VLJ's?

SteveC said:
From what I saw from the outside they were junk aircraft, I think because the major design decisions were made by accountants, not aerospace engineers.
Click to expand...

I swore someone mentioned the MD-11, but I guess I was wrong! :)
 
deadstick said:
Aside from the numbers, some people will NOT get in a single, or twin for that matter, piston airplane. Like turboprop paranoia, it's stupid, but so are people and the media.

A jet is a jet.
Click to expand...

That is true, however, the model up here in Alaska is basically 207s/Cherokee 6s for quick VFR routes, Navajos/Caravans for flights of slightly greater distance or load, and Saabs 340s/Beech 1900s/and the Eskimo Jet for flights of greater than an hour in duration. It works really well, and a lot of people make a lot of money. Hell, its even better for the environment (Cherokee 6 at 18gph versus Caravan at 50gph, vs 1900 at 700pph for quick hops). What really needs to happen is a culture change. That being said, there is less of an FAA enforcement presence up here from what I've seen, so that could be making things a little easier. Still though, I've flown up here all of my career, and have never seen a 135 airplane that was blatantly unsafe to fly that was being pushed on a pilot.

TFaudree_ERAU said:
A lot, and I mean A LOT of corporate insurance policies won't allow company employees to fly in single engine airplanes. It is somewhat of an antiquated restriction now with the more reliable piston engine design. The Pilatus, Cirrus, and any TAA single w/ engine monitoring is certainly safer than an poorly maintained old Piper Aztec. But it is what it is, and it is something to consider before starting up your own single engine 135 operation
Click to expand...

Things have gotta change, that's all.
 
deadstick said:
Aside from the numbers, some people will NOT get in a single, or twin for that matter, piston airplane. Like turboprop paranoia, it's stupid, but so are people and the media.

A jet is a jet.
Click to expand...

Oh, they whine, complain, call it scary, etc., but in the end they always get on the plane. When it's that or a three hour drive and a ferry ride, they'll take the piston every single time. Just ask the 750,000 people we carried last year. ;)
 
TXaviator said:
found it

hondajettyperyh1.jpg
Click to expand...

:rotfl::laff::crazy:
 
ppragman said:
VLJs are a joke (they should be LLJs for "Laughably Light Jets"), anybody who thinks its a money maker to fly trips less than a couple hundred miles in length burning fuel to boot, is crazy. Piston singles, and light light twins are the key to SATS (and I'm not talking Cirruses, as they cost too much to acquire). A C210 with a backup alternator, known ice, and trend monitoring would make a great machine to do small short runs in. If you've got enough customer, and enough revenue seat miles, trade up to a Chiefton (with the 1,000lbs gross weight increase) and you'll be sitting pretty. Look at how well cape air is doing. They're the largest self-branded regional in the industry.

Pistons are more efficient, cheaper to operate, and for short trips, burn way less gas. Even the caravan can't compete if you're only moving a few people. I was told that the caravan was burning about 40-50gph of jet A, if you only fill the airplane half way up (4-5 people) you might as well take the 210 or the Cherokee and burn 18gph.
Click to expand...

The caravan can compete with the Pa-31 for price, but even though an 210 can beat them both for short distances I really don't like all wx piston singles. 1 PT-6 is as low as I go. The 208 I used to fly burned 280-340pph if I recall correctly(which validates your #'s). It was a 600hp and we always had the balls to the wall. I think Aztec E&F models are the way to go over the 210 if you have pax.
 
WalterSobchak said:
The caravan can compete with the Pa-31 for price, but even though an 210 can beat them both for short distances I really don't like all wx piston singles. 1 PT-6 is as low as I go. The 208 I used to fly burned 280-340pph if I recall correctly(which validates your #'s). It was a 600hp and we always had the balls to the wall. I think Aztec E&F models are the way to go over the 210 if you have pax.
Click to expand...

Aztec would be a good way to go, however, I think in terms of dollars in versus dollars out, piston singles win every time. The key to making them work is trend monitoring on the motors, excellent mx, and pilots who know how to use them. That, and I'm not entirely sure that twins are safer than singles. I just looked up C210 crashes in the NTSB database with fatal results since 1980 for part 135 carriers. Out of 26 fatal accidents, only one of them was a mechanical failure, the rest were all judgment and pilot error. The mechanical failure wasn't even an engine failure, it was a frozen throttle cable. With frequent maintenance, and decent crews I think the safety record is comporable. Compare that with the caravan, which had 29 fatals since then. If you look at all the NTSB data that is brought up by a comparisson of Caravans and Centurians, you get 97 cessna 210 hits, and 100 caravan hits for Airtaxi operations only, roughly equal since 1980. I think that this is a fair comparison.

