VLJs again

[sangiovese.]

Just see in Flight Intl that Flairjet in Oxford is taking Phenoms too. Can somebody explain please, pretty please where on earth all these new customers are going to come from?? Isnt anybody doing a proper analysis of the market? Or do people really want to just p*ss cash away (if so please divert it towards me)

Flairjet set to start commercial operations within weeks (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/03/334321/flairjet-set-to-start-commercial-operations-within-weeks.html)

[plugster]

I guess it depends on a number of circumstances..
What is against low operating costs, a new airframe and passenger comfort that is most probably not being reached by competition (CJ1 etc.)? If you can finance it on cheap money this would be the best time.

[Senor Jose Cuervo]

These are "managed" aircraft. So if you had signed a speculative deal for a number of Phenoms a few years ago when times were good, hoping to make a quick dollar by selling them straight from the factory, what do you do with these aircraft now? Sell them at a loss of $500K+ each or try and keep something ticking over pending a recovery? My guess is the latter, whether it will work in practice only time will tell.

[S.F.L.Y]

Just have a look at the pre-owned market: a lot of people have renounced to their jets and are trying to sell. Many of them are corporate aircraft which had to be sold because it doesn't look nice on the balance sheet at times of recession. Does it means the users will give up on bizav? Some will look at charter/cards opportunities provided they are at reasonable costs. For the next two years you might loose less money by chartering a phenom or an Avanti than by financing and operating a high depreciation learjet....

[deskjockey101]

if you notice the registration on the aircraft you'll see why these 2 aircraft may not be subject to the normal commercial rules !! with the key letters being REU....

DJ101

[x933]

Believe it was RBN actually DJ101 ;-). Doesn't detract that these two aircraft are slightly different as they're backed by a company that have a long history of throwing money at aeroplanes - and happen to be somewhere near the top of the rich list...

[deskjockey101]

x933

apologies, your right...although the owners remain the same......

[Flintstone]

Throwing money at aeroplanes and somewhere near the top of the rich list? They're either making it quickly elsewhere or started out with a BIG bucketful in the first place.

[Daifly]

Well, if you own the Airport, you might as well have a little airline to go with it :-)

[deskjockey101]

Lets also not forget that with DOC's lower than a CJ1, cabin saleability somewhere near a Lear 40, and a low capital cost combined with a very low cost of capital (not a gramatical error!!)

When you do the numbers, these guys could do ok, and there maybe a lot of unhappy old CJ1, Citation II etc...owners out there....especially when they see their customers in the new shiny thing as opposed to the slightly tired looking older thing (i refere to the plane not the crew!!!!!!!)

It might not change the world, but it cant hurt..

101

[Phil Brockwell]

DJ,

Have you flown on one, from your description I guess not, the cabin is very pretty, but the one I flew in was as noisy as hell (apparently they are working on this) and the seat fell off it's runners mid flight. The metalwork on the wing and the pusher don't inspire confidence.

IMHO this could be another Prem 1. Great for static displays.

[S.F.L.Y]

Agree with Phil.
As an example the Avanti flies 400kts over 1200nm, has a stand up cabin (and stand up toilet!), comfort for 6 pax, burns 100usg/h (=low CO2), very high flat-rating, quiet cabin and low available inventory. In other words it does much better than a CJ and will surely have a decent low depreciation over the next few years, which is not guaranteed for VLJs. (how much for the eclipse? 50%/year?)

Why taking risks with new products?

[deskjockey101]

Phil, totally appreciate your comments and your right i've not flown on one however i have flown a very early Global Express and then the latest XRS and there are some striking similarities, and that hasn't stopped the rise of the XRS, and the improvements and refinements and has gone on to redifine the wide body class..(await the 7000!!!!!!!!)

Let's remember that half of all progress is how things are marketed and sold (the avanti being a case in point, from an aviation man's perspective great aircraft, but look's weird and has never really made a big impact). The difference with the Embraer is that it will have airliner despatch reliability, they will sort the odd glitch (noise, faulty rail) and then this will be a good charter machine and will certainly give us a kicking against the Lear 40 especially for the shorter runs!

Only time will tell, but Embraer are looking like a good bet for the futurem, and my monies on them flying a lot of people.

101

[Daifly]

The difference with the Embraer is that it will have airliner despatch reliability - your opinion of course, but it's not an converted, proven airliner - it's brand new technology so it won't have airliner despatch reliability.

We operate a Legacy and whilst reliability's been good so far, they are an airliner manufacturer when it comes to tech support... and that's on a proven product.

I am just amazed all these companies keep entering the market. I am still using my biggest magnifying glass to try and find all these new customers and failing!

[BigNumber]

Daifly,

I do not believe that there any new customers; just the established punters always looking for a cheaper deal.

Can JB/Flairjet really compete with 247Jet for example?

[Phil Brockwell]

Personally I don't think JB will happen to any noticeable amount, I see another JR happening there. Flairjet might work if the Phenoms prove reliable enough and the airframes are not sold from under them.

Just my opinion,

[Daifly]

I'm not being naive or complacent, but I don't think that customers are constantly hunting for the absolute cheapest deal. The market at the moment has lost an entire entry level - it's not a case of them looking for a cheaper deal as they are already back on the airlines.

We really haven't seen much "level reduction" amongst our clients, in terms of mid-size reducing to light-jet, they're just not using business aircraft full stop.

We'll see what the day brings.

[Abbeville]

Just had a look at G-INFO. Only two registered thus far.

How many have been ordered for UK operators?

