Cirrus Jet (combined thread)

what_next wrote:

130m to stop in case the engine swallows a seagull at rotation speed would be too close for my personal comfort. Proper accelerate-stop distances for this aircraft will look more like 1200 or 1300m I guess

There is an argument to say that with single engine operations an engine failure at 50 ft is going to be a crash, so why worry about ingesting a seagull just before rotation?
To me the concept of Accelerate-Stop is tied in with the idea that in the event of an engine failure you can either Stop or Go, either way avoiding the accident, but of course the latter is difficult OEI in a single engine aircraft.

what_next wrote:

130m to stop in case the engine swallows a seagull at rotation speed would be too close for my personal comfort. Proper accelerate-stop distances for this aircraft will look more like 1200 or 1300m I guess.

Problem for all singles, isn’t it. We have tons of airfields with 500-600 m runways (or less) and in most of these you are comitted rather before rotation speed to either get airborne or end up in the veggies. Also, if accelerate-stop gets involved with twins, most small airfields are not suitable for them.

Yes it’s tight, but for singles that is always the problem, not only for the jet. Maybe the jets have less spontaneous engine failure rates even than props. But you can never be 100% sure with a single.

All turbofans, including SE, require ASDA calculations?

600 sold and counting and no doubt that a G2 is already in the works with RVSM and FL 330 (or higher) where the engine will be more efficient. Also, Williams engine is de-rated and that could be tweaked to provide more power for faster cruise. My guess is the G2 is released in 24 months with bigger fuel tanks, RVSM, higher ceiling, faster cruise and possibly option for 6 adults in club seating.

I think a comprehensive study of Mustang flights in the USA indicated that more than 80% of flights were less than 400nm and I imagine the same is true in Europe so don’t see the range/payload being an issue.

The real impact for a pilot is when you actually sit in the aircraft. Unlike all turboprops or light jets that I have sat in, the space inside the Cirrus Jet is incredible by comparison and nothing else even comes close in term of that wrap around Perspex windshield and the views it provides outside. It is a real “pilots plane” and designed for the pure “joy” of flying. I don’t think any other jet has been designed around this objective.

Every airplane is a compromise but I think they have hit a sweet spot and while you can compare used aircraft, nothing compares on a like for like basis at this price point for a new aircraft. M600, TBM, Eclipse.

The biggest hit is going to be to TBM and Eclipse. Why pay $4m+ when you can have a jet for half?

Mooney_Driver wrote:

What I at first did not get is that he actually did get airborne but crashed about 3 minutes after take off while trying to come back.

If you look closely at the video shot from the other side of the road, you see a series of brief flashes of what looks like flame from around the engines – presumably at least one engine ingested some of the surrounding flora and fauna, so they may have also been significantly down on power.

Peter,

500m at MTOW?

Any airframe can only be proven after it´s been around for a while. Those who buy a new anything are the broad band beta testers, less so in airplanes but a lot so in anything else. But there is no way around it: If nobody buys into new releases, there won´t be proven technologies….

RVSM: Actually I think the decision not to certify it as long as it flies with these speeds will be very happily received by those who can. There is another reason to be careful with SP airplanes NOT to go that high… the time of useful conciousness up there is very short. Maybe not a bad idea to keep the Vision at FL280 and below until some experience with the pressure cabin and ops unfold now that it is in use.

Payload: This is where the Cirrus Jet is in a league with other speed machines like the Mooneys for instance. (Also the original SR2x were not big load haulers as I understand). I very much got into this mantra too until actually looking at the figures. My conclusion is a bit more differentiated now. For starters, it is much more verstatile than first critics led us to believe. With 300 kts it can do 1000 NM for two and 700-800 NM for 4 POB. That is not that shabby after all, if people load it reasonably and don´t expect the impossible. To fly a 1000 NM leg in a bit over 3 hours or 600 NM in 2 is a different ball game to most of what an SR22 pilot and their passengers are used to. So it is the logical step up for the Cirrus crowd and even may be for some who have flown Turbo Mooneys and now want a pressure cabin and a bit more speed.

For someone who is coming of a SR22T or similar, there will be a lot of things they already know and some which is new, but it looks quite manageable. Maybe the slower speed is actually something not too bad for people who are not jet proficient until they do. It is an entry level jet after all.

The jury is out on the market verdict. We shall see what happens, how many who buy will stay with it, how it performs in the real world and what it´s used price will be. It certainly has had it´s hype, like the new I phones and similar things, and there will be people who love it.

CirrusMan: You would not have access to a performance section of the Vision Jet POH in PDF, would you?

alioth wrote:

If you look closely at the video shot from the other side of the road, you see a series of brief flashes of what looks like flame from around the engines – presumably at least one engine ingested some of the surrounding flora and fauna, so they may have also been significantly down on power.

Several factors probably. They might have lost an engine on this rotation as you observed correctly. They also had some concrete poles slam into the wing, which might have killed control surfaces and hydraulics. But obviously and from the videos of former take offs quite visible, they took a totaly unacceptable risk taking off like that, repeatedly. Which compares a bit to the LaMia RJ… done it over and over again so why should it not work today as well… well, it did not.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Problem for all singles, isn’t it. We have tons of airfields with 500-600 m runways (or less) and in most of these you are comitted rather before rotation speed to either get airborne or end up in the veggies.

Yes, certainly. But a typical single lifts off at around 70kt, especially with flaps set for shorter fields. Crashing through the fence at 70kt in case it won’t lift off releases a lot of energy but is survivable in most cases, as numerous examples have shown. This little jet here is a high performance plane. I have seen no figures, but I guess it will not lift off before 100kt fully loaded. This results in roudabout four times the kinetic engergy of a typical piston single (1 1/2 times the speed, 2 times the mass) and four times as much fuel around you. Again, I would insist on a safe take-off abort option if I were to fly one of those. Irrespective of the regulations.

Sure. I could not find any Vs figures other than 67 kts but that is probably with full flaps without any indication at what weight. Maybe CirrusMan has better information here.

what_next wrote:

Again, I would insist on a safe take-off abort option if I were to fly one of those. Irrespective of the regulations.

You can do that with any kind of airplane, it will simply result in longer runway requirements. Of course better safe than sorry, no question. Clearly, even if you decide to use the 1.6 factor used in commercial aviaiton for the minimal runway lenght, it will limit you in the places you can go to but you are at least safe. Looking at the 600 m ground roll / 950 m to 15 ft figures Cirrus gives for MTOM, that would just about mean 1000 m for ground roll and 1500 m for the 15 ft obstacle. So 1000 m are probably not a really bad base to go from. That, however, is at MOTM. With less than that, an 800m runway with no obstacles behind may do the job. We’ll have to wait and see for the real life figures.