what_next wrote:
You will get step climbs and early descents on almost every flight
When we are returning from places like Geneva inbound to Gamston (which is north of East Midlands), London have us descend to be level 40 miles before Biggin, then we fly on vectors until we pick up an East Midlands arrival via VELAG. Same issues into the Paris area.
I personally agree with WN, I do not think it’s the right thing for Europe.
Peter wrote:
…won’t have a JET and that matters.
It will matter, at least briefly. With similar calculations, some 30 to 20 years ago the manufacturers of light jets (with Cessna in the lead) were able to replace almost the entire twin turboprop fleet with jets. The CitationJet was developed as a “KingAir killer”, the advertising was 100 percent targeted at previous KingAir (and Cheyenne) owners and ultimately they succeeded. But the very light jets showed clearly that further downsizing does not work as expected. And I very seriously doubt that single-engine VLJs offer any advantage over twin VLJs (e.g. the Eclipse) which already don’t sell.
what_next wrote:
In real life this will not work out, especially on short(ish) legs.
You are right, that is why I think the max load/min fuel variant is totally useless. In practice, you get much longer routes (including SID/STAR) and as you said, step climbs and descents. It will be interesting to see how it works out in reality.
what_next wrote:
Additionally, the average wind speed at FL280 is over 50KT in this part of the world. On over 50% of your flights (crosswind always comes with a headwind component as well) this will reduce your speed. 242KTAS against 50KT of wind result in a ground speed of 192KT
Even with 300 kts it is quite bad.
In practice, the Jet will be ok for one or two people where the reserves are ample. That is how most SR22 are flown as well and it is meant as an upgrade to that. Of course, it also is the only jet with a shute if you get the fuel calcs wrong….
I reckon most new owners won’t fly it LRC but HSC and accept the range limits. In practice, you will end up with an operational range of maybe 800 NM for two people and max fuel at 300 kts. Which is not too shabby but comes at a very high price. As Neil said, you can get better airplanes for this money, albeit the cost of operation will be higher.
As for flying 2 people 1300 NM at 242 kts, even a Mooney Acclaim can do that and really at a fraction of the price.
In the end it will be the same thing we see often: Buying the Vision jet won’t be something people do out of a rational act but because they want to get the new thingy with the shute and finally stop their wifes nagging about the prop. And I am sure it will attract a followership, as much as many people wear particular brands which are of no use other than to look good for the social circles they circulate in.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Buying the Vision jet won’t be something people do out of a rational act but because they want to get the new thingy
And that is why ALL light aircraft are sold. Once you start to try and rationalise private aviation you are wasting your time, unless you can factor in the value of your enjoyment.
But I am happy to pay for my fun.
Neil wrote:
But I am happy to pay for my fun.
As long as there is some proportionality between the amount paid and the amount of fun gotten in return. Personally and theoretically of course (haven’t won the Euromillions jackpot yet) I do not expect this aircraft to return me 2M+€ worth of fun.
A fully loaded SR22 is about $1M already, and there is absolutely no comparison between a SE piston (which rattles, shakes, makes a huge amount of noise which needs €1000 headsets for everybody and ensures that you arrive quite knackered, and needs oxygen for nearly all practical distance flying) and a jet, in the quality of the whole experience. I’ve had some light jet rides… and have 2300hrs in a fairly upmarket SEP time, as well as in an SR22.
So I don’t think anybody who owns a new SR22 will think this jet is bad value for money.
What would concern me more, if I was in marketing this in Europe, would be what sort of TBM850 one can buy for the same money, because a TBM, even a 700 C2, will seriously outclass the Cirrus Jet on the European mission profile, and you are getting quite close to the smoothness of a jet.
But no $1M SR22 owner will consider a TBM or any turboprop. It’s just not going to be on the horizon, for a customer who paid $1M for a SEP. Yet that is exactly the target market for the Cirrus Jet. Obviously the target market is existing SR22 owners, to the maximum extent possible, but someone who just managed to find $200k for an SR22 won’t be buying the jet.
But, as they say, every plane, even an A380, is right for a given sort of route.
I expect it will be well received and used for short SR22 type flights 200-300nm.
I did two 700nm flights yesterday with two colleagues. Both had a headwind (of course). On way back it was 70 knots over the north sea from Denmark to LAM. Only climbing to FL400 from 380 got me out of it (down to 40 knots). The Cirrus is not going to be a great plane for that mission. Slower cruise speed means headwinds will hurt more and the long flight with a headwind is always the limiting case.
