I’m a little skeptical about VLJs too (although that is because the small accountant in me cries a little when he sees the fuel burn). I myself would rather get there 20 minutes later than pay for the extra fuel.

What I really don’t understand is the apparent altitude advantage VLJs have over turboprops. If the VLJ mission is short flights, then what is the point of being able to cruise to 40,000 feet? Most of the time they will be on with approach flying low in the weather and burning more fuel. If they are going to be doing short flights, why not make an engine that has peak efficiency in the low 20’s or high teens? Although, I do remember reading about so engine design where they did just that, but I don’t remember it being the Eclipse.

The real reason I think the market wants (or did want) VLJs was because when people think of airplanes, they think of jets. Private owners would rather have a little jet than a big prop because then they can say they have a private jet instead of a private plane. On the commercial side, passengers feel safer in a jet and they assume an airline with jets is better than props. It is the same reason why everyone has a CRJ now even though finically, a turboprop would be better. This is also why I don’t think the market can determine if an airplane is successful or not. Everyone flies CRJs now, but that doesn’t mean they are great regional jets. They are good jets, but it is kind of hard to call them regional now that they are flying a lot farther and a lot more people than the turboprop regional did.

I think if props didn’t have a stigma; it would be better if investors gave billions to create a small, fast, and economical turboprop rather than a VLJ. I am much more impressed by a company or owner who flies a Piaggio than a VLJ.