VLJs again

[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

[S.F.L.Y]

Originally Posted by plugster

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

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

ps how is your job at JB getting along?

[bla bla]

Donīt 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 donīt know any better, or cantīt 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!

(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

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
• -Eagle Creek Aviation Services in Indianapolis (12 airplanes); Aircraft trader that hoped to sell the positions on
• -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
• -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!