It's the weather that gets em'. Not the engine failures, infact, I'd contend that for many operations, a single is better, because if you lose a motor, you're at a slower stall speed on impact, you've got more control of the airplane (no VMC), and probably aren't carrying as much gas on touchdown. Further, with a single, there's fewer things to break, that's why Lindbergh took one across the pond. Simpler is sometimes better. Cheaper to insure too. Just my $.02.
 
ppragman said:
Aztec would be a good way to go, however, I think in terms of dollars in versus dollars out, piston singles win every time. The key to making them work is trend monitoring on the motors, excellent mx, and pilots who know how to use them. That, and I'm not entirely sure that twins are safer than singles. I just looked up C210 crashes in the NTSB database with fatal results since 1980 for part 135 carriers. Out of 26 fatal accidents, only one of them was a mechanical failure, the rest were all judgment and pilot error. The mechanical failure wasn't even an engine failure, it was a frozen throttle cable. With frequent maintenance, and decent crews I think the safety record is comporable. Compare that with the caravan, which had 29 fatals since then. If you look at all the NTSB data that is brought up by a comparisson of Caravans and Centurians, you get 97 cessna 210 hits, and 100 caravan hits for Airtaxi operations only, roughly equal since 1980. I think that this is a fair comparison.

It's the weather that gets em'. Not the engine failures, infact, I'd contend that for many operations, a single is better, because if you lose a motor, you're at a slower stall speed on impact, you've got more control of the airplane (no VMC), and probably aren't carrying as much gas on touchdown. Further, with a single, there's fewer things to break, that's why Lindbergh took one across the pond. Simpler is sometimes better. Cheaper to insure too. Just my $.02.
Click to expand...

While technically you may be spot on, the true reality is that the typical person able to write a check for a private (high dollar) aircraft is probably not a pilot or educated about these aspects (nor do they care to learn). They find comfort in twin jet engines as a matter of speed and safety. Enter the percieved demand for VLJs.

While on topic, Honda really hyped up the cost-effectiveness of their VLJ, but as near as I can tell it's on the top of the pricepoint for VLJs. What's up with that?
 
My question is how small of a prop single/twin can you get where the pax don't have to wear headset? I'm thinking if my boss bought a plane to fly around texas, she wouldn't want to sit in the back and wear a big DC headset to mess up her hair. How big do you need to get where the pax in the back can carry on a conversation over engine noise and be comfortable.
 
deek said:
My question is how small of a prop single/twin can you get where the pax don't have to wear headset? I'm thinking if my boss bought a plane to fly around texas, she wouldn't want to sit in the back and wear a big DC headset to mess up her hair. How big do you need to get where the pax in the back can carry on a conversation over engine noise and be comfortable.
Click to expand...

Exactly, When it comes to the amount of money these people have to throw around on their transportation needs, they look beyond the costs per mile and all the other numbers that have piston singles on top and look at the intangibles more. Things like cabin noise and space, speed and image, all things that pistons lose lots of points on.
 
http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-c031216_2a/ The promo video....KIA has announced it is working on producing a cheaper version. :dunno: A few years back the cheapest small jet was about $5M, I believe.
I expected to see them (the $1M jets) proliferate, since there are a lot of $1M "second homes" being built around where I live.
Maintenance and fuel are real bears. I believe they can burn over 150 Gallons per hour.
 
deek said:
My question is how small of a prop single/twin can you get where the pax don't have to wear headset? I'm thinking if my boss bought a plane to fly around texas, she wouldn't want to sit in the back and wear a big DC headset to mess up her hair. How big do you need to get where the pax in the back can carry on a conversation over engine noise and be comfortable.
Click to expand...
421s are quiet.

Navajos with interiors (not a cargo version) are quiet. The cargo setup is.........very loud.

-mini
 
brent p h said:
http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-c031216_2a/ The promo video....KIA has announced it is working on producing a cheaper version. :dunno: A few years back the cheapest small jet was about $5M, I believe.
I expected to see them (the $1M jets) proliferate, since there are a lot of $1M "second homes" being built around where I live.
Maintenance and fuel are real bears. I believe they can burn over 150 Gallons per hour.
Click to expand...

What is KIA?

Also, I wonder why in that HondaJet promo vid they were flying the thing around with the gear down?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top