[tuna hp]

I think that the idea is that these planes will compete against both turboprops and existing light jets like the CJs. Turboprop customers might prefer something for about the same price that can fly faster and higher. Light jet owners might appreciate the cost savings.

I don't see the "VLJ Revolution" at what we now know to be realistic prices, obviously. When people were first hearing about the Eclipse 500, it was supposed to have been $1.3 million. Also the eventual 900 lb-ft engines only burn 60 gal/hr so the 770 lb-ft engines that were originally planned must have burned even less. Also at some point they were advertising complete maintenance at $209 per flight hour. Thats very different than what "VLJs" have turned out to be, costing $3.5 million, burning 120 gal/hr, etc.

Its nice to dream, though. If those original Eclipse numbers were to have turned out to be workable, it truly would have exposed many more people to private aviation. At under $1000/hr TOTAL operating costs including crew, depreciation, insurance, EVERYTHING, it would have been relatively attainable.

[BoeingMEL]

...that the Reubens may need a sizeable number of hours for themselves... and are setting up an AOC operation to sell-off those hours that the aircraft (and crews!) would be sitting idle? IF those sold hours could make an impact on salaries, insurance etc... their own flights COULD be carried ou at an attractive £/hr rate. This question may not be related to a whisper I heard when taking a coffee-break at Kidlington last week! Cheers bm

[No RYR for me]

I'm not being naive or complacent, but I don't think that customers are constantly hunting for the absolute cheapest deal.
Yes you are naive and complacent. When you can get a brand new CJ2+ or CJ3 at the same rate per hour as a Phanthom 100 you will understand that the business model is flawned... the CJ will take their business away! Specially in Germany!

:rolleyes:

[tuna hp]

I would have imagined VLJ's would come in cheaper due to aquisition cost, insurance, maintenance etc being less.

Thats the thing. They're a little cheaper, proportionate to their lesser capabilities, but VLJs aren't being sold by the thousands so that they can have some new economy of scale manufacturing them (as was the goal at Eclipse Aviation). A Phenom 100 might be $3.5M and a CJ3 might be $6.5M but the CJ3 will carry more passengers, fly higher and faster, and fly 700nm farther.

[tuna hp]

The key is to use the right tool for the right job.

Of course. If you can book enough hours of VLJ missions in your market then you will be successful operating a VLJ. They probably will steal a lot of business from the turboprop charters. But how much new business is going to come from people who reason, "hmm I always could have chartered a turboprop to do this mission and I never did, now for the same price I can do it in a VLJ but since the plane flies 50% faster I'm gonna do it".

Some new business I think, but not a revolutionary amount.

[No RYR for me]

That would be a Phenom 100 Nope it remains a Phanthom until Embraer clears the training delays and / or Jet Bird gets their funding :8 Just pick the explenation you like :p

And may I rephrase the following: "hmm I always could have chartered a turboprop to do this mission and I never did, now for the same price I can do it in a VLJ but since the plane flies 50% faster I'm gonna do it".into "hmm I always could have chartered a CJ2 to do this mission and I never did, now for the same price I can do it in a VLJ but since the plane is flown by this new company I'm gonna do it". :cool:

[S.F.L.Y]

A VLJ flies 50% faster? The Avanti flies at 398 kts with a DOC 30-40 % lower than a CJ and allows you to use the lavatory standing and not within a 1.45m high cabin....
Seriously, what is the benefit of using a CJ on legs < 1000 Nm? What would be the benefit and market opportunity of VLJs compared to the Avanti? Look at the Avantair business model and see how VLJs are a ridiculous threat.

[BigNumber]

I had the opportunity to look round an AirGo Avanti in Lyon; chatting to the crew quickly revealed just how capable the machine is. They had both flown the CJ previously.

I wonder if there might be a slight 'Jet snob' factor amongst the client base. Objectively, IMO, it is a great aircaft if a little expensive to buy.

[BigNumber]

I have never seen a P180 at La Mole. Just wondering about the short field performance?

How many Pax could a P180 lift on the 'La Mole' to 'Luton' run.

Goodness knows that it can be challenging in a CJ when the owner brings his friends along with their bags ( at +30 degrees.)

[x933]

I know of someone 18 months ago who was offered a year old P180 and a Vintage Citation II with the usual refurb in 5 years. Paid more for vintage Citation II, hated it. Jet Snobbery rules OK...:suspect:

[S.F.L.Y]

Clearly Embraer, Cessna and others did a lot of research into VLJ's and decided thet there was a market for them and sales would seem to indicate they are right.

Embraer & Cessna entered the segment as they thought they could afford it thanks to their diversified product ranges and experience. All other challengers went down (Grob, Eclipse etc.) and even Cessna is in a very serious situation as it didn't reduce its production rate.

Having few Mustangs & Phenoms flying is one thing, it doesn't mean it's gonna be a commercial success. Thinking that passengers are stupid enough to prefer a tiny mustang to an Avanti at the same rate just because it's a jet shows a very narrow minded commercial perception. Once again, compare Day Jet and Avantair and you'll see how the real world flies.

[BigNumber]

Anyone able to give an insight into performance with reference to my earlier La Mole question?

[S.F.L.Y]

Obviously if a business man is going to buy himself an aircraft he / she will look into things but a passenger booking a charter will choose the jet nearly every time.

It all depends on what you offer. It's clear that between a C90 and a CJ customers will choose the jet. Now let them compare cabins and speed of the Avanti and Mustang. I'm not sure that people would prefer to knee in front of the potty just for the opportunity to have a leak in a jet.

