Airhoss

With full fuel you can carry 3 adults and their bags if you can a place to put them. When I started really looking into the VLJ thing it never made sense me. These little buggers just don't do anything that a bigger less expensive turbo prop that carries twice as much and goes just about as fast doesn't do better. I was told by the factory trianing guys the EA500 cruises at like 260kts!? YGTBSM.

I won't argue that there is obviously a niche market for these things in certain regions but it is FAR from the end all be all cure to air travel that they were hyped as from the marketing folks that were trying to sell them. I think the market place has already proved that to be correct.

Ewfflyer

It was 360ktas for the cruise rather than 260. I was slated to fly one for my former employer on a 135. The numbers were going to work for 1-2 folks and full fuel. Our check-airman went to get typed and they flew it back, but the Eclipse guys continued with the plane due to our partner(being Mike Press, the now current owner of Eclipse) having 1/2 ownership in the plane and was leasing it back to Eclipse for demo flights. After the plane was grounded a few more times due to technical difficulties, my former boss backed out because he wanted the plane now, not in 2+years. Aside from those problems, our check-airman did say it flew very nicely though, it's just all the systems were junk!

Cubdriver

Actually, marketing hype is not really what drove the VLJ push from the beginning. It was a product of a joint collaboration of NASA, the FAA, and the general aviation industry to sell smaller airplanes as an alternative to Part 121 commercial air transportation. Does SATS ring a bell? SATS was the NASA program to establish shorter-segment air travel away from the overused commercial airspace, instead using the local GA airport and VLJs to move small numbers of people. See SATS (Wikpedia), SATS (NASA). Eclipse and about two dozen other startup aircraft manufacturers, many using only garages at first, thought it was a great idea to make a small jet and altogether they threw literally billions into making the VLJ come of age. When you consider how many designs made it to the prototype stage and then later went belly up, Eclipse is a rather successful airplane. In fact, Eclipse is on the short list for VLJs that will actually survive the VLJ bust. It is very hard to bring a new airplane to the marketplace. So even if the EA500 has some weaknesses, and I am sure it does, it is a very good design and will eventually be one of a very few of these smaller jets to have made it to production. If the economy turns around I think there is a very good chance that Eclipse Aerospace, the latest incarnation of Eclipse Aviation, will survive and stay around. They even have a single engine V-tailed model they are eager to produce. Cut them some slack, their airplane is not far from what it was intended to be.

Airhoss

Me cutting them slack has nothing to do with anything at all. The market place needs to find them viable and they need to produce the numbers they are claimed to. I still say that small to midsized turboprop is a better option for that segment length and payload requirement.

Why reinvent the wheel?

Cubdriver

You are thumbs down on VLJs, just trying to figure out why so. So, let's say the market votes with dollars and starts buying VLJs. This is already happening with the Mustang, Cessna can't make enough of them. Even during a recession they sell like hotcakes. But what does this prove? Part 135 operators might feel they can some money with them or maybe it proves that owner-pilots would rather have a VLJ than a King Air, but this is only part of the story. As far as producing the numbers they claim, you do not say what numbers to which you refer and what we discussed does not seem to impress you. I will venture a guess you are talking about payload, speed, cabin space, price, and range, so I surfed up a comparison of Mustang, Phenom 100, and the King Air GTi-

Turboprop vs.VLJ comparison (AvBuyer) (p.50)

While each of these aircraft has a strong point or two, this is a well paired group of airplanes. If an operator wants more speed or to get over the weather they will definitely prefer the VLJ. If they want to carry an extra passenger or two they will definitely prefer the baby King Air. Apples against oranges but you can't say VLJs are not in the same league with light turboprops. They were intended to be a fast way to get a couple of people and their bags from West Podunk to East Hokeytown at an expense comparable to airline prices and they do this well. The only problem with them in my opinion is they are not particularly fuel efficient, but that was not the issue.

