Given that a TBM sells for $4.3m (yes, that’s the current price!) and at the same time the VLJs get discounted heavily, I am sure the VLJ makers thought of all possible ways to increase the useful load. You can see from the Piper M600 that major changes are required. For the VJLs it would probably mean stronger engines as they wouldn’t meet single engine climb requirements with more mass.
Given that for the price of a TBM, you can buy a CJ3, why bother with an aux tank.
BTW, Jujupilote thanks for introducing me to this guys YouTube channel. It’s very interesting and I have now subscribed to it. He’s doing exactly what this thread was asking about. He speaks about it here:
One relatively affordable jet with quite a range is the Cessna Citation ISP FJ44 Eagle II Long Wing Eagle Conversion, particularly if it has the additional fuel tanks. That particular airplane will do almost 2000 NM non-stop. That is my personal Euromillion pipe dream, if I ever won that lottery big time, I’d be on the lookout for one of them.
Currently there is one for sale on planecheck.
Of course also this flying gas tank has a negative payload if you load all tanks to capacity. But with the normal 678 USG range is still in the 1700 NM range with 2 on board. And with the full 798 USG capacity filled, it may be the only transatlantic single pilot jet available even if it will be some 400 kgs over gross at the time of departure…
Rest assured Adam, there are still hundreds of private pilots flying themselves around for business in Europe. Granted, they are not in the thousands, but hundreds definitely. The reasons have been explained at the beginning of this thread.
Also, you will see few of them on youtube because only one out of 100 pilots does regular vlogging on that. Actually, I would say that the more “serious” a pilot is about his flying (i.e. business), the less likely he will be constantly vlogging about it.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
relatively affordable jet
You have to look at “affordable” differently. A purchase price of $1m with virtually no depreciation (such aircraft have bottomed out) financed at 2% interest rate means $20k per year. That is less than what you pay per year to fix non working cockpit lights. You would spend less money per year buying a significantly more expensive jet built post year 2000. A Citation from 1978 will give you huge maintenance bills and a lot of AOG. The engines will be fine but the avionics and the empennage will give you a lot of trouble.
There are many flying entrepreneurs in Germany, probably a lot more than anywhere in Europe. Look at all the iron in the hangars of the dozens of rural airfields all over the country. It’s usually the same story: owner run manufacturing company opened production sites in other countries and the aircraft is used to commute. Until a few years ago, Germany used to exempt such flights from fuel taxes (“Werksverkehr”). Just the other day I talked to the owner of a manufacturing company that owns 3 JetProps and a TBM, used to travel from the middle of nowhere in Germany to the middle of nowhere in the Czech Republic and one JetProp in the US where they have another production facility. A company nobody has ever heard about and yet they’re the world market leader in what they do. Typically such people don’t produce Youtube videos.
I want to know who gives out non-amortizing loans at 2%… I’d sign up immediately.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
I want to know who gives out non-amortizing loans at 2%… I’d sign up immediately.
Depends a bit on the currency of course, less so in Zimbabwe Dollars, more so in Swiss Francs. Obviously that would require posting collateral. I have recently taken a non-amortizing EUR loan from my bank at Euribor + 50 base points (that would be 0.225% interest as of today) by posting a higher yielding investment as collateral — to pay for a tax debt. A Citation 1 would not considered as collateral in its full amount but if you have other assets (such as your house), you can get loans for nothing really.
What it really means — the cost of capital is extremely low at the moment and people in the market for a super high running cost device such as a Citation 1 would also have capital and quickly come to the conclusion that a more expensive airplane would be cheaper. Who is left for an airplane like this is people who don’t know what they’re doing and businesses without access to capital that try to get a return with minimal investment and will most likely fail due to AOG and negative cash flow due to high maintenance costs.
Ahh, lombard. Then yes.
achimha wrote:
What it really means — the cost of capital is extremely low at the moment and people in the market for a super high running cost device such as a Citation 1 would also have capital and quickly come to the conclusion that a more expensive airplane would be cheaper. Who is left for an airplane like this is people who don’t know what they’re doing and businesses without access to capital that try to get a return with minimal investment and will most likely fail due to AOG and negative cash flow due to high maintenance costs.
There it is folks, in easy to understand plain english why you should NOT even THINK about that Legacy Lear Jet that’s listed for less than a lowly 172 