I have flown both jets and turbo props and heard the pax moaning about the propeller aircraft time and time again. I'm not saying it's right, just the way it is.

How many Avantis does Avantair operate? Do you know a single operation with such a fleet of CJs or VLJs? How do you explain it works that well? What would be the benefit of a VLJ in comparison to such operation?

[His dudeness]

Whats the point of taking a leak standing?

It just leads to stains.

Any pax sitting on the pot instead of standing is my 'friend'....

[lpokijuhyt]

I don't know, but a decent toilet is a nice thing to have in any aircraft. I once was flying a King Air and had a lady passenger take a crap in my flight bag and that was not an enjoyable experience for me, her, the other passengers, or my flight bag. :uhoh:

[A10Warthog]

[QUOTE] I once was flying a King Air and had a lady passenger take a crap in my flight bag and that was not an enjoyable experience for me, her, the other passengers, or my flight bag. /QUOTE]

hahaha.

I'd never use that flight bag again ! :}

At least the King Air I'm flying have toilet in the back.

[S.F.L.Y]

PS: I agree with you, the Avanti is a great aircraft but what I am talking about is passenger (and even owner) perception.

You still didn't elaborate on Avantair. Isn't it about passenger perception? How come this operation is such a success with dozens of aircrafts and happy pax while I can't see anything competing with CJs, Mustangs and other Eclipse?

[No RYR for me]

Know your onions Suitcase...:rolleyes:
Jetbird for example have ordered 100 Embraer Phenom VLJ's. Yes and so did JetRepublic with 100s of Lear60s... does that make it a good airplane.. So did DayJet that ordered millions (well almost :p) of Eclipses.. Does that make Eclipse and or Dayjet great companies??? :ooh:

No, it does not: a company and an airplane are only succesfull in the longer run. Jetbird is start up with financing issues with a new business model and a new relative unproven aircraft. Avantair on the other hand: Avantair, Inc. Reports Record Gains in Flight Time Cards Sold and Flight Hours Flown
CLEARWATER, Fla. – October 27, 2009 -- Avantair, Inc. (OTCBB: AAIR), the sole North American provider of flight hour time cards and fractional shares in the Piaggio Avanti aircraft, today announced preliminary flight time card sales and flight hours flown for its fiscal first quarter ended September 30, 2009.

First Quarter Fiscal 2010 Sales Highlights

* Flight time cards sold for the three months ended September 30, 2009 increased 69% to 86 compared to 51 flight time cards sold during the fiscal fourth quarter ended June 30, 2009, and 219% from 27 for the fiscal first quarter ended September 30, 2008.
* Revenue-generating flight hours flown reached a new quarterly record, increasing 13% quarter-over-quarter to 9,356 hours compared to 8,277 hours for the fiscal fourth quarter ended June 30, 2009, and increasing 11% year-over-year compared to 8,393 for the fiscal first quarter ended September 30, 2008.

Steven Santo, founder and Chief Executive Officer of Avantair, said, “Our record quarterly performance is the result of several key factors: our enhanced sales and marketing initiatives as well as increasing customer awareness of the fuel efficiency of the Piaggio aircraft and the superior cost value of an Avantair program compared to the light-jet programs of our competitors. Our favored eco-friendly operations and low carbon emissions aircraft are also driving the growth and expansion of our business and awareness of the Avantair brand. While we are seeing improvement in the fractional share portion of our business, the main driver of revenue growth is the continued surge of interest in our flight time card programs.

“The outstanding numbers for our September quarter show that we are not only increasing our penetration of the existing market but also expanding our total market as new and referral customers realize the value of our product offerings,” Mr. Santo continued. “Our fleet expansion is well-timed in order to keep pace with the strong demand for our flight programs and we continue to build our presence in both existing and new geographical regions. In addition, the significant cost effectiveness of our aircraft has resulted in the expansion of our marketing targets to include a broader and more diverse audience. Widespread environmental concerns and the problems impacting commercial travel make our value proposition clear particularly with those businesses that are most concerned with responsible private transportation alternatives.”

Avantair recently announced the expansion of its fleet with the addition of four aircraft, three of which have already been received and one of which is expected to be added before the end of the calendar year. The Company’s improved capital structure following the closing of the final tranche of a financing for total gross proceeds of $10.4 million enabled this expansion. Avantair maintains world class FBO’s in Camarillo, California and Caldwell, New Jersey and its headquarters in Clearwater, Florida. These FBO’s allow the Company to support its operations and deliver premier services to Avantair’s customers while maintaining the highest levels of safety. The Company’s primary service area currently includes the Continental United States, international locations in Canada within 200 miles of the Continental US, and flights between seven select airports in the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, Cabo San Lucas, La Paz and Puerto Vallarta.

Avantair will report financial results for the fiscal first quarter 2010 ended September 30, 2009 during the second week of November; details will be forthcoming. ;)

[S.F.L.Y]

Never heard of them! How many aircraft do they have?

Piaggio sales have been poor so they cant have that many and the aircraft has been available for a long time.

Jetbird for example have ordered 100 Embraer Phenom VLJ's. You could have searched on google before posting that. Avantair operates over 50 Avantis with 53 more on order. Turboprop fractional market is currently increasing by 21% while light jets are suffering from the biggest losses. What are VLJs supposed to bring on the market? Their business model is on ranges for which turboprop engines have been specifically designed. Jets are not made for short legs, they are optimized for long cruises in high and cold air.

So far turboprops suffered from limited speeds and cabin noise. Now that the Avanti flies at 400kts with a quiet cabin, how VLJs are supposed to be advantageous on short legs?

