D Jet suspends operations

This just leaves Piper Jet and Cirrus Vision. Deadpool anyone?

P.S. SF50 is pretty amazing, actually. I looked into it just a bit deeper recently, althogh I'll never have the money to operate one. It's going to be a shame if the new Chinese paymasters send it into the same wastebasket of history where D-jet went.
 
Might be for the best. The big VLJ market that was supposed to materialize didn't. how many of those things do you think they'll actually sell? Especially Piper. A single engine jet?
 
Didn't somebody ask Pilatus that same question re. S/E turboprops?

Might be for the best. The big VLJ market that was supposed to materialize didn't. how many of those things do you think they'll actually sell? Especially Piper. A single engine jet?
 
Didn't somebody ask Pilatus that same question re. S/E turboprops?
There's a huge difference. VLJs are sort of like toy jets, where the passengers have slightly more room to move than a C-182. They're not very appealing to businesses because they have "real jet" acquisition and operation costs without the cache of a "real jet." Put it this way: if there were a VLJ market, you'd already see businesses operating the Paris Jet (MS-760).
The PC-12, on the other hand, is a pretty big and very capable cabin class airplane. It might be a single engine, but it has a reputation for being bulletproof... and the operating costs are relatively low while still offering the cabin feel of a "real jet."
 
Didn't somebody ask Pilatus that same question re. S/E turboprops?

How much less than the cost of a Citation Mustang would a SE VLJ have to be to be viable? Or, how much can you realistically charge for a D-Jet that cruises at 240 kt and has a service ceiling of 25,000 ft?

Isn't the big problem for all these clean sheet designs spreading the R&D cost over the number of units you can sell?
 
There's a huge difference. VLJs are sort of like toy jets, where the passengers have slightly more room to move than a C-182. They're not very appealing to businesses because they have "real jet" acquisition and operation costs without the cache of a "real jet." Put it this way: if there were a VLJ market, you'd already see businesses operating the Paris Jet (MS-760).
The premise above is not quite what the vendors of VLJ singles are officially making: they want to sell to owner pilots, not businesses. This is notwithstanding that most of those owners will register aircraft to corporations, for tax purposes. But the conclusions are still the same: the burden of regulation and insurance add to outright costs of these VLJ singles. Cirrus is trying to address this by creating a "jet SR22": the cabin is bigger, although not quite as big as on traditional VLJs.
-- Pete
 
OK, substitute the TBM or Meridian for the Pilatus. Or the Epic, or Kestrel, or Cessna's new airplane or Beech's new airplane. If customers aren't shying away from S/E turboprops, why would they shy away from a S/E jet? I don't know how the original estimates of the size of the market for S/E turboprops has been borne out by sales, but the market segment appears to grow. I don't think the S/E jet sales pitch is to the passengers anyway, but instead to the owner-pilot. Time will tell.

There's a huge difference. VLJs are sort of like toy jets, where the passengers have slightly more room to move than a C-182. They're not very appealing to businesses because they have "real jet" acquisition and operation costs without the cache of a "real jet." Put it this way: if there were a VLJ market, you'd already see businesses operating the Paris Jet (MS-760).
The PC-12, on the other hand, is a pretty big and very capable cabin class airplane. It might be a single engine, but it has a reputation for being bulletproof... and the operating costs are relatively low while still offering the cabin feel of a "real jet."
 
Yep, but manufacturer economics has never been a big factor insofar as customer demand is concerned. Everybody with a lick of sense knew the Eclipse model didn't work for the company.

How much less than the cost of a Citation Mustang would a SE VLJ have to be to be viable? Or, how much can you realistically charge for a D-Jet that cruises at 240 kt and has a service ceiling of 25,000 ft?

Isn't the big problem for all these clean sheet designs spreading the R&D cost over the number of units you can sell?
 
I don't think the S/E jet sales pitch is to the passengers anyway, but instead to the owner-pilot. Time will tell.
I guess that's my point in a nutshell. There aren't that many pilots around, and the number of those pilots who have the enormous amount of cash needed to buy, fly, and maintain a VLJ is sort of tiny. Plus, many pilots who do have the scratch to buy the plane have already taken that money and purchased something cool, like a P-51 or a Strikemaster. So: not many candidates in the marketplace.
A parallel to this problem, I believe, is that many owner/pilots choose to buy a plane like the PC-12 (or King Air, or whatever) because they can rent it out for charter when they're not using it. When you have a plane like a VLJ where the emphasis is not on passenger comfort and amenities, it becomes exponentially harder to charter it out to defray costs.
I've always thought the VLJ concept was stillborn. Many disagree, but I still think that there are too many reasons to not buy the planes in the face of so many more attractive airplanes.
 
