Is the VLJ dead? Better question: Is the VLJ even possible?

Aviation analyist Brian Foley has been getting a lot of ink these past few days--and here's some more--thanks to his pronouncement that the very light jet (VLJ) isn't just dead; it never came to pass. He points out that Cessna's rejection of the tag from day one in the Mustang's development was a sign that the folks in Kansas got it: the Mustang was an entry-level jet and not a VLJ at all. And the Mustang was priced sensibly to start with, at around $2.5 million. Embraer was even less interested in the VLJ tag for its Phenom 100, which pushes the arbitrary weight limit of 10,000 pounds given by some to the arguable category. I'm not against the VLJ name. I just think it means something different than the folks with Eclipse thought it did. There are already such things as light jets. The Cessna CJ1 and the Beech Premier I come to mind. I guess that they have to call jets that are lighter than those airplanes something. "Very light jet" makes sense to me. Foley, tongue in cheek, I presume, calls the Mustang and Phenom 100 "sub-compacts." Cute.

As compact as it is, the Mustang isn't what Vern Raburn had in mind when he launched the concept of the Eclipse--never mind the airplane; I'm simply talking about the idea. In his mind, a VLJ was a truly personal airplane, something that the same guy who flies a Baron would feel comfortable hopping into. And Raburn's concept airplane was something that could be purchased for around the same price as a Baron--let's say a cool mil'--and operated for around the same amount of dough. 

In theory, the $850,000 airplane with little engines that Raburn imagined but wasn't able to build might have been that much-hoped-for airplane, except it was impossible to build . . . physically or financially. It wasn't just Eclipse. The sub-million-dollar single-engine jets proposed by Cirrus and Diamond will cost around twice that imaginary amount and will hit owners' wallets a lot harder than the airplanes' designers had originally hoped. It's the nature of jets. Sorry.

The bottom line here is that I agree with Foley and then some. Not only is there no extant VLJ; there can't be one. It's an impossible dream. The Eclipse Experience proved that. Cirrus, Diamond and Piper (which, to its credit, never talked about the PiperJet being cheap) all know that by now. These new airplanes are simply single-engine entry-level jets. And their price tags will bear that out.

But they are not and will not be VLJs. They can't be. There's no such thing.

Robert Goyer

Comments

[Craig Smith]

Robert,
That is the best article yet on VLJ's. I flew photo Diamond over Austin will you took pictices.

Craig Smith

[Dan]

I couldn't disagree more. Some computer industry giants would have succeeded.

If Larry Ellison would have tried, we'd have a VLJ running Oracle and Java on Sun Microprocessors connected by optical fiber. It would fly faster than an SR-71 and be licensed to land fee-free 24/7 at any major airport, including San Jose. Black and stealthy, it would scare the h**l out of anyone who dared compare it to their own rundown pile of aluminum and copper wire.

If Steve Jobs tried, we'd have a V-VLJ that would undoubtedly be the most beautiful flying machine ever imagined, let alone created, certified, and mass produced. It would work the first time, every time, and maintenance would just happen in the background while you were in the air. Like art in motion, it would be as fast as you want and as easy to fly as a Bonanza on a cool morning.

If Bill Gates would have tried, we'd have a VLJ with a Windows-based glass cockpit. It would fly almost like the other VLJs and could be purchased at convenient retail outlets in twelve different versions (personal, couple, small family, couple + dog, etc.). Per-incident satellite phone support from Bangalore would be a lifesaver, especially when you had to download a new device driver while at FL36 after discovering your GPS is incompatible with your Altimeter when flying Heading 290 through 292 and at FL36 or FL30.

[John Ewald]

Where can I read Brian Foley's original article?

[Austin Schraff]

You can design and build it, but unlike computers where any one can sign on and crash it without killing himself .... not the case with airplanes. Case in point .... check the poor safety record of the Cirrus despite the parachute ( a gimmick ?) and the the most advanced avionics available.

[Ken Kelly]

Like everything else in history, technology, competition and time will make VLJs a reality.

[Joel L. Rosenlicht]

When it came time for me to move up from a pressurized single (P-210) I looked at all the options. A piston twin, single engine turboprops, and light jets. In fact I was an early position holder in the Adam 500 a plane that at the time made a lot of sense when fuel prices were much lower. When Adam Aircraft went under, (I did loose my deposit)I decided a piston twin was not in my future. Jet fuel prices for a twin jet and operating expenses were way above my means. A VLJ was not available and you could see the prices were not going to be as advertised and the would be expensive to insure,operate,and maintain proficiency. It was pretty evident that VLJ was and unclear vision with a lot of developmental problems. I then looked at single engine turboprops. I wanted increased speed, reliability, jet fuel, and a more economical and easy plane to operate. Choices were Meridian, TBM, turbine Centurion or Bonanza. Aren't these really VLJ's with a prop. I decided to convert my P-210 to a Silver Eagle and it has been a great decision. It's basically a brand new airplane at what was an advertised VLJ price. I wish there would be more discussion and future development in single engine turbines. I think these are the real VLJ's.