[plugster]

Prop equals old
Jet equals new and shiny - and sexy.
Thats the general perception I gathered.

[drogue chute]

Plugster, you're absolutely right there... It's an unfair misconception that many are guilty of - myself included.
I remember standing on the ramp in Milan waiting for the fuel truck to turn up and noticed an Avanti parked quite close to us. It was the first one I'd ever seen at close quarters, so I wandered up and started looking around it. I was truly impressed with it - it looked like it belonged in Star Wars. I remembered dreaming of machines like this when I was a kid. The under carriage looked like it was borrowed from an F16, and those canards... I've ALWAYS wanted to fly something with canards!
It was a thing of beauty.

Then the fuel truck turned up and I went back to my CJ2 and thought "well, at least THIS one has JET engines!"

Now I'll get my coat and leave...

[lpokijuhyt]

I couldn't agree more with the post about the turboprop being more efficient than the VLJ (especially in regards to the routes/destinations proposed by certain VLJ Air Taxi operators.

The sad fact is that one is a JET and the other has these things call propellers. As pilots, we can analyze the pros and cons and offer a sensible argument in favour of the Avanti. This is easy. We can tell the buyer, "OK the Avanti's cost per hour is going to be a bit less, it's more fuel efficient and you will be doing your part to protect the climate since the Avant's emissions are less. We could go on and on.

The people who fly in these jets usually place a certain emphasis "on looking good." Looking good = jet. The word "Private Jet" also holds a certain mytique that the words, "Private Turbo-Prop" dont quite have.

Hey, if it was me....then hell yeah, I would go with the Avanti, but these people feel the need to be in the "jet". I'm no economist but I think the word is "intrinsic value". The jet has this the TP does not.

Would I also buy a Toyota Prius before a Hummer H2? Of course. They are more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. But I can almost guarentee that the guy who rolls up to the airport to get in his private jet is not arriving in a Toyota Prius.:eek:

[No RYR for me]

RYR, read a little more carefully next time. I never said any of them were great companies. My point was that they didn't order 100 Avanties. Thanks SFLY for clearing that up for me in my abscence :ok:

[S.F.L.Y]

Prop equals old
Jet equals new and shiny - and sexy.
Thats the general perception I gathered.

Let me quote a recent AIN report:

"ARG/US’s TraqPak evaluation of business aircraft activity reflects a similar drop in fractional activity during July 2009 versus July 2008, with a 17.6-percent decline. ARG/US further breaks that down into aircraft categories, showing that small-cabin jet activity dropped the most (35%), while turboprop activity grew 21.5 percent."

In other words:
Props equals more revenues
Light jet equals more losses
This is not a "general perception" but industry facts. No matter what your personal perception might be, users have demonstrated which model works better.

In general VLJs performs much better on the paper than in the air (especially warm air...)

[S.F.L.Y]

I think the hot Dubai weather has gone to your head. The Phenom out performs published figures. Manufacturers can not publish inflated or incorrect figures. The legal department will see to that. What a lot of twaddle.Most VLJs have engines flat rated around 25 C, meaning their performances deteriorate exponentially above these temperatures (takeoff dist & climb). I'm not telling you manufacturers are cheating, they just forget to show you their limit. The Dubai air is 80% of the year warmer than these VLJ flat rating limits, meaning they will almost never be able to perform as per their advertised performances. On the other hand the Avanti's flat rating is at 52C...

If somebody wanted to operated a Mustang at its operational limit of 44C (meaning the aircraft would stay on ground if warmer) the takeoff distance would increase by 70% while the Avanti would still be 8 degrees below its flat rating limit.

I'm still waiting for you to explain me what is the added value of the VLJ which would compensate these performance losses? How do you think a Mustang would fly on an engine out climb at MTOW & 40C?

It wouldn't have been difficult for Piaggio to use 2 Williams or PW jet engines instead of the PT6, but this wouldn't make any operational sense as the aircraft wouldn't benefit from increased speed or lower noise while it would burn more fuel and loose performances.

At the end of the day we are talking business, and the 21% increase in turboprop operations speaks for itself while all other categories are dropping. Isn't it a more reliable figure than individual "perception"?

[mikehammer]

The people who fly in these jets usually place a certain emphasis "on looking good." Looking good = jet. The word "Private Jet" also holds a certain mytique that the words, "Private Turbo-Prop" dont quite have.



I like it. It's wrong and non pc of me, but I do!
It is also a very true assertion.

[S.F.L.Y]

I have operated in the Middle East for a number of years and never had a runway length or a payload problem with any aircraft. Even the smaller airfields have very long runways.I didn't say their would be runway limitations, but when you need 70% more runway to get in the air it's not too difficult to understand how it's affecting the climb performances while the climb phase has a huge cost impact on jet short range operations. Once again, what is the counterpart VLJs are offering to these losses?

I gave you actual business figures showing your statements about users preferences are not correct. I'm sorry if this is changing your perception of the real world. In October turboprop fractional ops increased by 26%. What about VLJs?

[S.F.L.Y]

I'm just pointing out which sector is currently increasing its business volume while others aren't. 2 days ago you didn't had any clue about Avantair, maybe you should take some time to discover this segment before commenting on it. Things are little bit more complex than some pretend saying customers are only interested in shinning/sexy jets. You're right when saying some people are downgrading to turboprops due to operating costs. A turboprop is still more "sexy" than a train right? The point is not to decide which aircraft type customers would love to use, but which one is making money as that's the whole story. Some VLJs operators are in business for almost a year, and so far I can't see anything to compare with business such as Avantair. I guess Avantair shareholders are feeling more comfortable than Dayjets'... and that's the whole point.

