D-JET Demise: What Its Bad News Means to Cirrus Jet

Blog Categories

The news from Diamond Aircraft is that the company is suspending D-JET operations in its London, Ontario, Canada, factory and laying off the majority of its workers — a mere 50 out of 200 will remain; among them, the entire D-JET team has been laid off. While the layoffs have implications for the continuing piston business, it most likely spells the end of the D-JET program. The single-engine jet has been of great interest to light GA pilots who saw the model, with its modest performance and light weight as the perfect pathway to step-up to flying a turbofan. Unfortunately, the program has suffered from the same crushing quartet of circumstances other jet programs have fallen prey to: the high cost of development, the thin margins of a single-engine jet, the tightrope line between a sensible ceiling and low-altitude turbofan performance, and the devastating effects of the continuing economic downturn. (Prediction: Sequestration will not make things better.)

The problem is that the D-JET's two greatest selling points — low operating costs and easier pilot transition — don’t add up to a compelling enough sales argument when measured against competing new-production jets or, more importantly, turboprops. The jets are the Eclipse 550, which for about 30 percent more dough gives so much more performance and flexibility than the D-JET, and the Cirrus Vision Jet. At around the same price as the Diamond, the Cirrus promises a nicer experience and an easier transition while having the marked advantage of being the ideal step-up product for the best selling single-engine airplane of the past decade. This is not to mention the challenges all new airplanes face in the name of low-time used models. A used Mustang or Phenom 100 is a tough competitor to a $2 million jet, if Diamond could have sold the D-JET for that little and still made a profit. We will likely never know that.

So if it's true and Cirrus is the only single-engine jet program left standing then it has a great sales advantage. In addition to its solid financial backing, it has no single-engine turbofan competition remaining. This is not to say that Cirrus’ parent company is throwing money at the program — it’s not. By all indications, it’s being smart about the development while investing what it needs to in order to get the airplane to the finish line. But the money is there. The Vision Jet also has the advantage of promising so little, a sale proposition the D-JET shared. While this might sound like a criticism, it’s actually high praise. You tell me that a single-engine jet is going to fly at 35,000 feet, go 370 knots and cost $2.5 million and I immediately become a skeptic. With the Cirrus Vision Jet, every one of its goals is achievable if the money is there to get it to production.The same was true of the D-JET; apparently, the money's just not there.

It’s most likely that the suspension of the D-JET will mean good things for the Cirrus Vision jet, though a large number of orders is probably not one of those things. The market for a single-engine jet is limited, and although Cirrus' jet is the only game in town, there are still only so many potential buyers.

Forgive me if I write off the D-JET, but I just can’t see a company coming in to rescue a single-engine jet program that never seemed to have legs to begin with. The possible salvation could be a Chinese company that wants in on the jet market, but China already has the Cirrus Jet, and I don’t see investors there competing with each other in this niche-within-a-niche market. The costs are too high and the return is a long shot.

No, the most likely outcome is that the D-JET will join the Piper Altaire (nee PiperJet), the Eclipse 400 (a pretty little thing that came way too late to have a chance), and the Safire Jet (which never saw the sunny side of a drafting table), as footnotes in aviation history. Of all of these, the D-JET had the most promise by far.

In a Forbes Magazine piece in 2007, Rich Karlgaard wrote that the promise of single-engine jets “says volumes about the adaptive abilities of free markets to oil prices” and “volumes more about human innovation.” As great as all that sounds, in the end, the promise of skies filled with single-engine jets was doomed by a disastrous mix of unpredictable markets and highly predictable thermodynamics.

We hope we wind up being wrong about Diamond's personal jet, but history is not on its side.

Take a look at our retrospective single-engine jets photo gallery.

Note: A previous version of this story stated that Diamond Aircraft Industries was halting production of its piston aircraft; the company will continue to produce these airplanes at a lower rate. The number of workers at the factory prior to the layoffs was 200, not 2,000.

Comments (6) Post a comment

All Comments

Submitted by novipilot on February 27, 2013.

Robert, sequestration will not do one iota to the economy. If you listen to everything that Obama has threatened, it would be the whole economy. The budget cutting is only (only?) 85 Bil out of 3.6 or 3.8 Trillion, or 2.36 percent. Any CEO that can not find 2.36 percent savings should resign or be fired.

And so what if a few towers close, even permanently. Until this year, Cubs coexisted just fine with the 6 or 8 daily operations involving an A-320 at KPGD. Some airports on the list had only 19,000 operations PER YEAR.

We do need to put our priorities in order.

Good comment?
yes
no

Submitted by novipilot on February 27, 2013.

Should have said: Until this year when they started new towered operations, Cubs coexisted just fine with the 6 or 8 daily operations involving an A-320 at KPGD .

Good comment?
yes
no

Submitted by FirstFlightMike on February 27, 2013.

Robert, sadly I think you're right about the demise of the D-Jet and glad you put your belief into print.

Do you think the single-engine design is/was a significant determinant in the D-Jet's demise? Are you saying that twin engine designs hold a significant market advantage despite their increased cost (acquisition and operations)?

Good comment?
yes
no

Submitted by skymachines on February 27, 2013.

I'm sorry to see the D-Jet go. I was an original deposit holder from 2004 but sold my position when my needs changed. But that brings up a question: When will all those deposits be refunded?

The D-jet was the best looking of any of the personal jets, I think. I don't think the public would have recognized it as single-engine, since there were air intakes on both sides of the fuselage.

One of the most unique designs for the D-Jet was a co-pilot seat which could be flipped to face the rear, where up to 3 passengers sat on a bench seat similar to the rear seat of a BMW 5-series.

The D-Jet was designed to be an easy upgrade for piston pilots familiar with the G1000. It truly was supposed to be a personal jet. But a lot of us also so its potential as an ultimate air-taxi vehicle. Now I don't know when we will be able to make a call and have a jet pick us up in 2 hrs. or less and take us somewhere for under $1000/hr.

Good comment?
yes
no

Submitted by chalete on February 27, 2013.

Just like the Eclipse jet, millions of dollars wasted in the development of a jet that has no market, as a personal flying machine or worse off as a small airtaxi, with the added drawback that the price is so high that only rich individuals can afford it but then again they would prefer 2 engines for safety reasons.

Good comment?
yes
no

Submitted by FredBedard on February 27, 2013.

Waste of time talking what it means to Cirrus until they actually have a certified plane to sell. After that we can reflect on what impact it may have had or not. Sorry but all this speculation is just a waste of time....

Good comment?
yes
no

Top Rated

Your Comment

All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

Member Login

not a member? sign-up now!

Recent Posts

Blog Categories