[Pilot Dave]

Not possible? Sounds like the same logic presented about civilian space travel on a fraction of the cost. Burt sure proved them wrong with White Knight... maybe a better statement would have been "VLJ is not possible under today's business / technological conditions" allowing room for developments in the future. We are talking about an industry that is only 68 years old (or so - ie ME-262) Now that was a VLJ, in different environment - wish we had not destroyed most of them.

[Bob Zajko]

I never understood why anyone would want a VLJ when a fast single-engine turboprop like a TBM850 is much cheaper to operate, has more capacity, longer range, does not need to go to FL400 to get its published performance, can use shorter runways, and generally will arrive within a few minutes of the twin jet.

[SkyMachines]

When it was sub-$1M, I thought it was a great idea. At $1.5M, I didn't. Below 6000 lbs., it was a great idea (so charter operators don't have to collect federal excise tax). Over 6000 lbs., I didn't.

I still believe single-engine turboprops are a great alternative, but they are EXPENSIVE, except for the Piper Meridian, which is a 3-passenger plane and cruises at 250 Kts. And all but the Meridian are over 6000 lbs.

One of the keys to GA's survival is new engine technology that will allow turbine engines priced under $100K, and air taxis with one-way air fares equivalent to first class on the airlines. Until then, GA will continue to decline until we have what they basically have in Europe.

[SkyMachines]

"I never understood why anyone would want a VLJ when a fast single-engine turboprop like a TBM850 is..."

Two problems, from a passenger standpoint: 1.) It has a PROPELLER. The public voted on the jet vs. prop thing in 1958 and then several more times over the years. THEY WANT JETS. Period, the end. 2.) It has only ONE propeller. The public wants either another engine or a whole-plane parachute.

We have to start giving the PASSENGERS what they want, not the pilots.

I have said since 2003 that the Diamond D-Jet was the way to go, esp. when it was priced under $1M. At $1.8M, I'm not so sure.

[p j atony]

he whole point is someone tried to push the envelope. Who knows what this effort has stimulated in someone elses mind? Time will tell, and Monday morning quaterbacks never get to play mon Sundays.

[Lou Meiners]

I own Serial # 19 of the Embraer Phenom 100. I owned an MU-2 before that and it was as efficient of turboprop as one would ever own, 28,000 ft ceiling, 300kts, 1,100 mi IFR range. The direct operating costs of the Phenom are almost identical to the Solitaire, about $850 per hour; however it goes 25% faster. Unfortunately the purchase price is $2.5M more. Until you fly one, it is hard to understand the attraction; but regardless of the label, (I would not call a Phenom a VLJ), flying a jet is the best thing I have ever done.

[Gene]

Anyone old enough to remember Jim Bede and the BD-Jet will agree that the "VLJ" existed 30 years ago (it's also cast in a James Bond movie). It might have been better to try and expand on that concept than go with a downsized conventional airframe (albeit designed from the ground up).
I give Vern raburn a lot of credit however for being the maverick, the same way Bill Lear was. Someday someone will come up with the technology to make a true VLJ a reality. Unfortunately, it's a given that failures are part of the territory in aviation. Just look at the Beech Starship.

[Windtee.com®]

True VLJs... some day... you'll see... and fly! =D

[Rob O'Dell]

This is a very silly conversation. Who cares what label marketers or for that matter journalists put on it? It is a small single pilot jet that takes a couple of people from point a to point b in an interesting way. Usually fast, but not necessarily so, usually high enough to get over most rotten weather, but not necessarily so, and usually fairly comfortably both for pilot and passengers because of the latest electronics available.
Price? Well, it's a lot more than most people pay for their home so the customer base is fairly limited unless some one can figure out how to make the air taxi concept actually work.
So VLJ, beginner jet, entry level jet, low cost plane with the coolest technology available all fit as labels.
Chill a bit and watch people work through the problems. Sooner or later (if not already), there will be the kind of break throughs necessary to make the low cost, single engine, high tech jet viable in the market.
It is the kind of thing that has happened over and over again no matter what the labels applied by journalists and marketers when dreamers keep trying.
I'd suggest that there is nothing wrong with getting excited by all of the efforts, great and small, success or sorta successful and not getting your knickers in a knot over a label. VLJ or not to VLJ. Duh...

Rob O'Dell