Of course you can't compare mid-size and large jets with turboprops, and of course some customers are looking for the big thing. The point is about VLJs and I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just waiting for you to explain me what benefits are these machines bringing to customers to balance the performance/price losses in comparison with existing turboprops (beside being shinny/sexy). You might have some good points which I'd like you to share with us.

[BigNumber]

You think? I reckon they'd be glad to 'shift' a couple proudly sporting Jet Bird colours! At a discount!

[Phil Brockwell]

750 deposits does not equal 750 deliveries,

Out of the 750 what are the stats on how many people ever planned on owning / operating one. There are hundreds of speculator deposits down, and many who will delay / walk away from it.

Jetbird are 100 - and that's all looking less than "firm" now. How many other start-up 50 airframe operators will never happen.

[S.F.L.Y]

I still don't and don't give a cr@p. They are one small company in a very large world.If you don't give a crap for that kind of company I wonder why you're making so much noise about VLJs. Avantair flies around 50.000 hours a year with an average of 800 hours per aircraft (the max is over1600 for one aircraft!). Let's talk when a "small" VLJ operator will reach these numbers.

King Airs sold in huge numbers but that was a long time ago. New turbo-props (Avanti) have not had the sales success that VLJ's are having now, even in these difficult times.

At least they have a realistic backlog and can maintain their production rate (which by the way preserves their staff). The VLJ success is based on everything but operational feedback. Let's wait 2 more years and see if people really prefer to travel in 50% smaller cabin at similar DOC.

I'm sure the Avantair guys must be really afraid of the VLJs and their very light cabins. I just don't understand why they chose to get 50 more Avantis instead of some of these 750 phenoms.

[No RYR for me]

Quick, quick Suitcaseman thanks to you I am on to something! Since I just learned that a large back order of start up operators with no aviation background and / or no funding like JetBird is a good thing I have been searching the internet for even better deals and look:

The Eclipse concept is to bring a new economy to small jet aircraft and both the cost of acquisition and ongoing operational costs are considered in the design of the plane. Eclipse markets the aircraft to general aviation aircraft owners who have not previously owned a jet, placing it directly in competition with high-end piston and turboprop aircraft. Eclipse's marketing efforts focusses on the aircraft's projected low service costs and comprehensive maintenance and support program for customers. Being able to land at over 10,000 airports in the United States, Eclipse and other VLJ manufacturers predict that this will create an air taxi role for their aircraft.

In June 2008, Eclipse has a backlog of over 2,600 total orders for its Eclipse 500.

Excellent: large backlog = great aircraft = succesfull business:8

What have I been doing for the last 20 years in this industry... had it not been for Suitcase man with his new economics! :D

ps how is your job at JB getting along? :rolleyes:

[bla bla]

Don´t make such a big deal about VLJs, it is a poor mans jet, it will do the business on very short flights with pax that trust there lifes with inexperiense pilots,(because they don´t know any better, or cant´t afford any better)
(yes yes..... you will hate me for saying this but it is trou)
This is why so many people get upset with the idea of an aircraft that can be afordable to a larger clientel.
As an owner aircraft great, you get away from the propeller bullsit vibrations and such for the same money speed Etc.. but be realistic ?? would you put your family in such an aircraft???
the answer is NO !!! for most people that can afford a proper aircraft.

[stepwilk]

"By the way, propellers are for boats."

Had an acquaintance once who had an Avanti, and he proudly ushered a client across the ramp to board it. When the client realized where they were headed, he said, "Jeez, I though you said you had a jet. I didn't know you had a little prop plane."

Remember the Cheyenne 400? Same thing.

[No RYR for me]

Better than my job at Netjets thanks Wow, didnt know we had a operation in South Africa before! :rolleyes:

(laying off another 500 pilots and losing $ 1 000 000 a day)Yes and our share holder is not happy about it, but he has something substantial: Funding

But getting back on the VLJ topic: what about the 2800 orders for Eclipse :ugh: I'm sorry if you guys dont like the facts but the order book says it all.

Also who are the other BIG orders?? The only one I have faith in is the October 2006 order of.... Avantair and maybe Executive Air Share

Lets face it:

-air taxi start-up JetBird for 56 Phenom 100s, with options for another 44: funding problems:\
-an undisclosed European leasing agent (10 aircraft) No news:suspect:
-Eagle Creek Aviation Services in Indianapolis (12 airplanes); Aircraft trader that hoped to sell the positions on:ouch:
-Gold Aviation Services of Fort Lauderdale (five airplanes and options for another 10) Management company that hoped to jump on the fractional bandwagon with Eclipses and Embraers:ooh:
-Magnum Jet of Houston (50 and options for 50 more) FBO that hoped to start up, even the website died:{
-Wondair, a fractional and charter operator in Valencia, Spain (24 airplanes and options for an additional 10).Unknown if they received any yet:*
-Jet Suite Financing Shortfalls:(


Now for the avoidance of doubt: I think that the aircraft is a great aircraft! I just dont believe the pink glasses of some people.... There is a market however it is substantial smaller than all the large new buyers from outside our industry believe :=

[No RYR for me]

Let's get back on the VLJ topic my dear friend and answer the main question: why does a big order book of start ups without credibility mean it will be a great aircraft.... :}

[deice]

Has anyone ever considered calling "jets" by their proper name "fans" instead? Let's face it, you fanjet people are flying props too, they just put a shroud around it so you wouldn't bang your sensitive little heads on the blades. :}

Besides, I wouldn't trade my prop for a frikkin fan - looks pitiful, like a vaccuum cleaner - loosers! Ok, maybe the fans on the Citation X, but I'd prefer if it had proper props...

