Many believe the market is still waiting for the "real VLJ." I recently heard feedback from a prospective buyer and his pilot who think the "real VLJ" exists. They had just come from a site visit (to see the Sport-Jet) and were extremely high on this plane (and intend to make a purchase).

Their feedback....

One of their priorities is speed. This SEJ will do 380 knots true.  They loved the cabin size/width...it's as wide as a Beechjet 400. They were quite impressed with the quality of the aluminum wings...all parts are machined (ribs, spars, etc.) rather than stamped. They felt really good about the cabin integrity. And also liked the low stall speed. They commented on the ramp appeal also.

The company (Excel-Jet) is very low profile, running a skunkworks operation. It seems they don't spend much on marketing/sales, but put their resources into the product. I did learn the company will be at Oshkosh this year.

---

I just wanted to pass this information along.

I didn't know these guys were still alive! I don't see how they can compete with Diamond and Cirrus. Aren't both Diamond and Cirrus offering a parachute? That will probably be real appealing to the wives.

I just took a look at Cirrus jet...not much ramp appeal there....IMHO. Odd looking thing; hope it flies better than it looks (it will have to go against popular wisdom: "if it looks good, it flies good").

gcurtis:

I didn't know these guys were still alive! I don't see how they can compete with Diamond and Cirrus. Aren't both Diamond and Cirrus offering a parachute? That will probably be real appealing to the wives.

------------

Maybe this question should be asked: OK, you have a parachute but at what speed can it be deployed? Simple question. And while you may think …normal cruise speed …think again! It will be considerably less. So if these wonderful parachutes are not going to support full flight speeds (on a jet) then someone will need to slow the aircraft to a deployable speed. Sounds simple enough but what happens when the pilot attempts to deploy above the required minimum speed?

And remember these suckers need to be tested. Traditionally, they have been tested by dropping a weight tied to a parachute out of the back of a plane like a C130. Well, I’m not aware of a C130 type aircraft flying 200+ knots with the rear door open.

Other considerations include weight of chute (therefore loss of payload) and environmental considerations. You only have to look at some of the other programs to see the problems which occur when design weight is exceeded.

Think about all the issues--engineering and legal--relative to requiring the chute deployment to be below a specified speed. And yes, I did say legal because in the end when there is an accident--for whatever reason--the attorneys will be arguing over when the pilot tried to deploy the chute and who is responsible for the result. And while we might not like it, attorneys and insurance have significant control on our industry.

Parachutes do not guarantee safety.  There are a lot of piston aircraft flying without parachutes not to mention virtually all jet aircraft.  Just because a safety device works on a piston aircraft doesn’t mean it will also work on a jet aircraft. Jet aircraft fly at significantly faster speeds (or should) than piston aircraft.  Aircraft momentum is a key factor in a parachute system and while parachute advocates will hype that the Shuttle external tanks are retrieved using parachutes, they fail to mention that at the time of deployment the tank has virtually no velocity. Accidents often occur on takeoff or final; a parachute is of no use here.

So while the concept of a parachute sounds like a panacea, jet speeds present a significant design challenge but implementation represents even more disturbing issues.

Companies are using “the parachute” as a marketing device to sell planes to the layman. Most likely jet aircraft won’t be delivered with a chute. In many years, if they are, the conditions of use will be extremely limited and the tradeoffs will have come at too high a cost. [Some might call this a “bait and switch” or more polite terms “over promise, under deliver.”]

By the way, I was part of a team contracted (by Excel-Jet, 2004) to study the parachute option. After extensive discussions with BRS it became clear that any parachute system could not support the anticipated aircraft speeds without major concessions.

Nothing proprietary has been disclosed here…Excel-Jet is quite open about their analysis of the parachute option and their decision to concentrate on more useful safety features (for jet aircraft).

The prospective buyers mentioned in my first post are looking for people to go in on a quarter share basis on a VLJ purchase. I'm considering it, but am not well versed on VLJ issues and am trying to educate myself. I've been looking for feedback on some aircraft (and vlj issues). Thanks Designguy; I was hoping to get information from folks with "real" knowledge about the planes.

You can read all the PR and advertising a company puts out but that doesn't tell you what's really going on with the product. Most of the stuff put out by the companies is just hype. Good examples of this are Eclipse, Adam, and ATG.

I've heard some good things about Epic also. I'm a little leary of the Cirrus jet because of the v-tail (possible stability issues). 

I'm trying to get some information on SEJ engine placement. Seems there are differing opinions on placement for safety (rotorburst), airflow (internal/external), maintenance, etc. [Sport-Jet and D-jet are internal and others are external. I think Epic is internal also?] Anyone have some "real" info on this (not just the company hype)?

Yes, indeed, most of what you read regarding engine issues is incorrect or a misdirection.

There has been a rash of opinions recently regarding where the best location is to mount a jet engine.  Some self-proclaimed experts  have stated that putting the engine below and in front of the wing  leading edge offers the best safety.  Some are now touting the "over  the fuselage" engine shown by Eclipse and Cirrus.

