True airspeed would be around 300 tops, and 240 at LRC. That means indicated airspeed would be 160 to 200. Nothing high tech about that. With 100 gallons of fuel, you could fly yourself and your wife nonstop from Chicago or New York to Florida in less than four hours. Also, the fuselage would be wide enough to have a set of skis on either side of the seats, and room for a couple of bags in the back or front.
The key to this jet would be that it is very easy to fly, very easy to operate, and most important, you could afford to operate it! 80 gallons of fuel to get to Florida is not a whole lot different than today's pistons. As soon as a 700 pound thrust engine gets developed, I don't see a single reason why a plane like this could not be made for a price well under $1 million.
What do you think?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Oct 2009, 14:48

I like every part of your idea except the 2 people thing. That would never work for me.

"Under a Million$$" is a lot of money for a little bity airplane like that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Oct 2009, 15:05

Username Protected wrote:

There could be a very light jet that is affordable. Here is what I would like to see - a single engine, skinny fuselage, very light (3000 pound max takeoff weight) two seater. The skinny fuselage keeps the drag very low, and the seating would be one behind the other. The engine would be about 700 pounds of thrust - about half of the Diamond D-jet. It would be pressurized to 5.5 psi, providing an 8000 foot cabin at the jet's max altitude of 25,000 feet. The engine would be derated so that it has very little power left at 25,000 feet. But the key is the fuel burn would be very low - 30 gph at max cruise, and less than 20 at long range cruise. True airspeed would be around 300 tops, and 240 at LRC. That means indicated airspeed would be 160 to 200. Nothing high tech about that. With 100 gallons of fuel, you could fly yourself and your wife nonstop from Chicago or New York to Florida in less than four hours. Also, the fuselage would be wide enough to have a set of skis on either side of the seats, and room for a couple of bags in the back or front.
The key to this jet would be that it is very easy to fly, very easy to operate, and most important, you could afford to operate it! 80 gallons of fuel to get to Florida is not a whole lot different than today's pistons. As soon as a 700 pound thrust engine gets developed, I don't see a single reason why a plane like this could not be made for a price well under $1 million.
What do you think?

Here you go. The Viper Jet

http://viper-aircraft.com/home_f.html

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Oct 2009, 15:05

Carl,

Here is your Jet you just have to build it! :thumbup:

http://www.viper-aircraft.com/home_f.html

Jay

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Oct 2009, 15:06

Sheldon Beat me to it I should have known! :cheers:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Oct 2009, 15:13

However, the fuel burn is 125 GPH doing 350-400 Knots at 25,000'. They say they will have this down to 90 GPH @ FL 270 or 280 doing 320 KTAS.

1200' Take off, 2500' land. Stall is 74K. 495lb payload. VR is 90 Knots with a 5000' FPM climb

1100 NM range with reserve, 1400 with tip tanks.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Oct 2009, 15:27

That ViperJet is awesome.

How many AMU's?