[S.F.L.Y]

I'm with you deice, a turbojet is the most basic turbine engine. Add it a fan and it becomes a turbofan, add it a prop and it becomes a turboprop.

By definition a turboprop engine is a turbojet. Still, turboprop time is considered as piston time for most employers.

[S.F.L.Y]

That's not correct. On a turbofan all the power is not transferred from the jet reaction effect. That's why there is a difference between a basic turbojet and a turbofan.
A turbofan is very similar to a turboprop, the turbine transfer some of it's energy to the fan just like if it was a propeller. The fan is not a compressor, most of its flow goes around the engine. Its purpose is to accelerate a bigger volume of air than a pure jet (just like a turboprop).

The turbofan is basically a compromise in order to combine the fuel efficiency of the turboprop at low levels/speeds with the jet efficiency at higher speeds, without suffering the technical limitations of the turboprops at very high speed.

On large sections engines (trent) this is very effective (high bypass ratio). On smaller models (VLJs) turbofans are mainly acting like classic turbojets (low bypass ratio).

[deice]

No heat out the exhaust of a TP? Have you climbed out the right side door of a Cessna Caravan with the engine running? :)
If I'm not completely mistaken a TP can get as much as 15% thrust from the exhaust of the turbine, but that's from memory so don't quote me..

In any case, the real issue with turboprops is perception as someone said. I've had colleagues complain about having to board a small propeller aeroplane (Dash8-Q400) and then rejoice at the sight of the huge jet (EMB135) they're boarding just after.

Ignorance is bliss.

[S.F.L.Y]

Suitecaseman, I'm quoting you:

The technoligy in turbofans and turboprops is vastly different.This is were I disagree. Both have same concept of core engine (a turbojet). Both are using turbine energy to operate the fan or the propeller. Both fan and propeller are working on the same concept at low speed, producing most of the power.

The only difference is that props are more efficient than fans at low speed/altitudes while fans are designed to be operated at higher speeds were most of the power is produced by the core engine (turbojet). A turbofan is a turboprop at low speeds and a turbojet at high speed.

While the fan & props (except on the piaggio) have a little compressor effect, this is not why they have been designed.

[lanef300]

Guys relax you've been at each other's throat over every issue...Take it easy, agree to disagree!

[deice]

I do know this stuff. You needn't get so worked up, but at least agree that a high bypass ratio "jet" engine is pretty close to the idea of a turboprop. Or don't agree, either way enjoy your lunch.

[lpokijuhyt]

It's still not much of a proper airplane if you have to take a dump in bag due to lack of a toilet. You can compare fuel consumption, operating costs, whatever...but it all comes down to the toilet. True.

[stepwilk]

Many years ago, when I was flying a Shrike Commander for my boss at Flying Magazine--you kids probably don't know what a Shrike is, but never mind--that had a fancy club-seating interior with all the 1970s comfort-in-flight accoutrements, I had my then-girlfriend pee into the empty ice container between the two plush back seats because I didn't want to give up altitude and a tailwind to land.

It always amused me when I'd thereafter hear Ed Muhlfeld, in back, say, "Another Scotch on the rocks, Bob?..."

[deice]

Sorry to disappoint - been flying for 18 years so far so I'm not going to Ryanair anytime soon - wouldn't touch them with a stick. I'll leave that to you young kids.

[lpokijuhyt]

Sorry to disappoint - been flying for 18 years so far so I'm not going to Ryanair anytime soon - wouldn't touch them with a stick

and your point is...? Heck, they wouldn't touch you either. You got too much experience and easily over their 250 hours maximum requirement for pilot employment. :}

[S.F.L.Y]

Suitecaseman:


The reverse flow of the PT6 isn't changing anything about the basic concept. Replace a PT6's propeller by a fan and you get a turbofan, even with a reverse flow. The reason behind the PT6 reverse flow is mainly to put the accessory gearbox at the back of the engine since it isn't meant to be attached on pylons. The core engine is the same, it produces thermodynamic energy absorbed by a turbine and transferred to a fan or propeller through a shaft.
According to a lot of people the fan and the low pressure compressor are two different things, you're not gonna compress much of air with a turbofan's fan... Just search turbofan cutaway in google image and you will get my point. The low pressure compressor is a multi-stage compressor.
Adding a gearbox to a turbofan is an improvement on which P&W is working (PW1000). Since you like to quote P&W this comes from their website and contradict your point about low pressure compressor:In the PurePower PW1000G engine, a state-of-the-art gear system allows the engine’s fan to operate at a slower, optimum speed while freeing the low-pressure compressor and turbine to operate at their optimized higher speed, increasing engine efficienc
Anything else on your list?On takeoff (null speed) up to 80% of a high bypass turbofan power can be produced by the bypass air which is exactly like if it was going through a propeller (little acceleration of a large volume of air). Only 20% of the power comes from the jet thrust (not far from the 15% on a turboprop...).

[silverknapper]

How many pax can a Phenom lift for an 1100nm sector?

[S.F.L.Y]

Below or above 25 Celsius at sea level?

[S.F.L.Y]

At least I'm focusing on factual/documented points while you are only basing your disagreement on comments toward my "attitude". I think this isn't bringing any further during an interview... but technically it looks like I'm little bit right... sorry.

