time requirements for new Very Light Jets?

Status
Not open for further replies.
aviategw

aviategw

Well-Known Member
I heard that there is/will be a movement to lower the minimums for folks to operate the new Very Light Jets (Cessna Mustang, Honda Jet, Diamond Jet).

I thought I'd heard something like 1000 TT and a CFI certificate would be the minimums...

Any one else have anything on this?
 
I have no info, but I can't imagine being a CFI a requirement. That would put a lot of owner-pilots and even a lot of 'not-owner-pilots' in a bind.
 
What are the time requirements to operate a citation, if any?
 
[ QUOTE ]
What are the time requirements to operate a citation, if any?

[/ QUOTE ]

Part 91 - PPL and a type (and instrument rated if you want to realize the benefits of FL180+)

Same will go for the VLJs, Eclipse even talks about it on their website.

Now if we're talking insurance....
 
[ QUOTE ]
What are the time requirements to operate a citation, if any?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thurman Munson had about 515 TT, about 2 years of total flight experience, and 30 or so hours in the CE-500/501, before he pranged his jet short of the runway at Akron-Canton airport and morting himself in 1979.
 
That's what I was thinking.

I can't see an insurance company lowering it's minimums.

Personally, I don't even get the whole VLJ thing. Aren't we more or less recreating the orginal Learjet with updated avionic and more advanced engines?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't even get the whole VLJ thing. Aren't we more or less recreating the orginal Learjet with updated avionic and more advanced engines?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't being an entrepreneur and/or inventor these days grand? Take an old product, make a minor cosmetic adjustment, and give it a new name then voila. Here is the newly invented (insert product name here).
confused.gif
spin2.gif
buck.gif
 
i dont know how much the original lear jet weighed and dont want to google it and compare it to the upcoming vlj's, but it's the whole air taxi thing attached to it. and frankly, i want to fly for an airtaxi when i'm out of riddle and have some hours behind me.
 
Works for Hollywood and the music industry!
smile.gif


But seriously. What did the original Learjet carry, six people?

So add some lighter composites, updated engines, some flat panel displays and some lighter hydraulic/electical systems to take advantage of 2005 technology and we've got a "paradigm shift"?
 
[ QUOTE ]
And charge a couple million dollars...it will be genius I tell you!

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean they aren't $900,000 any more????

That was the genious of the plan. "Look! A jet for less that a million!" -- fast forward -- "So these parts we apparently needed cost a little more than we had budgeted... but hey, it's still cheaper than the Gulfstream."
 
We'll call it...a DoogieJET!

DoogieJET, the new paradigm shift in PersonalSizedJets!
 
[ QUOTE ]
So add some lighter composites, updated engines, some flat panel displays and some lighter hydraulic/electical systems to take advantage of 2005 technology and we've got a "paradigm shift"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the term "paradigm shift" gets used more on this forum than it does "out there". But obviously the "buzz" is being caused by the significant decrease in acquisition cost and operating cost. It's not just an incremental shift but a pretty good jump all at once. Now we'll just see if they can deliver and if the jets will hold up to line operations.

Took me a while to find "mort" from MikeD's post, but it was in a medical dictionary.

1. The cessation of all vital phenomena without capability of resuscitation, either in animals or plants.
 
Considering "Well above average" Joe can't afford a new Baron, is a supposed "VLJ" going to be any more economical? Methinks not.

But maybe, who knows. It reeks of business school 'remarketing' to me.

A good online source for words is Wikipedia but they really didn't have a good definition for the word "frag" which would have been a good substitute for Mike's useage of the 'mort' term.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Works for Hollywood and the music industry!
smile.gif


But seriously. What did the original Learjet carry, six people?

So add some lighter composites, updated engines, some flat panel displays and some lighter hydraulic/electical systems to take advantage of 2005 technology and we've got a "paradigm shift"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The hoped for "shift" will only come about if they can get the per-mile cost down to the levels that are being bandied about. Jet speeds and high altitude utility at the same current cost as medium piston twins might just offer enough benefits to make them worthwhile and bring more customers into the fold. If they miss on the cost factors or don't have a high dispatch reliability though, forget it.

edit: sheesh I'm slow today. Really, I didn't copy flyover's post. Really.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we more or less recreating the orginal Learjet with updated avionic and more advanced engines?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but...Its gross weight is only about half that of a LR24, the runway requirements are less, the engines are much simpler and quieter, and the SFC has got to be a lot better than the .96-.97 for the CJ610.

The company has also been pretty hard-headed about keeping costs down and incorporating cost-cutting technology. The airframe is friction welded aluminum, not composite.

I think it adds up to a plane that is going to significantly increase the potential owner base in terms of (1) being able to operate at smaller/noise-sensitive fields, and (2) purchase + operating costs.

My real hope as a lowly piston driver is that they will put significant downwards price pressure on the entire industry, once they demonstrate that aircraft don't have to cost a fortune "just because".
 
[ QUOTE ]
Considering "Well above average" Joe can't afford a new Baron, is a supposed "VLJ" going to be any more economical? Methinks not.

But maybe, who knows. It reeks of business school 'remarketing' to me.


[/ QUOTE ]
The "new market", if it comes, won't be in owner-operators. It will be new customers in the chartered flight arena. The people that now drive 300 miles will have a "more viable" (is that a valid term?) alternative that will be economically justifiable. The thought is that the large numbers of middle level business people will now be able to do single day trips at reasonable cost versus the multiple days required to drive.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Considering "Well above average" Joe can't afford a new Baron, is a supposed "VLJ" going to be any more economical? Methinks not.

But maybe, who knows. It reeks of business school 'remarketing' to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "paradigm shift" has strictly to do with cost. These are supposed to be much cheaper jets in terms of acquistion and operating cost. I'm not sure how the significance of that could be so hard to grasp. Think of a charter operation being able to buy and operate three jets for what one is costing them now. Operating costs approaching that of a piston twin for a jet.

I'm not saying these are going to be as successful as some believe. There are some reasons to be skeptical of some of the claims. But the reason they are causing so much of a stir is obvious.

This is not repackaging. A new class of jet engine was developed for these airplanes along with new construction techniques. Of course taking advantage of technology leaps is a shift by any definition. The way today's jets, hot off the assembly line in Wichita or wherever, are constructed is hardly different from the first Lear, or the first DC-3 for that matter. So this is a step in a new direction.

But they have to deliver.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Considering "Well above average" Joe can't afford a new Baron, is a supposed "VLJ" going to be any more economical? Methinks not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well considering you have to be a millionaire to afford a 900 square foot house in the California desert, why can't we all just go out and pick one up.
sarcasm.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top