Sorry Joe, but I think your missing it on the turboprop market.  The VLJ's take a lot more initial and recurrent training and are for more "professional" type pilots.  I see the single engine turboprops holding up for a couple reasons.  #1, you can get into them with a lot less TT.  #2 they are more efficient and with gas prices going up, this # is starting to affect people.  I know 3 pilots this year that have moved from a CJ1 or CJ1+ to a TBM 850 due to the cost of running the airplane.  They found that the turboprop cost less than half the money and does 80-90% of the same mission.  Didn't Cessna say they would run the King Air's out of business in the 80's too with the 500 series?  

One last thing.  I do agree with you on who will survive.  Embraer, Cessna and Honda are no brainers.  I think Diamond and Cirrus are 50/50 and everyone else is less than that.  I personally don't think there is that big of a market for aircraft over 1 million that isn't already being serviced.  I also think Cirrus and Diamond will have a hard time finding all the cash really needed to make a successful airplane.  I think Cirrus has a better shot with their plane than Diamond however.  

Eclipse will succeed after 1-2 bankrupt owners.  There is no way there model will ever pay back the current debt.  Have you seen one of these planes?  Horrible fit and finish and too small.

Joe,

You are talking about a CJ1 vs. Mustangs and similar VLJs.  My position is that given the choice between a Mustang at 2.7 mil or a TBM850 at 3 mil, you are going to see folks opting for the Mustang when they can get them in a reasonable timeframe.  The Mustang was designed for the owner pilot crowd.  The CJ series is a different market.   You know from your own experience that some of the TBM crowd is moving over to Mustangs.  You have even expressed a desire to move into a VLJ as well.  Also, I do not think the turboprops will ever be out of business as I mentioned in my post, but I do think you will see a good number moving over from the TBM/Meridian crowd to one of the VLJs when they are available without a 3 year wait.  

Joe,

A Mustang isn't 2.7 mil.  If you buy one today, the price from the factory for a 1st quarter 2011 is $3,145,000.  The price for the 4th quarter 2010 was $2,995,000.  This was without options which runs around 50k.  The TBM is $2,934,000 with all options.  If you want a 2008 delivery of a Mustang, you will pay a handsome premium which will put you in the 3.1-3.2 mil with the 300-500k premium that people are getting.

Yes, at the end of the day, the capital cost is the same.  You need to remember the total cost however.  I have done extensive spreadsheets including capital costs and depreciation between the two airplanes.  At the end of the day, the Mustang costs around 100-120k a year more to own than a TBM 850 based on 250 hours a year.  That is 33% more for 5-10% better performance.  Doesn't make sense except it looks cooler in your hangar and yes, 2 engines are safer than one (which might be enough!)

Your turn. :)

I have never argued that it would not be more expensive to operate a twin engine jet than a single engine turbo prop.  In my first post I said "There will always be a place for the single engine turbo prop simply due to the reduction in operating expenses with a single engine." My continuing point is that given similar capital costs, you are going to see plenty of guys moving over to a VLJ.  Do you really think 100K a year in operating expenses is really going to stop a buyer willing to spend 3mil in capital costs?  I think you know that answer to that already which is why you have a deposit on at least one twin engine VLJ, and why you know guys already trading out of 850s into Mustangs.  Now for the real zinger:)  How many people buy planes and can make a complete economic justification for it?  Not too many.  For almost all of us in part or in whole, we buy planes because they are just so dang cool and when something cooler comes along, guess what?  Ante up and bring it home baby.  

moving our scintillating discussion over to the forums.....

I owned a Meridian for 4 years and 900hrs.  Nice transitional airplane but it broke a lot and the airframe is light for its power.  I had 11 AOG  (aircraft on the ground) issues during that period including smoke in the cockpit.  I've owned a TBM C2 model for 2.5 yrs and it's fabulous.  Doesn't break and I've never had an AOG issue in 400+hrs of flying.  It is built like a tank- it's VNE is 266kts all the way to FL310 compared to 188 on the Meridian.  I have a new 850 coming in August with the G1000.  I chose it over the Mustang after careful consideration and a test flight.  I should let you let you know that I have an SP type rating in a Cessna CJ2.  The Mustang is a nice airplane but has a very limited fuel/payload range compared to the TBM 850, CJ1+ or CJ2.  It also burns 30 to 40% more fuel depending on altitude, routing, and distance compared to the 850 and typically saves less then 5 minutes.  The TBM will actually beat it in a strong headwind in both time and fuel over a stage length greater than 600nm when the Mustang is forced to go up high into the stronger wind.  

The VLJs are compelling and everybody, including me, prefers them over turboprops but what people don't realize is the penalty in fuel burn for short flights or being held down.  Another issue with all jets is performance when the air is warmer then standard atmosheric conditions (ISA) which typically occurs 9 months out of the year.  I asked Cessna for the ISA +10, +20, +30 charts for the Mustang and they suggested I buy a CJ1+.  Interesting.  This means that the Mustang may not be able to climb directly to FL410 when it is warmer then ISA (I didn't get the charts but the Eclipse cannot climb directly to FL410 above ISA) which will have a noticable impact on range and ATC may not want a 340kt airplane sitting in the mid to high 30s with the airliners doing 470kts.  

High altitude take-off performance is another consideration for those who plan to operate out of mountain airports.  For example, at approximately (it was 6 months ago when I did the calculation) 52F in Aspen you have to start trading either fuel or payload since you can't takeoff at max gross.  Want to takeoff with 4 people on a summer 75F day out of ASE?  You will have only enough fuel to make it to Grand Junction (80nm).

Clearly there is a substantial market for VLJs but it seems to me that most of the depositers are new to turbines.  What they don't realize is the much higher costs of flying a jet especially for trips less than 700nm.  When I compare the CJ2 to the TBM850, the CJ2 costs 2x to operate and more than 2x to buy but only goes 20% further, 20% faster and carries 20% more.   The used market, the ultimate barometer of how successful an aircraft is, is really strong for both the CJ2 and TBM.  In fact, if you bought a CJ2 in 2001 you could sell it today for more than you bought it.  Why?  Good combination of performance and operating cost.  This is not true with the original CJ which I've also flown and didn't climb well above FL370.  It is considered a dog or a "slowtation" by most jet pilots.  A used one today can be bought for as little as $2.2M.  

When I flew the Mustang 4 months ago I was shocked that it burned 120 gallons during the 1 hour demo.  To be fair we had a 15 minute wait to takeoff but we also went to FL280 and stayed for a while to examine flying characteristics.  That's a lot of fuel for an hour flight.  For the CJ2 I typically use 1000lbs (150gallons) for the first hour and 700lbs (105g) for every hour at FL450 for flight planning.  If I am flying out of the Northeast or SoCal then I'll use 1200hrs for the first hour.  I just figured there would be a bigger difference between a CJ2 and a Mustang in fuel burn based on their capabilities.  

With the rising cost of jet fuel I think a lot of pilots who are new to jets are going to be dissappointed with their new VLJ once they realize how expensive and limited it is.  The real question is once the VLJ market settles how will the used market value them?  How many Mustang owners will want to move up to a CJ1+ (IMO a real jet) in order to carry more and go further, faster?  Or move down to a TBM, Pilatus, or Meridian because they realize that for short trips of less than 600nm the time difference isn't significant but the fuel burn is.  People have been predicting the demise of the turboprop for 20 years but sales have never been better especially for the singles.  Why?  You just can't beat them for the ability to carry people and stuff out of small airports and in efficiency - especially on short trips.