Again, if speed is the thing a VLJ is (a lot) quicker and higher and I think the study above shows it is comparable or better on every count except maybe payload or fuel efficiency. VLJs were not intended to haul a lot of people, so they can't be held responsible for only carrying a few.

Kasserine06

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.

Cubdriver

A typical VLJ is looking at a 3,000 fpm climb rate at sea level versus 2,000 for the King Air plus it can go 11,000 feet higher. On longer trips in the summer you can dodge cloud tops and the possibility of extra altitude to dodge turbulence would make some flights a lot smoother. And the winds are more favorable in a lot of cases. As far as the poor VLJ fuel burn the above article says the per-mile operating cost of the King Air is the highest of the three, so the fuel burn is not really an issue. I do think the issue of jet versus prop as far as public perception is big, witness the heavy negative spin on CEOs bizjets. That will go away in a year or two, because people generally like to get there faster.

Airhoss

When a majority of po dunk 135 operators can afford to buy and operate a VLJ in the black I will agree with you. I just don't see how this VLJ thing is ever going to make financial sense. It simply costs to much and provides to little in return.

Heck I'd love to be able to fly from KAPA to KSAF in under an hour in a small jet with no security issues no parking hassels ETC ETC for comparable prices to an airline ticket. That'd be heaven no doubt about it. BUT the last time I checked I can fly from DEN to ABQ round trip for like $200 USD. Now are you going to tell me that I'll ever be able to charter a VLJ down to Santa Fe and back for a comparable price? That's where I seperate the hype from reality. These things will always have an air of exclusivity to them and they will always be considered a luxury. They will never be affordable to your average air traveler. Will there be a niche market for the VLJ? No doubt. Will they ever be a mainstream form of travel? Nope not a chance.

So when these articles say that the VLJ will have comparable pricing to airline tickets. What airline tickets are they speaking of? Possibly multiple first class non discounted ones. But the devil is always in the details isn't it?

Here are some charter rates for the Mustang.

CITATION MUSTANG AND ECLIPSE 500 VLJs FOR CHARTER

NOW AVAILABLE BASED IN CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA AND CHICAGO

New Flight Charters is proud to announce the first of what promises to be numerous Very Light Jets available for charter in the US. In this revolutionary new aircraft category, the Citation Mustang was one of the last aircraft announced, but the first to certification and delivery, a credit to legendary aircraft manufacturer Cessna.

Contact us now for availability and a quote for either of these aircraft, and more as they become available.

Cessna Citation Mustang
Citation Mustang VLJ jet charter
Hourly rates $1,750 plus surcharges & fees
Passenger Seating 4-5
Cabin Dimensions
4'6" / 9'9"/ 4'6"
Baggage Space 80 cubic feet
Cruise Speed 390 statute miles per hour
Range 1320 statute miles

Cubdriver

Well if you are able to find a second or third person to break down the trip cost, there are air taxi operators already doing business who will match airline prices. I know, I just ran several trips through the pricing function on one air taxi operator's website I am familiar with in Lawrenceville, Georgia. Theirs is for an SR22 with 3 passengers. I got $250 a seat for a 250 mile trip. On a Mustang you could break down the cost by adding a fourth or fifth passenger. That Mustang quote you have there should break down into 5 equal parts. I will venture a guess that the airports it serves are not served by a regional airline anyway.

FlyOrDie

Hey its just like my plane, referring to the 150 in the background. Its either a 1964 or early 1965 with the Omnivision rear window. I have about 500 hours in mine cruising all over California.

On Eclipse.

I toured the factory in 2006 when my dad was contract flying a King Air 200. We sat in the mock up and my feel for the airplane is that it was a total waste price wise. Going westbound into headwinds you'd have to make a stop and in the King Air 200 you could just slow down and get the fuel flows down and keep cruising. When you take into account things like fuel stops the faster airplane doesn't necessarily get you there faster. The nice advantage of a King Air 200 for example is that you can show up and unload your Suburban into the airplane and takeoff. With the Eclipse you'd have to be driving a sports coupe and not have that much junk.