Yep, but manufacturer economics has never been a big factor insofar as customer demand is concerned. Everybody with a lick of sense knew the Eclipse model didn't work for the company.

How much did Eclipse boost their price over time? It was a big number, IIRC. Everyone loved it at the initial price, but I think they ended up north of $2 mil before everything fell apart.

If it takes $200 mil to bring a new design to market, and you think you can sell 400, that's $500k per unit in R&D cost. For the just the $500k that's built into the selling price for R&D, I think I could find something that flies 240 kt @ 25,000 ft, nevermind the rest of the selling price, whether that's $1.5 mil, $ 2 mil or whatever it is.
 
What are you flying now?

How much did Eclipse boost their price over time? It was a big number, IIRC. Everyone loved it at the initial price, but I think they ended up north of $2 mil before everything fell apart.

If it takes $200 mil to bring a new design to market, and you think you can sell 400, that's $500k per unit in R&D cost. For the just the $500k that's built into the selling price for R&D, I think I could find something that flies 240 kt @ 25,000 ft, nevermind the rest of the selling price, whether that's $1.5 mil, $ 2 mil or whatever it is.
 
I think you'll find your theory about the percentage of airplanes on charter certificates is incorrect. And those that fall into that trap are usually out within a very short time. It is not a profitable venture for anybody other than the 135 operator.

I guess that's my point in a nutshell. There aren't that many pilots around, and the number of those pilots who have the enormous amount of cash needed to buy, fly, and maintain a VLJ is sort of tiny. Plus, many pilots who do have the scratch to buy the plane have already taken that money and purchased something cool, like a P-51 or a Strikemaster. So: not many candidates in the marketplace.
A parallel to this problem, I believe, is that many owner/pilots choose to buy a plane like the PC-12 (or King Air, or whatever) because they can rent it out for charter when they're not using it. When you have a plane like a VLJ where the emphasis is not on passenger comfort and amenities, it becomes exponentially harder to charter it out to defray costs.
I've always thought the VLJ concept was stillborn. Many disagree, but I still think that there are too many reasons to not buy the planes in the face of so many more attractive airplanes.
 
How much did Eclipse boost their price over time? It was a big number, IIRC. Everyone loved it at the initial price, but I think they ended up north of $2 mil before everything fell apart.

If it takes $200 mil to bring a new design to market, and you think you can sell 400, that's $500k per unit in R&D cost. For the just the $500k that's built into the selling price for R&D, I think I could find something that flies 240 kt @ 25,000 ft, nevermind the rest of the selling price, whether that's $1.5 mil, $ 2 mil or whatever it is.

Yeah, and I believe Eclipse spent nearly $1 billion on their design. Ouch.
 
What are you flying now?

>90% of the time it's a 172, and I fly only for my own entertainment, so I'm about as far away from the potential VLJ owner demographic as you can get.

But if I came into a lot of money, I'd sure like to have a good older King Air 90...
 
If I were going to spend the coin, a PC12 would be a slam dunk. A jet that carried as much as your average 172/182 in about as much space (don't slam me on the exact #, it's close enough not to matter) doesn't interest me.
 
Yeah, and I believe Eclipse spent nearly $1 billion on their design. Ouch.

Yep, they were losing money on each plane, but gonna make it up in volume :wink2:. 'Course, the economy tanking didn't help.
I'm still enamored of the Eclipse, but too many unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Best,


Dave
 
If I were going to spend the coin, a PC12 would be a slam dunk. A jet that carried as much as your average 172/182 in about as much space (don't slam me on the exact #, it's close enough not to matter) doesn't interest me.
My point precisely. The owner/pilot doesn't want a jet that has the cockpit and passenger feel of a 182.
Owner/pilots who buy toy airplanes buy T-28s, P-51s, Strikemasters, Ms-760s, Iskras, L-39s, etc. They don't want a toy jet masquerading as a business tool.
 
Then why are they buying S/E turboprops of that same description now?

My point precisely. The owner/pilot doesn't want a jet that has the cockpit and passenger feel of a 182.
Owner/pilots who buy toy airplanes buy T-28s, P-51s, Strikemasters, Ms-760s, Iskras, L-39s, etc. They don't want a toy jet masquerading as a business tool.
 
Wayne is right on with this.

I think the PC-12 market is dumb, but I'm in the minority. I also think the SE jet market is dumb, but I was wrong about the Pilatus (and the Matrix, or the Malibu/Meridian in general). The fact that it's a single engine jet I think will cause it to be something that people will look at instead of a TBM, C90, even a Lear 24. Or if you were the sort of person who would have bought an Eclipse, maybe you'd buy one of these, instead. This could especially have a good market in Europe or other parts of the world where big is irrelevant, but fast, economical travel is (remember the definition of "economical" varies from market to market).