Will be a super quick way to get to Le Touquet though!
Peter wrote:
So I don’t think anybody who owns a new SR22 will think this jet is bad value for money.
I am not so sure. All SR22 owners I have talked to (or read from on the internet) are full of praise for their aeroplane. Most of them love it and it seems to deliver what they expect. Of course they will love the jet as well. But will they love it twice as much? Because that’s what’s going to happen: Every trip will cost double. And since an SR22 is already not cheap to oerate, this doubling of cost will add a considerable amount. Plus they will face operational restrictions they never knew existed: Places like my home base have a night flying ban for jets (prop operations are 24hours), the smaller airfields with noise sensitive environment will not welcome them as much as before, at 2,7 tons (or rather 3 tons if operated the way I think it will be) grass runways and grass parking will be difficult or impossible and so on.
Neil wrote:
And that is why ALL light aircraft are sold. Once you start to try and rationalise private aviation you are wasting your time, unless you can factor in the value of your enjoyment.
Well, some of us do have to justify their choice of airplane in front of other involved parties with a certain value vs cost factor. Clearly, in such a case, a new airplane is hardly ever considered and it may not be too stupid to actually ask some questions in that regard. If you can get the same or more for less money but just a tad less exorbitant satisfaction, then why not. I’ve always gone down this path with my car, house and also my airplane. Mind, if I had not, I might probably not have any of them.
In terms of cost, I’ve been advocating older, well kept and equipped airframes over new ones for a long time for people who live in the negative mantra of “airplanes are for the rich only”. QED: The Cirrus Jet can do the same for two people than a Mooney Acclaim does, fly two individuals for 1200 NM at 240 knots. Guess which one is chepaer to fly and keep… But then again, if it’s a Jet the client is after, he might be better off with the Cirrus.
Peter wrote:
So I don’t think anybody who owns a new SR22 will think this jet is bad value for money.
What Cirrus is aiming for are the same people who will go for a 500k upwards new airplane because it is hip, not the bang for buck crowd, who almost all fly second hand older SEP’s. They have been excellent in marketing all these years and have hyped up the Jet very skillfully within the upper classes of the Cirrus crowd, so they will get the same effect to a degree that other established makes get once their clientele is hooked on a particular brand. Cirrus has the image of being the only modern high performance airplane in current production and that it is the safest form of flying because of it’s parashute. They have cultivated that very successfully and will do the same for the Jet. Those who have upgraded regularly from the original SR22 to the latest SR22T G5 will like to up their bid and go for the jet if they can afford it.
Peter wrote:
What would concern me more, if I was in marketing this in Europe, would be what sort of TBM850 one can buy for the same money, because a TBM, even a 700 C2, will seriously outclass the Cirrus Jet on the European mission profile, and you are getting quite close to the smoothness of a jet.
It will do that and it will do much more, but it is not the “jet” feel some people think is the bees knees. Even an older Citation 501 SP will do better and is much more of an airplane and still a jet.
And that is the question I’d ask myself if I had this kind of cash… if I’d pick up a 300k € Citation 1 in good shape and well equipped, how much flying time would the difference of, oh, 2 million or so, buy me before it became more expensive? (Actually, my personal version of plane porn is a FJ44 powered Citation 501SP like this one http://www.sijet.com/download/Sierra_N506TF_webbrochure0312.pdf?inline which is a much more capable airplane, but again, that is a matter of taste)
what_next wrote:
Plus they will face operational restrictions they never knew existed: Places like my home base have a night flying ban for jets (prop operations are 24hours), the smaller airfields with noise sensitive environment will not welcome them as much as before, at 2,7 tons (or rather 3 tons if operated the way I think it will be) grass runways and grass parking will be difficult or impossible and so on.
With the figures I’ve seen, it will need a pretty long runway to operate, realistically speaking it is not suitable for runways below about 1km lenght. The sales brochure sais it needs close to 700 m ground run and 980 m over 15 ft and it will need 500 m ground run when landing (which means probably around 800 m over 15 ft) so this is not an airplane to fly out of places like Wangen Lachen or Birrfeld, even though it probably can handle Mengen or Grenchen. Here I see a problem coming: If the former SR22 folks will find out that their homebases are unsuitable and their former 100$ burger joints are out of reach but then will try anyway? Might end up in a right mess if they do. Grass? It would need even more than 1000 m for that I suppose to be viable.
What the prospective owners must know is that this is not an SR22 on stereoids but a totally new class of airplane for them. If they forget (or pink glasses overlook) it, then we might see some spectacular fails coming up.
