Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Single Engine Jets?  
User currently offlineAdam1115 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 63 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9473 times:

With all the press about inexpensive jets (VLJ's, eclipse 500) why aren't their single engine jet aircraft??

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDesertAir From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 1462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9473 times:

I would not want to fly on one for safety reasons. At least with two, one will do the job.

User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9456 times:

There are several VLJs with only one jet. The Diamond D-Jet is the most notable. A single turbine is still more reliable than a single piston in most cases, and very few people familiar with the aircraft have an issue with flying on one engine. Of course, FARs limit the size/uses of single jet aircraft, but a D-jet like aircraft offers improved safety and speed over a comparably priced piston.

[Edited 2006-07-30 22:45:00]


CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9403 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 2):
A single turbine is still more reliable than a single piston in most cases

..and 'safer' than a twin turbine.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9394 times:

There was an attempt to produce a single engine Biz-jet called the Perigirne back in the 1980's.

One of the big issues with doing a single engine aircraft is protection for the control surface cables in the event that the engine bursts-which has happened in the past-remember that DL MD-80 that killed two people a couple of years back.

Those issues killed that product.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9394 times:

and you would never get an ETOPS cert.

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9366 times:

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 5):
and you would never get an ETOPS cert.

By definition. But they could come up with an ESOPS cert. hehe

Extended-range Single-engine Operational Performance Standards



[Edited 2006-07-30 23:05:35]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineIceTitan447 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9299 times:

Quoting Adam1115 (Thread starter):
With all the press about inexpensive jets (VLJ's, eclipse 500) why aren't their single engine jet aircraft??

You really have to ask?


User currently offlineEI787 From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1513 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here's the Diamond D-Jet:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Kryst



User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9278 times:

There's a VLJ being produced in COS that has a single engine. If you go to Oshkosh this year you will see it...or what's left of it after the crash...on display.

User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9272 times:

There was the Visionaire Vantage, too, but if I recall, that never went anywhere for whatever reason. I think Visionaire went under or something.


I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineJFKLGANYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3480 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9261 times:

To be certified under Part 121 ops in the US, all aircraft must comply with Part 25 and Part 36. I believe Part 25 is redundancy and Part 36 is Noise Compliance. It may be vice versa.

Either way, every single aircraft must comply with redundancy in systems. You can not have the travelling public fly on an aircraft that does not have a back up system in place for each and every aircraft system.

Hydraulics, Landing Gear, Flight Controls, etc

That being said, Engines are the most obvious. You need to have at least two in case one goes out . . . which occasionally happens  Sad


PJ


User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2501 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9212 times:

Probably for the same reason there aren't any commercial gliders!  laughing 


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9200 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 9):
There's a VLJ being produced in COS that has a single engine. If you go to Oshkosh this year you will see it...or what's left of it after the crash...on display.

You are thinking of the Spectrum 33, which is a twin, and which was also never at OSH. The company repeatedly stated it would not bring the prototype to OSH, though there is some speculation its ill-fated flight may have been a surprise visit.

Quoting JBo (Reply 10):
There was the Visionaire Vantage

The cost of certifying a jet is enormous, and I believe that is what did it in. Eviation is currently trying to build a modified Vantage (a twin), but they look like they are in bad shape in terms of securing investment.

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 5):
and you would never get an ETOPS cert.

With a range in the 1,000nm bracket, there are very few people who would want to take a D-Jet far out over the water.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 3):
..and 'safer' than a twin turbine.

I'd agree safer than a twin piston, but not a twin turbine. Most twin turbines do not suffer the kind of performance degradation twin pistons do with a failed engine, thanks to the power of the turbine. Ultimately, it all comes down to how well the pilot can handle the situation--you are only safe if the pilot can fly the aircraft well in an emergency configuration.


Cirrus has said they intend to offer a single-engine jet as their next aircraft.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9161 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Remember, the D-Jet and upcoming single-engine Cirrus jet are targeted at owner/pilots who are currently flying multi-engine piston aircraft. These modern, single-engine jets will almost certainly have lower accident and fatality rates than those of multi-engine piston aircraft they are intended to replace.




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9077 times:

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 5):
and you would never get an ETOPS cert

I thought ETOPS was only applicable to commercial operations?

Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineAdam1115 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8986 times:

Quoting IceTitan447 (Reply 7):
You really have to ask?

I don't follow what's wrong with my question. There are tons of single engine prop planes, what's wrong with a single engine jet??


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8970 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Adam1115 (Reply 16):
I don't follow what's wrong with my question. There are tons of single engine prop planes, what's wrong with a single engine jet??

For what it's worth, I think it's a perfectly acceptable question. Much research has gone into comparing single-engine turboprops with multi-engine turboprops....your question should produce some interesting perspective on the issue. That said, I think the whole discussion might go over better in Tech/Ops...




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8922 times:

Let's not forget the successful PC-12 single-engine turbine, which is I believe one of only two single-engine aircraft certified to fly over water. This new generation of single-engine jet aircraft will definitely spawn a growth in the air-taxi world.


"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineIceTitan447 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8912 times:

Quoting Adam1115 (Reply 16):
I don't follow what's wrong with my question. There are tons of single engine prop planes, what's wrong with a single engine jet??

I didn't in any way mean to be rude, I re-read my post and apologize for that. I wouldn't and would NEVER fly a 1 engine jet to Europe or even ORD for that matter. 1 engine means 1 chance, not good odds.

Sorry again. Smile


User currently offlineAdam1115 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8855 times:

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 11):
That being said, Engines are the most obvious. You need to have at least two in case one goes out . . . which occasionally happens Sad

But there are plenty of single engine planes out there. What's the difference between a single engine prop and single engine jet as far as certification goes??