Let's set the record straight. Jet engines are mounted to take advantage of the best air flow, CG support and rotor burst. Other considerations involve de-icing, thrust alignment, etc.

Corporate jets have their engines mounted aft; off the fuselage so any rotor burst is aft of the passengers.  If you think that rotor burst is something to ignore--don't. Recently, during an engine run up test on a large commercial airliner, a compressor disc from one engine failed and separated, went completely through the fuselage and embedded itself in the other engine. Needless to say there was a fire and the plane was significantly damaged to probably a complete loss. 

Designers have to account for rotor burst. The optimum safety in this situation is a) not having any passengers be endangered and b) not have the aircraft suffer catastrophic failure.  So where the engineers put the engine(s) will have a significant impact on how the above two items are resolved.  In addition, comes the other factors such as inlet de-ice, air flow uniformity, engine noise, exhaust, etc. 

There have been other less intelligent comments (floating on the web) saying that putting a jet engine inside the fuselage is less maintenance friendly than outside the fuselage.  Well that simply is wrong. The majority of "stuff" that has to be maintained on a jet engine is on the bottom of the engine. So the key issue here is how accessible is this stuff.  Next comes how easy it is to change an engine (although jet engines are usually not changed that often). So for those who tout that putting an engine over the fuselage is better for maintenance than inside the fuselage--maybe you need to see what a proper internal engine installation can do for ease of maintenance.  Working on a step ladder and bending over a fuselage to get to critical engine parts is not the ideal situation.

Now let's consider some of the comments regarding the new breed of single engine jets. The ideal engine location for thrust would be to have the engine such that there are pitching moments from the engine or as they say centerline thrust. Well that would imply the engine is inside the fuselage and most likely aft of the passenger compartment, fuel bays, etc.  However all the self-announced experts will say that isn't practical because of air flow issues.  It is just impossible to get the airflow thru the ducting to the engine to be efficient and uniform. That is why the better engine location is above the fuselage. 

Again not true. While it is true that the intake design is challenging --and more challenging the faster the plane flies--it is not impossible.  And I can attest that one of the non-brand name manufacturers has solved this problem with efficiency matching  that of the free air stream. As a result, the aircraft has ramp appeal (good looks), has centerline thrust, they don't require fuel pumps since gravity helps force fuel to the engine, the engine noise is reduced, etc. And for those who will argue maintenance, they have excellent access to all the necessary engine components and can swap an engine in less than 40 minutes.

So for all you experts on engine location - rethink your comments.

Thanks for the information on engine issues Mtn...a lot to think about. I'm planning on going to Oshkosh and will be visiting the VLJ vendors. Now I'll be able discuss some issues (chutes, engines) more intelligently. I'm researching other areas now: materials, stability (v-tail or not), airframe safety, etc. Any info would be appreaciated.

Hey Birch,

Talk to Bornhofen (Sport-Jet) at Oshkosh. He doesn't hype or BS people. He's a graduate degreed aerospace engineer and he'll tell you the truth on viability of a v-tail, flt to 41, etc.

He's the real deal! His planes fly right and look great. His designs come in at or under weight. And he doesn't design by committee...that's a huge plus.

Unfortunately, the money guys (VCs, etc) know nothing about aviation. They think it's less risky to pour money into companies that produce hype, not great designs. And they love design by committee. The money guys have driven what has been designed recently; Eclipse, Adam, Javelin, and other defunct aircraft. The planes are crap! Right now the money guys are killing innovation/great design in GA. They'd walk away from Kelly Johnson, the Wright brothers and the other greats because they didn't spend all their time spinning fantastic stories. SAD.

I'll get off my soapbox.

Designguy,

I'll be in Oshkosh tomorrow! Yep, I'll swing by and check out the Sport-Jet. Still trying to make a decision on the quarter share purchase (see my post above). Found out they are in "Combo P". That's on the side of building D; not sure which side though.

It would be refreshing to get beyond all the VLJ hype in the industry. It's almost as bad as talking to a used car salesman these days! Hope you are right about Bornhofen being a straight shooter (not running the usual hype). Maybe there's a chance since he's an engineer. I'll let you know.

I just heard Cirrus is indicating 7 passengers. Can't believe they too are trying to hype the market. They will be overweight just like Diamond was ... with no payload. Can't believe they will be able to carry more than 2 pass. with full fuel on the 1900 trust engine.

Unfortunately, I think most companies now feel they have to BS the market (knowing they will never deliver) because that strategy seemed so successful for Eclipse. Thank God that's now unraveling. I better stop; I'm getting close to Designguy's soapbox.

See ya'll at Oshkosh.

Birch or anyone else at Oshkosh,

Where was Epic??? I really wanted to look at the jet! Anyone know why they weren't there?

I couldn't find Epic so I stopped by Excel-Jet. I was prepared to really dislike these guys, but I didn't. Good cabin size and the flight test footage showed a great flying aircraft.

