Very good point!! ha ha!!!
A TBM sales guy when asked for the toilet option told me in confidence he’d not get it but instead buy a camping loo and keep it in the baggage compartment behind the seats. Same technology (probably more advanced), costs 80 € instead of 20,000 € and is more hygienic and easy to use/service.
Flying with the family was so easy when the younger daughter was wearing diapers and the elder daughter could still be convinced to put on diapers just for this specific situation. Now that won’t work anymore, too humiliating a procedure for them.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
Cirrus has labeled the Vision Jet “the lowest and the slowest jet” and that is the profile.
Okay, that is easy to accomplish, but not a very good sales argument, at least to anyonewho buys transport capability. I can understand the noise generated in that respect.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
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.
Then you would be able to set up a calculation up to what annual mileage the Cirrus Jet would be favourable in cost over a TBM900. Let’s assume I have just sold my Jetprop and would be in the market to buy an aircraft to transport my engineers / management to several plants within Europe (The most feasible way for me even to think of buying an aircraft in that league). How many flight hours or NM flown would I need to get to the point where the fuel savings outweigh the additional interest in the purchase price. Try to sell me your option for the aircraft based on facts, not on religion.
Flyer59 wrote:
I know what you mean, and agree, but the “church” remark is not neverssary to get your point through
The church-remark was mine, not Peters. But I share his view, arguments that seem to be against the aircraft or company are defined to be either defined of being of no importance, or irgnored completely. Subjective opinions are presented as hard facts if they favour the Cirrus, or are described to be irrelevant because of their subjective nature, if they happen to be negative about aircraft or company. This is, by all means, religious arguing. And too much of it, as well as too much repetition of the same mantra, does become boring in an aviation forum, that is why I can understand Peter’s dilemma when these discussions run for a considerable length, and I think he is doing a great job in finding a balance.
There is nothing wrong with loving the own aircraft, but it seems that certain types of Cirrus “drivers” are very reluctant to admit any of the shortcomings of their expensive bird. I get that. But it is only Cirrus-drivers who tell me that my taste is bogus because I don’t like the ship – even if it is clear that I wish them well and may they find 5000 Customers per year. I won’t argue of bad engineering, either, because it is solid in what they have accomplished. Still, I am under no obligation to like the plane.
Toilet owners will tell you privately that they really hope it doesn’t get used unless externally serviced (CJ4+) and then the passengers better be willing to pay the cost. On a light jet it will probably equal the fuel burnt, at some airports.
Toilets on anything smaller without a dedicated compartment at the back for them are a farce. Even on an aircraft with doors and a dedicated area like the Lear they stink the aircraft out and are a cramped, uncomfortable chemical toilet. They’re surely a non-starter for anything as small as the Cirrus Jet?
Like Jason, I find the optional status of the radar astonishing – the aircraft will be entirely useless without it. Some serious aftermarket support/training is going to be required too – radar use isn’t something one can teach in the sim and especially in the USA convective weather has a large chance of killing you (as a thunderstorm did Scott Crossfield for example.)
achimha wrote:
A TBM sales guy when asked for the toilet option told me in confidence he’d not get it but instead buy a camping loo and keep it in the baggage compartment behind the seats.
The difference being that the “original” solution is meant to be used in flight (and will be certified for it, I guess). I have a hard time imagining using a “camping loo” stowed in the baggage cave behind the seats while airborne – that is retrieving it, using it in the full six seat configuration and putting it back. I would probably remove the rear seats altogether to have more space for junk, which is what the Elite is about, so this would actually be more feasible.
@Peter The smallest jet with an externally serviceable unit is, I think, the Honda. Phenom 300 has it but 100, IIRC, does not.
@mh All very good points and will try to be more supportive with facts when making statements.
Some calculations of buying a new Cirrus Jet vs buying a new TBM 900 or M600. Given the $500,000 to $1.5 million difference in price, even if the Cirrus Jet burns 30GPH more fuel, it will take a hell of a lot of hours (circa 5,000 to 20,000) to hit breakeven. When you then add on the depreciation, it makes the difference even larger. Therefore, if we are talking about the “Total Cost of Ownership” which means purchase outlay plus operating costs, plus maintanence minus selling price, I think the math will really favor the Cirrus Jet. (2 hot inspections cost twice what one does)
Cirrus_Man wrote:
When you then add on the depreciation, it makes the difference even larger.
Only that you have no basis on which to determine the depreciation of a Cirrus Jet. If it’s like the Citation Mustang, then it looks pretty bleak for the Cirrus. On the other hand, we know that the TBM/PC12 have a spectacularly low depreciation. I wish they didn’t, I might be flying one already 
Cirrus_Man wrote:
When you then add on the depreciation, it makes the difference even larger.
And where are the facts you spoke of? Rate of depreciation is not the same. Consider TBM and Mustang. We have no data for the Cirrus, as I already wrote (and you conveniently ignored, it seems). When you are buying for cash, it certainly makes a difference whether you tie up two million or four, but that is not depreciation. And TCO is the name of the game where SETs crush METs and jets. Beating them at their own game won’t be easy.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
2 hot inspections cost twice what one does
Have you heard of trend monitoring and on-condition?
Martin wrote:
And where are the facts you spoke of? Rate of depreciation is not the same.
And I think one issue the aircraft will face is that the special offer price is the base price. They have ‘sold’ 550 aircraft at that. Why would anyone pay full retail? I expect depreciation starts at that. Of course they will depreciate, there is oversupply.