Give me a King Air, Turbine Commander, or MU-2 any day. But a lot of people proved that just because I want it doesn't mean the majority does.
 
I think the PC-12 market is dumb, but I'm in the minority.
I went for a ride in the back of a PC-12 a few weeks ago and I would say that, as a passenger, it's indistinguishable from a King Air 200. People just need to decide if the second engine is worth the expense. It seems that many people have decided in favor of the PC-12.

also think the SE jet market is dumb, but I was wrong about the Pilatus (and the Matrix, or the Malibu/Meridian in general). The fact that it's a single engine jet I think will cause it to be something that people will look at instead of a TBM, C90, even a Lear 24.
I can see a TBM or a C90 being a more favorable purchase than a single-engine jet but you would have to be nuts to buy a Lear 24, or to even put it in the same ballpark as an Eclipse just because it is a jet. The operating costs would eat you alive. Besides, there are many places they can't go because of noise ordinances. Also, many are not converted to RVSM because the owners couldn't justify the cost. That means either flying low, burning lots of fuel, or climbing initially to FL430.

I never thought the small, single-engine jet market was viable because of the lack of customers who would fit the profile to buy one. I don't feel that way about the single-engine turboprop market because I think it's a much smaller step up in expense for people who owned the bigger piston twins which aren't being produced much any more. They're probably more versatile and easier to fly too.
 
I think the majority of S/E turbine owners who have experienced an engine failure agree with you.

Give me a King Air, Turbine Commander, or MU-2 any day. But a lot of people proved that just because I want it doesn't mean the majority does.
 
Yep, they were losing money on each plane, but gonna make it up in volume :wink2:. 'Course, the economy tanking didn't help.
I'm still enamored of the Eclipse, but too many unknowns and unknown unknowns.
Dave,

I hear you. I used to enjoy reading the various Eclipse "critic" blogs that called the situation correctly, especially when Vern was in charge.

It does seem that adults are running the show now at the new Eclipse Aerospace. For example, see today's Sun n Fun announcement of a new flight director STC. The question remains, though, is the design sound? I read recently that the Eclipses are now limited by AD to maximum 30,000 feet because of carbon buildup in the engines.
 
I never thought the small, single-engine jet market was viable because of the lack of customers who would fit the profile to buy one. I don't feel that way about the single-engine turboprop market because I think it's a much smaller step up in expense for people who owned the bigger piston twins which aren't being produced much any more. They're probably more versatile and easier to fly too.

It seems like the SE VLJs are aimed toward entrepreneur owner-pilots. But the business people I know have built their wealth by being able to analyze deals and knowing how to keep their expenses under control. I just don't see how a $2 mil D-Jet, given its performance limitations, would be attractive to those people when you can buy equivalent performance for 1/3 the price. Maybe if they came to market during the dot com boom it would be a different story.
 
Depends on the percentage of net worth that is dedicated to airplane budget. The lower the percentage, the easier they are to own. Lots of rich people are very rich.

It seems like the SE VLJs are aimed toward entrepreneur owner-pilots. But the business people I know have built their wealth by being able to analyze deals and knowing how to keep their expenses under control. I just don't see how a $2 mil D-Jet, given its performance limitations, would be attractive to those people when you can buy equivalent performance for 1/3 the price. Maybe if they came to market during the dot com boom it would be a different story.
 
There's a huge difference. VLJs are sort of like toy jets, where the passengers have slightly more room to move than a C-182. They're not very appealing to businesses because they have "real jet" acquisition and operation costs without the cache of a "real jet." Put it this way: if there were a VLJ market, you'd already see businesses operating the Paris Jet (MS-760).
The PC-12, on the other hand, is a pretty big and very capable cabin class airplane. It might be a single engine, but it has a reputation for being bulletproof... and the operating costs are relatively low while still offering the cabin feel of a "real jet."

Have you seen the D-Jet. It is terrific with tons of leg room and cargo space. I'm hopeful this aircraft comes to the market; I think there will be a demand. The D-Jet was on my 'someday' list.:thumbsup:
 
Depends on the percentage of net worth that is dedicated to airplane budget. The lower the percentage, the easier they are to own. Lots of rich people are very rich.

I'm sure you're correct. But if a person can afford $2 mil for a plastic SE jet, how much of a stretch is it to do $2.7 or so for a real aluminum jet with 2 engines built by a known entity with a bunch of them in service?

Do lenders care about what plane it is? Just curious about that.
 
The guy could easily have a Citation XL, a Citation Mustang, a F-51 Mustang and who knows what else in the hangar as well. IOW, the cost of the little jet is chump change for many of these guys.