What do you call the conventional sense? Why a PT6 with a fan wouldn't be a turbofan? Wouldn't it be a turbine and a fan?!?

[deice]

Nope - that would be a turbine with a thingy up front apparently. :ok:
Whatever.
Sorry I even started you guys on the fan discussion - it was meant as an amusing thought. Who cares if you got frikkin ramjets stuck on the plane - it all boils down to whether or not you can get pax in it.

Fact still remains, the general public considers anything with a prop to be a smaller and lesser airplane. They haven't seen the TU195 obviously. It is a little disheartening to hear fellow pilots reason the same way.

On a side track it'd be interesting to see what effect a turbofan would have on the performance of the Avanti. Sleek as it is, I'm guessing it'd burn more fuel for the same basic performance.

[S.F.L.Y]

On a side track it'd be interesting to see what effect a turbofan would have on the performance of the Avanti. Sleek as it is, I'm guessing it'd burn more fuel for the same basic performance.Firstly it would depend on the bypass ratio but in general you can expect that with a similar cruising fuel flow speed would be improved at the cost of takeoff perfs. It's all a matter of flight profile.

Turbofans exists with various bypass ratios allowing to choose between different performance profiles. A high bypass ratio turbofan will be more fuel efficient in low speed/altitudes than a smaller bypass ratios based on a similar core engine which in the other hand would perform better in high speed/altitudes.

A very good example is the A10 which uses high bypass ratio turbofans in order to perform well with heavy load and low speeds/altitudes. With a similar bypass ratio than the Phenom's engines it would need 3 times more runway to take-off at MTOW and double it's fuel flow. At the same time very fast turboprop's propellers tends to look very much like fans..

When you have a big difference of velocity between the air flowing out of the engine's fan, propeller or nozzle and the surrounding airflow you waste a lot of energy and reduce performances. This is why at low speeds it's more efficient to give a small acceleration to a large volume of air while at high speeds you need to do the contrary.

[S.F.L.Y]

You obviously never flew a PT6 with curved exhaust pipes nor understand what the reverse flow is about.

I'm not saying anything of what you pretend, turboprops have been designed for specific purposes like short distances operations on which jets wouldn't have enough cruising time to balance their higher fuel consumption for takeoff and climb. Jets are definitely better on long ranges.

Flying a jet (with a low bypass ratio) on short ranges doesn't make a lot of sense from an economical point of view. If on top of that you operate it above it's flat rating temperature, in a salty, dusty and polluted environment, maintenance costs will increase exponentially due to thermal stress and accelerated corrosion.

[stepwilk]

I'm curious--really.

Do either of you guys (suitcase and sfly) actually fly airplanes? Or are we deep into the Land of Theory here?

[S.F.L.Y]

Do you really fly with no clue of theory? Let's not call it only theory but also experience if this is fine for you...

[Sepp]

Sorry to drag this discussion further off topic - but does anyone remember the King Air/Meteor hybrid pic from a while back (like 10 years or so)? I think it was on the cover of Controller or similar... If anyone has a copy, I'd love to see it again!

btw - I always assumed it was a montage, but I'm happy to be educated :)

Rgds.

[stepwilk]

"Do you really fly with no clue of theory? Let's not call it only theory but also experience if this is fine for you..."

I indeed am curious, not trying to be a pain, but do answer the question. If you asked it of me, I certainly would have no trouble doing so.

[S.F.L.Y]

I indeed am curious, not trying to be a pain, but do answer the question. If you asked it of me, I certainly would have no trouble doing so.

Yes I've been flying all versions of flight simulator since 1989 which gives me experience on various fixed and rotary wings. I tried to cross the Atlantic inFS4 but Europe wasn't there at that time, it still gives me 15 years of transatlantic experience.

[Phil Brockwell]

Can you two Tw@ts please post your real names so that no-one is stupid enough to employ you in the future.

[Phil Brockwell]

Suitcaseman, if the thread was titled "2 underacheivers having a willey waggling contest" obviously I would have passed it by, unfotunately it's called "VLJ's again" which could have been more interesting.

[S.F.L.Y]

Phil, in our industry communication skills and politeness are essential. If you want to know my name you ask it politely.

I'm basically developing on this thread (VLJs) by providing information which I can document. I'm entering into technical issues as this is critical when it comes to flight operations and if you had a little understanding of what I'm talking about you would understand how relevant it is to the thread. You can either debate providing factual info or just stop reading what doesn't deserve your valuable attention.

I've been working on evaluating VLJ operations performances and thought I could share my point of view.

[deice]

suitcaseman, your points are undebateable.
Of course, if millions build something that millions others buy it must be great. Like cigarettes, TV-dinners, VHS video, the Hummer H1, rubber dog ****, rubiks cube. Very useful objects employing millions of people. Truly great stuff.

Before you get all worked up - I'm kidding obviously, but realize that good solid reasoning doesn't necessarily play a part in decision making. If that were the case we would live in a very dull world. Eco friendly perhaps but nevertheless dull.

This is where sales people really prove their worth, selling you something you don't need, want or understand by tickling your senses. I just watched a clip where a reporter thought 93dB in the Cessna 182 was quiet. He must be deaf.

[lpokijuhyt]

SFLY and Suitcaseman: Just out of curiosity, how often do you get laid?

[S.F.L.Y]

It's sad to see that most participants to this thread are not able to debate when it comes to factual analysis of the subject (VLJs).

