I hold an early delivery position for the Cirrus Jet and think it will be a wonderful aircraft and ideal as a step up for SR22 pilots.
As I have said before on this forum, I think it represents excellent value for money compared to all of the existing Turbo props.
However, it is not comparable really to the Honda Jet which is twice the money and quite a different proposition. I think the transition for me to the Cirrus Jet will be challenging but very doable and lots of fun. I would not consider buying a Honda Jet and then trying to get that type rating as it is just a leap too far and IMHO asking for trouble.
There are at least 20 early delivery positions for sale on Controller.com and I also believe these are good value since they allow you to secure an early delivery position at a discount of about 200k compared to buying a new position that comes with at least a 5 year wait.
Of course their is always risks with certification and delays are inevitable. Just look at how long it has taken Honda….at least 2 years behind schedule.
However, Cirrus and the Chinese owners have committed more than $100 million to get this bird certified and I would certainly bet that it happens this year so count me in for that bottle of champagne bet.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
I would not consider buying a Honda Jet
When comparing the two products in the same class (both cabin-class light jets) there are really five major data points – price, useful load, speed, fuel consumption and seating. Given the Honda Jet provides the same seating at 90kts more speed for nearly twice the fuel burn and at twice the price it makes one wonder why anyone would buy the Honda Jet.
You have no idea what you are talking about. RANGE and PAYLOAD is what an airplane needs. And that’s where the two airplanes cannot be compared.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
Just look at how long it has taken Honda….at least 2 years behind schedule.
So it will surprise no-one that Cirrus goes 2 or 3 years over their 2015 prediction for certification & delivery .
I would certainly bet that it happens this year so count me in for that bottle of champagne bet.
So that would be double down ? 
I think the big difference between these two Jets is first Payload, then range(obviously directly related), speed, altitude and cabin size.
It may seem strange to us but many entrepreneurs who use jets, really value speed and an extra 120kts will be a factor (300 for Cirrus and 420 for Honda)
I dont know the range and payload numbers for the Honda Jet but I am guessing that they will allow pilot plus 4 adults plus baggage travel 800+ miles on NBAA IFR reserve and the Cirrus will not be able to do that. It will for one or two passengers but not four.
Having said that, the Cirrus will be perfect for owner pilots like me who want to go for 700-800 miles at 300ktas in pressurised comfort with either:
Wife plus 3 small kids plus baggage
Wife plus another couple plus baggage
The performance envelope of the Cirrus will meet 95% of all the missions I have in mind so it is perfect for me and I think many turbo prop type of customers.
It will not have the short field performance of the Turbo Props or quite as good fuel efficiency but I think the overall proposition of the Cirrus will certainly take away a large chunk of that market….at least until Cirrus raises the price by 500k to 1 million.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
Wife plus 3 small kids plus baggage
Wife plus another couple plus baggage
Sad if you are not married. lol
Cirrus_Man wrote:
The performance envelope of the Cirrus will meet 95% of all the missions I have in mind
Do you know what those numbers are, for sure, guaranteed ?
What happens if, for instance, the Certified ceiling turns-out to be FL250 rather than FL280, and now your range and/or payload just shrank 10 – 15% ?
Flyer59 wrote:
RANGE and PAYLOAD
Range and fuel burn are synonymous (range as a function of fuel burn at true airspeed cruise). Payload = useful load. My analysis is correct and uses the proper terms.
The useful load is only the difference between gross weight and empty weight. To the empty weight you add the pilot and the fuel (that’s one way to do it), and what is left over is payload.
You do have a pilot’s licence, do you?
To the empty weight you add the pilot and the fuel (that’s one way to do it), and what is left over is payload.
Normally, the “payload” (in the GA context) is the MTOW minus the empty weight.
It has to be done that way, because the pilot could be anything from (realistically) 50kg to say 150kg.
So, the “payload” is what you have to squeeze all of
into.
Alternatively, one could talk about a “full fuel payload” which is MTOW minus (empty weight + weight of full fuel). You don’t see that one in Marketing data because it is usually not very good…