A high percentage of these airplanes aren't financed. For those that are financed, the banks typically go through the motions with respect to the collateral value of the airplane, but they understand the loans are based on the financial strength of the borrower. I had that exact conversation with a banker yesterday with respect to an appraisal of a warbird. He volunteered that most of his jet loan portfolio is under water re loan-to-value ratios.



I'm sure you're correct. But if a person can afford $2 mil for a plastic SE jet, how much of a stretch is it to do $2.7 or so for a real aluminum jet with 2 engines built by a known entity with a bunch of them in service?

Do lenders care about what plane it is? Just curious about that.
 
I think the majority of S/E turbine owners who have experienced an engine failure agree with you.

Most likely. I've never experienced an engine failure. But, well, you know what I fly. And that's intentional. I've had enough other failures to make me happy with my decision.
 
I looked at getting into an Eclipse partnership here at my home airport. OTOH, it's very much like my Baron with jets. That is, fits in my hanger, fuel burn for a trip is similar, payload with full fuel is about the same. Of course, much faster, more altitude options. Fun to fly.

OTOH, still a lot of issues. If one already owns one, that's one thing. For me to get in with known issues is quite another. The integrated avionics are made by one manufacturer for Eclipse. If something happens to that panel, I'm concerned about the cost to repair, and will that manufacturer be around? It's still a very young fleet. When Citation came out with it's first jet, there were lots of issues. I don't want to put up a bunch of money and have big issues. There is still a question about how the plane will be supported in the future. Lots of nice things are being said, but I've heard all that before. In several parts of the country, getting optimum altitudes will be an issue. They are trying to get the existing inventory updated; then, begin manufacturing again. That would mean refurbishing Day Jets. There are a bunch of existing owners that haven't been treated well. The new folks are trying to move on, but there are folks that have paid over $1MM for planes that don't have required items for flights like one would make in an Eclipse. Lots to work out.

Anyway, the way I approach things in my business, is I get discounts to solve problems. I may pay retail when everything works and is supported if I need it.

Best,

Dave
 
Lots of rich people are very rich.
Yeahbut the very rich want to be flown if they are going any distance, and they want to bring along friends, family, and most important of all, STUFF. :D
 
Not all of them. Give me a call the next time you're in Dallas. I'll take you through some of their hangars.
Yeahbut the very rich want to be flown if they are going any distance, and they want to bring along friends, family, and most important of all, STUFF. :D
 
Not all of them. Give me a call the next time you're in Dallas. I'll take you through some of their hangars.
There's even a book about it, called "Millionaire Next Door" or some such.
 
Pete: She said rich. I don't think that's a millionaire today. If you present value the benefits the Wisconsin teachers making a mid 40,000 salary with medical and other benefits adding up to much more, a recent computation showed one would have to accumulate $3,000,000 to pay the same benefits assuming a 4% annual payout to begin with annual raises for inflation. I don't think folks see retiring teachers with mid $40,000 salaries with medical and other benefits being multi millionaires, but a private party with no retirement plan would have to be in that position to get paid comparable amounts.

Had a long conversation with a retired colonel friend (full colonel retired). One would have to accumulate somewhere around $5,000,000 to pay his retirement salary, medical benefits, PX and other priviledges using tables a reasonable financial planner would look to today. Yet, we think of him as being well off, not wealthy.

Best,

Dave
 
There's even a book about it, called "Millionaire Next Door" or some such.
The "Millionaire Next Door" wouldn't dream of owning a jet or even an airplane. I thought that book was all about the super-frugal, which makes it something I'm not inclined to read. :crazy:
 
Yeahbut the very rich want to be flown if they are going any distance, and they want to bring along friends, family, and most important of all, STUFF. :D

Oh, the stuff. The stuff, the stuff, the stuff. My girls are only 10 and 7, but between them and the missus (who is not a high-mx woman), I'm already loading steamer trunks on the Matrix. :hairraise:
 
They will take whatever you let them take, and the airport isn't the place to discuss it. My girls will tell you that their first luggage inspections occurred long before TSA. All luggage was required to be presented for inspection in the laundry room (adjacent to the garage) on the way to the airport.

The first time I culled it (how many damn shorts and tops do you need for a weekend?) was met with tears and pleadings. Once they knew that stuff wouldn't work, we were fine. So far, none of them have ever had to show up nekkid because they didn't have anything to wear.

Oh, the stuff. The stuff, the stuff, the stuff. My girls are only 10 and 7, but between them and the missus (who is not a high-mx woman), I'm already loading steamer trunks on the Matrix. :hairraise:
 
Back
Top