Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Cirrus Jet (combined thread)

I don’t have it, but i flew the Sim for a couple of hours. I would say a 900 m runway will be perfectly fine for private operations.

See post #1!

Forever learning
EGTB

Jets, even SE, require ASDA calculations? This would be the first non Annex 2/Permit single engine jet so assume this would apply, implying 900m might be on the tight side.

The table feels somewhat marketing inspired, you might find your budget for brakes has just gone up. Not sure how the reverse thrust plans to work, but given the design it may not be as effective as other business jets.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

My answers assume, Cirrus uses Part 23 for certification in normal category.

Jets, even SE, require ASDA calculations?

Only ME jets heavier than 6000lbs require it according to 14 CFR 23.55

Not sure how the reverse thrust plans to work, but given the design it may not be as effective as other business jets.

Well at least for the published distance, reverse is not allowed according to 14 CFR 23.75 so it might only help to reduce tear and wear onthe brakes. ;-)

Last Edited by TobiBS at 21 Aug 23:14
P19 EDFE EDVE EDDS

I believe this to be a reliable source, longstanding option holder: I understand certification will be complete in ten days.

They will quickly roll out upgrades presumably with RVSM being an early upgrade. The option value of the early reserves appears to be $500k plus.

They think through both the engineering and marketing so I think this is likely to be a successful type.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Now certified and deliveries starting in Dec. Apparently there is a video out there showing the SF50 deploying the chute… would love to see it.

EGKB

Nice Xmas present for some

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Off topic … Am i the only one confused when reading combined threads such as this one with 513 posts, but post numbering is out of sync? Hard to navigate (and order descending/ascending) and knowing where you are.

Jonas

ESOW Västerås, Sweden

The posts are still in the correct order. It is only the numbering which has gone wrong.

Also the page numbering is correct:

Unfortunately the loss of post numbers is a bug. These things are not trivial to fix if you want to preserve previously made links to particular posts.

As to why merge, I have been merging threads which

  • are on frequently appearing topics, and
  • have become repetitive, and
  • where the merging doesn’t overlap multiple threads in time i.e. I might merge one wholly in 2013 with one wholly in 2015

But I do this only if I can find the time because I don’t have a function for transferring a whole thread into another one.

A better way to do this would be for everyone to use the search function before starting a very similar thread.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Have deliveries started now? Looking foward to the first real pilot reports.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top