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8817 times:

Quoting Adam1115 (Reply 20):
But there are plenty of single engine planes out there. What's the difference between a single engine prop and single engine jet as far as certification goes??

When talking about a private aircraft, not much. It becomes more complicated for aircraft certified under Part 25 for Part 121 operations. Part 91 and 135 operations (private and charter) can use a light jet with one engine.

Part of the reason these jets have been slow to emerge is the lack of a suitable powerplant. Now that efficient 1000 to 2000 pound thrust engines are on the market, these aircraft can get reasonably good economics when compared to single turbines (and even some piston twins).



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8716 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 13):
I'd agree safer than a twin piston, but not a twin turbine. Most twin turbines do not suffer the kind of performance degradation twin pistons do with a failed engine, thanks to the power of the turbine. Ultimately, it all comes down to how well the pilot can handle the situation--you are only safe if the pilot can fly the aircraft well in an emergency configuration.

Right, and the pilot training issue is valid on a twin piston and a twin turbine. I think you'll find statistics show that there are more fatalities from an engine failure on a twin turbine, than their are on a single turbine. The handling characteristics of most of the single turbines are quite benign in the event of an engine failure, with slow (hence safer), stall speeds. The same cannot be said for many twin single or turbine aircraft, where many fatalities are due to the problems handling and landing the aircraft.

As they argued with the 4 engine vs 2 engine airlines .... twice as likely an engine will fail if you have twice as many of 'em!


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8664 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 13):
You are thinking of the Spectrum 33, which is a twin, and which was also never at OSH. The company repeatedly stated it would not bring the prototype to OSH, though there is some speculation its ill-fated flight may have been a surprise visit.

I'm pretty sure I'm not:

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/04_05/04_05_vlj_62.html

Quote:
Monument, Colo.-based Excel-Jet made rapid progress in constructing the single-engine Sport-Jet prototype over the past six months. However, the start-up manufacturer’s VLJ is in a holding pattern since its supplier in Poland is “severely behind schedule” in delivering a set of composite wings for the airplane.

The plane crashed due to wake turbulence taking off for a test flight from COS about a month ago. As it rotated, right wing dipped and impacted and the plane cartwheeled several times down the runway and rolled off to the side. The MFR's will display the plane's wreckage this year at OSH because both pilots walked away.


User currently offlineCRJonBeez From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 317 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8622 times:

for the record, avocet is out of the running on VLJ's...they dropped the program. the "third partner" that was rumored to help was beech, who turned the program down and instead decided to go forth with the king air C90GT.

when i spoke with the folks at diamond, they were shooting for a "simple approach" to the aircraft. instead of shooting for a higher service ceiling, they skipped that idea. they seemed to pull out the "simplicity with speed" card when i spoke with them.

my concern with the D-Jet is not so much in the single engine, as it is, where the hell will ATC put them??? a plane of that speed with a 25,000 ft. ceiling seems kind of awkward doesn't it? can anybody enlighten me?

when it comes to the VLJs, i'm putting my money on the eclipse!


25 2H4 : So I'm guessing they'll fly in the high teens/low twenties at around....what....250 kts? Isn't that about the same as Saab 340 flights? 2H4
26 Cadet57 : then how can Cessna Caravans be used for pax service?
27 GAIsweetGAI : strange that no one mentioned the Scaled Composites/Rutan/Virgin GlobalFlyer... It's not a commercial A/C but it's a single engine jet...
28 CargairMax50 : In an aviation magazine i read they compared the new TBM 850 specs and results they got from their tests to the specs of a good bunch of Microjets (Th
29 Bond007 : Correct, and this is true for jet airliner flights vs small turboprops today on short routes. On a trip of a few hundred miles, most of the flying is
30 Post contains links and images Tjwgrr : Boeing has been secretly working on one: Modified Airliner Photos:
31 GAIsweetGAI : LMAO! Where do the Captain and F/O go in that one? And how do the passengers know where to go? great pic, but not realistic at all.
32 Bongo : Just imagine if the single engine fails in the middle of the Atlantic (or wherever!)
33 CRJonBeez : 315kas max cruise...i'm sure it's not the most efficient, but nobody else seemed to know when i asked either...a jet has to be efficient in order to
34 Dw747400 : I stand corrected. I thought you were reffering to the recent crash of the S33 prototype in Utah. 315 knots isn't a heck of a lot more than the King
35 Starlionblue : All sorts of fun regs limits its use.
36 CRJonBeez : good point. my thought wasn't so much the max speed, as it is optimum cruise speed at altitude. my first post didn't make that clear at all. in fact,
37 Brilondon : You can not be given an ETOPS rating with one engine but you could get an EOOPS. Well maybe not a good acronym for an airplane.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Hawaiian Regional Jets? posted Mon Sep 6 2004 19:08:06 by A388
Why No Twin Engine 747? posted Sun May 13 2001 03:55:12 by Boeing nut
Why No More Large Twin-jets? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 11:24:57 by TopJet001
Why No Logo-jets From Skyteam/Oneworld? posted Sun May 14 2006 20:06:58 by LH492
HEY BOEING......why No Regional Jets posted Sun Nov 14 2004 13:38:52 by Clipperaurora
Why No More 747 Engine Ferries? posted Sun Feb 17 2002 01:08:05 by 777236ER
4 Engine Jets Cruise W/ Eng 1 & 3 Assymetric-why? posted Sun Feb 18 2001 03:40:52 by Cedarjet
Why No Flap Track Fairings On Early Jets? posted Wed Oct 4 2000 17:10:38 by Ilyushin96M
Why No Regional Jets In CA? posted Fri Jun 2 2000 00:12:12 by Travelin man
Why No Hushkitting For Smaller Older Jets? posted Sat Apr 29 2000 08:23:01 by Samurai 777