[deice]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I suppose that counts for the usefulness of VLJs as well.
If we're talking VLJs then we should be discussing single jets too. I understand the sales pitch in terms of the "jet" sensation, but again, the usefulness is a great big ? in my mind. For one, up here in the north, anything with fans (or one fan) requires two pilots. How would a Piper, Cirrus or Diamond Jet make any sense if you need to carry dead weight around? And, with speeds on par with a TBM 850 which in contrast can be flown SP it seems even more useless.
With the restrictions on SE-IFR they won't be any good for commercial work either.
Beats me.

[Phil Brockwell]

Upset? Moi? Of course not,

It's a bit like 2 bald men fighting over a comb!

[Pilot Positive]

Time has moved on since this thread was initially posted - So where does the VLJ market stand now?

Are CJ (or similar) operators competing equally on price against the likes of the Phenom and Mustang operators? Where are the operating costs of VLJs sitting now?

[horatio_b]

Three Mustangs were parked at Ocean Sky for the Man U v Chelsea match at Old Trafford last Saturday - Dutch, Spanish & Czech examples, so there is clearly a market for them

[x933]

Having seen a Phenom 100 last week; if I was Blink i'd be worried. It's a much nicer aircraft than the Mustang (Bigger, more spacious, feels better built and less like a toy).

Price wise the mustang is working out less than the CJ's from what i've seen. But i've seen some seriously ridiculous pricing on them (at least one £1000/hr deal being banded around), so whether it's sustainable or not who knows.

[Pilot Positive]

But i've seen some seriously ridiculous pricing on them (at least one £1000/hr deal being banded around)

I know CJ operators who offer a lower hourly price than £1000/hr. Is it a case therefore that the VLJs are, operationally, perhaps only marginally cheaper than say a CJ yet lack the a bigger advantages of range and pax capacity?

Fully agree Phenom v Mustang. Phenom wins hands down: I think the performance is the same? The powerplant is the same? The avionics is the same? Yet the total finish of the Phenom seems to be better: It has a discreet toilet with what appears to be a full fold down door???

Sustainability remains to be seen... surely?

I open this to debate as the corporate season is just about to increase in what appears to be a very challenging market...

[proceeding outbound]

The Phenom 100 is faster with better range.
The engines are the same series but the Phenom 100 has a more powerful version and therefore a higher fuel burn.
The Phenom 100 has a "customer" version of the Mustangs Garmin 1000 that has synoptic pages.
The Phenom 100 has contaminated runway performance figures.
And having paxed in both - the Phenom 100 has bigger cabin windows.

The Phenom 100 is a very nice little aircraft but the Phenom 300 is going to be fantastic.:ok:

[No RYR for me]

Price wise the mustang is working out less than the CJ's from what i've seen. But i've seen some seriously ridiculous pricing on them (at least one £1000/hr deal being banded around), so whether it's sustainable or not who knows.

You hit the mail on the head: It doent matter if it operates cheaper: it is al about the willingness of an owner to accept prices that are not in line with the cost... The owner of a financial written offCJ is more willing to charter out for next to nothing and the proud new VLJ owner (whatever the type) still thinks he can make money on it... :\

[Highflight420]

Blink are not seriously worried about the Phenom 100, I've been on one and for sure it's a nicer higher quality aircraft than the Mustang but then so it should be for almost another million dollars more but with little in the way of performance enhancements over the Mustang. The Phenom 300 now thats an altogether different kettle of fish.

The matter of the toilet is a non starter, Blink has been operating for almost two years now and I personally can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times people have made use of it, having said that when customers have used it there has been no issue whatsoever, just a quick suggestion to use the loo prior to boarding the aircraft is all that is required.

I can only assume that other companies out there are flying predominantly customers with severe bladder control issues. I have a perfectly normal bladder and have never had an occasion to make use of the toilet, just avoid drinking tea and coke, very simple really.

The Avanti is a lovely aircraft and I believe the founders of Blink may have briefly looked the aircraft, but just compare it's purchase price with that of a Mustang and you will see you can purchase almost three Mustangs for the price of one Avanti.

[Phil Brockwell]

Highflight,

Have you considered how many people never get into a Mustang because of the toilet? Ours are hardly ever used, but on a 2 hour flight, it's very reassuring to know it's there. On a 1 hour flight it's less important which is where the 510's have their Niche?

The Mustangs are just too easy to compete against, I have a photo of the toilet and I use Blinks promo video's (YouTube - flyblink's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/flyblink)) which make it look even smaller than it is.

PB

[Pilot Positive]

From what I hear, the initial client reaction to the kind of toilet on board the C510 is one of either alarm or at best bewilderment...the reassurance of something a little more "substantial" is enough to encourage switching in a level priced market.

[TheOtherSide]

At 1m 10 looks like there has been a full electrical fail up front! :}

[proceeding outbound]

Yes but notice how the crew deal with the electrical emergency in a calm, professional manner.

Or perhaps the price is so competitive due to the electrical savings!

[Pilot Positive]

Yes but notice how the crew deal with the electrical emergency in a calm, professional manner.


They're all ex-BA captains arent they? Must be good... :cool:

[johns7022]

I find VLJs to be an interesting solution to a an interesting demographic of customers...peeps flying there own $1.5 mil. dollar planes..

Be happy, it means more jobs for pilots...there are only a handfull of biz owners that actualy fly thier own jets out there, and most have pilots on staff to fly with them anyway.

[No RYR for me]

I find VLJs to be an interesting solution to a an interesting demographic of customers...peeps flying there own $1.5 mil. dollar planes..


Solution for what? On depreciation alone they can fly a full year on an Excel! :rolleyes: