Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Cirrus Jet (combined thread)

90 percent of all missions you could fly with 300 knots and a full cabin, that is the point. And since there is no airplane that can do it all, I see no problem. If you needed the range twice a year you’d fly slower.
I like that :-)

Last Edited by Flyer59 at 17 Nov 17:32

@Flyer59 So what’s the range when flying “flat-out” (or at 270 knots)? I’m not interested in flying with full cabin (unless it’s the four seat version, then it would be acceptable), how about two up with baggage (50 kg per person, say)?

Sorry, i don’t have that data, but maybe Cirrus_Man does? Should be released soon …

Flat out is 300 ktas and it should be about 800nm (includes IFR Alternate reserves)

Cirrus has not released the final data yet but they have indicated that these prelim design numbers will be hit.

They have however just announced today that first deliveries will be in first half 2016 instead of the end of this year.

Also released an amazing video of a vision flight by chief pilot. I will try to post later

EGKB Biggin Hill London

So it is slower than the TBM and does only a little more than half the range? and that is before we payload data….

I can listen to mission profile data up until a limit: I like good margins on top a typical mission requirements. (A parachute will not cut it to replace these)

I would want to wait until I see confirmed data from a fully certified product and perhaps even flying a delivered aircraft before making a judgment.

EGKB LFQQ EBAW

You forgot that it consumes more fuel than the TBM and is considered to be a Complex aircraft under EASA.

It is planned to be cheaper than a TBM though but that might be unrealistic.

It may be short on range and payload, but at half the price of a TBM, it’s a great offer.
Some customers won’t mind the extra fuel stop even with a 100 EUR landing fee. They just saved $2M over a TBM!
And it’s a jet! Very important :)

By the way, POH for extra 330SC says 180 knots at 2000 ft.

LPFR, Poland

Does it actually cost half as much as a TBM to manufacture? The two turbofans should cost more than double of the PT6 turbine. The TBM is a very classic construction, nothing special about it, produced with the same materials and technique as decades ago (now with a few carbon parts like cowling).

I fear Cirrus are too optimistic about the production cost and depreciation of their investment. Like Eclipse.

I think once they have more experience the SF50 should be easier to make. While the TBM is a classic construction it must be three times as many parts … and so many thousand rivets, my guess is is that it takes much longer to make a TBM.

The SF50 will be around $ 2.25M in Europe, AFAIK

It doesn’t seem that the Cirrus SR22 is cheaper to produce than sheet metal/rivet airplanes.

I do believe though that Socata charge an excessive price for the TBM, benefiting from the fact that they have zero competition.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top