I'd feel better if they looked more financially secure. They sure weren't spending any money on their booth at Oshkosh. Maybe someone will buy them out and put some money behind what looks like a first rate SEJ.

At least they showed up at Oshkosh and proved they were still alive. This may be a true tortoise and hare story. The field is littered with carnage: Sapphire, Adam, ATG, and others. These guys just keep plugging away. I was really disappointed Epic was a no-show.

Hey, any engineering geek types at Oshkosh? What'd you think of Cirrus/D-Jet. Are they going to be able to produce a decent product? Overcome the technical issues?

Signing off.

Above you said [about Excel-Jet]: "This may be a true tortoise and hare story." I have to partially disagree.

They put their first prototype in the air in May/June 2006, within a month of the D-Jet. The aircraft met all the projected specs and the test pilots reported that the plane would pass the FAR 23 tests during the cert process. No tortoise here!

However, they run a skunk works operation on a low budget. In the last few years EAC, Adam and others took most of the investment money out of the market (and also most deposit holders) with their glitz and hype. Now the market can see that these companies were "smoke and mirrors." But legitimate companies with good products have had a very difficult time. In this regard they may be the tortoise .... slow and steady!

You asked about impressions of Oshkosh from an engineering-geek type guy. I don't have time now but will be posting my impressions of D-Jet, Cirrus, etc. from the engineering perspective.

Later

I’d meant to post this sooner but was sidetracked by all the recent events in the VLJ space. It will be quite interesting to watch the jockeying, positioning, alliances, cover-ups, etc. in the VLJ space heat up now that EAC is cratering. Who will the next “media darling” be in this space?

Remember what this thread is asking….where is the “real VLJ” as promised over 10 years ago. You can be sure that most investors, media, depositors, and politicians will get it wrong! Some astute industry insiders are not getting it wrong.

First, to bring some up to speed in the search for “the Real VLJ” …. It’s now obvious that Adam and Eclipse do not fit the bill. Other failed projects have come and gone …. ATG, Sapphire, Visionaire, etc.

Now, for my observations (and misc. musings) from Oshkosh. By the way, the ones mentioned below won’t be standing up as the “Real VLJ.” [This probably comes as a shock to the naïve in the industry.]

D-Jet SEJ: 

It’s been flying for almost two years. Many of their problems have been chronicled elsewhere…. Inlet (airflow) problems, Overweight (and resultant problems this brings, payload, etc.), engine change (1900 thrust), performance issues and more.

I spoke with someone at Oshkosh who offices very close to Diamond. He reports they have already been through three major redesigns!

Cirrus SEJ: 

There are some obvious design issues to overcome here. Yep, there will be major redesigns on this one too. Their SEJ is just a rough concept. Their final product has to change or it won’t be certifiable.

Problem areas: v-tail and the inherent problems, the doors… won’t be able to hold pressurization, aircraft is already overweight.

In discussing the v-tail, one person told me that Cirrus has good engineers so they will be able to overcome the problems on the tail! Obviously, from this comment Beechcraft engineers were (are) less competent.  If v-tails were an acceptable design why are they not used on the majority of aircraft?  How many corporate, commercial or military jets have this tail configuration?  And for those who want to refer to the F22 type tail design – go back and look at the aircraft. The verticals are slanted to eliminate radar emissions return – and they still have a horizontal tail.   The real question should be why did Cirrus do this v-tail design.  Could it be they couldn’t solve the difficult design of an internal bi-furcated duct? 

I spoke to a well-known individual at Oshkosh. He is high profile and has been involved in near-space endeavors as of late. His comment on the Cirrus SEJ …. “The Cirrus jet is an embarrassment to the industry.”

Piper SEJ:  

Here again we see the engineering design acumen of a piston aircraft manufacturer.  It doesn’t take any “rocket scientist” to know that if you move a 400+ lb engine from the nose of a plane and put it in the vertical you might have to put some weight back in the nose.  OK, so they only require a few hundred pounds of lead in the nose what is the big deal.  Well, ask any test pilot what it is like to fly a plane with substantial weights in the nose and tail.  Could be they might experience what is classically referred to as the “barbell effect” (word on the street indicates this is an issue).   For more on “barbell effect” google “the polar moment of inertia.” The "barbell effect" is important as it relates to stability issues. Yep, heading for a redesign here too.

Indeed, most VLJ entrants can’t get off first base. They don’t have the engineering talent to design a great product, let alone even a “good” product. Most are piston manufacturers with piston design engineers (not jet design engineers). Certainly, the above mentioned aircraft are not “the Real VLJ.”

And yes, as a (jet) design engineer, I realize designing a great VLJ is a difficult task, but it is NOT an impossible task. And yes, there are viable candidates for “the Real VLJ.”

That sums up some of the critical issues confronting the well known VLJs. I hope this helps some who want to go beyond the sales brochures and marketing hype coming from the above mentioned companies.

Stay tuned …. More later.