Actually, the forward facing arrangement works well and the leg room is extremely good.
The middle seat can be moved to enable more shoulder room for the second row passengers, a nice feature.
The pilot seat is on a track and slides back so you can easily climb into the cockpit.
The main impression is of a large amount of space and light compared to the others mentioned.
Also the main thing I noticed when seeing the actual aircraft in person vs the mockup was the ramp presence. It feels like quite a large aircraft when you stand near it.
Yes, there will be a large rear luggage compartment and it is big. Also an option for a ski tube for transporting skis
Radar will be an option as well as a full “entertainment system” for passengers with big flat screens etc.
Apparently a toilet will also be an option, but it would take a very flexible person to do this….the cabin is big and spacious….but not big enough for a comfortable loo.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
The forward facing arrangement works well and the leg room is extremely good.
That is a matter of opinion. I prefer club.
The middle seat can be moved to enable more shoulder room for the second row passengers, a nice feature.
Also probably known as a neccesary feature otherwise it would be incredibly uncomfortable.
The pilot seat is on a track and slides back so you can easily climb into the cockpit.
Well yes OK, that is not exactly a proprietary feature however.
Also the main thing I noticed when seeing the actual aircraft in person vs the mockup was the ramp presence. It feels like quite a large aircraft when you stand near it.
Everything is relative. I think it looks similar to an Eclipse on the ramp. Why does ramp presence matter anyway?
Yes, there will be a large rear luggage compartment and it is big.
What volume?
Radar will be an option as well as a full “entertainment system” for passengers with big flat screens etc.
Why on earth would radar be optional? I think an entertainment system is pointless these days with ipads and will just reduce payload.
Apparently a toilet will also be an option.
As you say, that is a joke.
I hold multiple delivery positions for the Vision Jet
I appreciate you disclosing this highly relevant interest in Cirrus, @Cirrus_Man, but it does undermine the credibility of your posts which are for the most part straight marketing-speak.
Unfortunately (and this is obvious to anybody who has been on forums for some years) with the almost “religious” way the whole Cirrus scene is set up these days, anyone being negative gets accused of “Cirrus bashing” and one gets multiple Cirrus owners throwing their toys out of the pram and leaving. We have already had that here, which is a pity because they do form a significant portion of the experienced pilot community.
So, please cut back on the marketing.
The Cirrus jet like all aircraft is more suitable to some missions and profiles and sub-optimal for other missions.
Cirrus has labeled the Vision Jet “the lowest and the slowest jet” and that is the profile. It is meant for missions of 600 miles or less (about 80% of journeys) and will allow you to carry 5 adults and 2 children very comfortably at 300 knots. Not the most fuel efficient but that is the main cost when buying an aircraft; it is depreciation and this is I think the real hidden value of this aircraft. The price can only be raised after FAA certification meaning early holders should not suffer depreciation as fast. Fuel burn pales in comparison to depreciation.
It has been designed as a “step up aircraft” for 22 drivers who should be able to make the transition after a two week type rating course.
Therefore, the first generation of this new jet will be low and slow but I am sure that will change as future series are released (like the SR range).
There is not doubt that a TBM 900 is faster and more fuel efficient but it is also $1.5 million more and for me feels very cramped in the P1 position.
In terms of value for money, to be able to get a brand new, fully warranted and supported Jet aircraft for $2 million is a fantastic deal. (Meridien M600 $2.6 million)
5 years of production has been sold (550 positions) and I would not be suprised if Cirrus are already working on the follow up jet aircraft which will be bigger and faster.
Unfortunately (and this is obvious to anybody who has been on forums for some years) with the almost “religious” way the whole Cirrus scene is set up these days, anyone being negative gets accused of “Cirrus bashing”
Peter, I agree with some of what you wrote, but that is an unfair remark
but that is an unfair remark
It illustrates the problem that anybody running a forum has when they get one or more Cirrus pilots posting a long stream of certain types of posts.
You are damned if you do nothing (lots of people bugger off because they don’t want to waste their time on a site which has a constant stream of religious or commercial statements on it, especially from people with an “interesting” financial interest – why would you hold multiple positions???) and damned if you try to keep a lid on it (get accused of Cirrus bashing).
The pilots who chucked their toys out of the pram then slag off EuroGA (and me) on certain other forums whose server owner will always give them a warm reception, and deletes anything I post in reply 
I think that ….
… “ramp presence” is completely uninmportant. There might be customers for planes like that who really care about having the biggest (whatever!) but it’s really embarrassing …
… is a good step-up up for private pilots who had a high performance SEP – and would love to fly a jet. Even if I could I would not spend that kind of money on flying, but of course there’s many private pilots who can afford it easily, especially in the US
… the airplane is not to be compared with a C-510 Mustang, which is a much more serious tool
… the interior is just an interior. Very similar to everything else in this class
… I have a hard time imagining spending that kind of money for an airplane and not have a toilet.
@ Peter
Sorry if you consider my enthusiasm to be “marketing”. I thought these forums are about our love of flying and all things related. I am excited about the new Vision Jet and I am passionate about it just like you are about your TB20.
It is a breakthrough aircraft and unique and the title of this thread is “Cirrus Jet” so if people are not interested then they can stay away from this thread right?
If a new forum member comes on and wants to know about the Cirrus Jet, then she can click on this thread and hopefully glean some valuable information about it.
I have not been on any forums until I joined this one a few weeks ago so I dont have experience with “Cirrus Bashing”. I dont want to offend people.
I find this website very useful with lots of useful information.
I will listen and learn so keep giving me tips on how to post and what is allowed and not allowed.
Accusing someone of being dishonest is to me not a great way to promote openeness in these forums and that would be an area of concern if I were the administrator.
It illustrates the problem that anybody running a forum has when they get one or more Cirrus pilots posting a long stream of certain types of posts.
No, it’s a language you don’t want here yourself. I know what you mean, and agree, but the “church” remark is not neverssary to get your point through
Cirrus_Man wrote:
5 years of production has been sold (550 positions)
Sold as in stuffed to “position holders” who are now trying to find people actually wanting the aircraft.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
I would not be suprised if Cirrus are already working on the follow up jet aircraft which will be bigger and faster.
Yes, and I heard it’s going to use a novel approach called “beaming”. You just select the airport on the G7000 cockpit and it will time warp you to the threshold. If you buy a position now, it will be 20% cheaper than after FAA certification. I believe I’m going to buy 10 positions.
