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?
I see the problem also. So, my friend, with his out of the box SR22GTX, the purpose built hanger at his home airfield, which has………..810m tarmac. Whoops. All he has been talking about is his new jet. Cirrus have him on speed dial. Not sure he has even asked the question, So Mr Cirrus agent, what are the take off specs. I decided to keep my mouth shut. Let him find out from Cirrus.
Once you have mastered the Collins Proline avionics, you are ready for anything 
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
Not just those. Forget Zell am See and a whole pile of other useful places for European GA flying.
Grass? It would need even more than 1000 m for that I suppose to be viable.
Yesterday I saw a plane half covered in sh*it. with a 1cm thick layer on the elevator. It was a syndicate one and one member took it to a grass runway after it had been raining. They were paying a pro to clean it. The inside was a muddy mess too. Admittedly an owner should be more careful but you can’t control the passengers. So I just don’t see grass being even in the equation, except in exceptional circumstances. There are videos of Citations on grass but somebody owns the grass and spends serious money on it.
For the avoidance of any doubt: following actions by a former resident here, I got banned from the public section of COPA (used to post mainly trip writeups there) but I don’t feel I have any axe to grind either way on this. But I am sure the jet will be a success in the USA.
I see the problem also. So, my friend, with his out of the box SR22GTX, the purpose built hanger at his home airfield, which has………..810m tarmac. Whoops. All he has been talking about is his new jet. Cirrus have him on speed dial. Not sure he has even asked the question, So Mr Cirrus agent, what are the take off specs. I decided to keep my mouth shut. Let him find out from Cirrus.
One would think that the customers can work this out, surely?
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.
I think there is a big difference between $250k SR22 owners (who probably had “only” a few hundred k) and $1M SR22 owners (who probably had well above 1M, especially as a significant % of them change their plane every year or two). The “market” is the latter group.
Peter wrote:
One would think that the customers can work this out, surely?
It would surprise you. There are some people who are blinded by the light. I was talking to a guy, who wanted to put a Cirrus, on a grass strip, of 550m. The Cirrus agent/sales person had told him it would not be an issue. He had put a deposit down on the hull, and then came and asked us about operating it from a short grass strip. He took some convincing that it may not work out, and he was not a newbee.
This, ‘friend’, of mine, has convinced his son that the new jet is on its way. Just look at todays Columbian tragedy, and still commercial ops attempt the impossible.
Peter wrote:
One would think that the customers can work this out, surely?
No. Kick the tyres, light the fire. The more money they have, the more they just expect things to “work”.
BeechBaby wrote:
Just look at todays Columbian tragedy, and still commercial ops attempt the impossible.
It works 99 times out of 100, as can be seen from different other videos of take-offs by the same plane where it just made it over the fence. The same will be true for Cirrus Jets operated out of 550m grass strips. I bet we will see a lot of those in the future as well.
It is quite a long takeoff roll. The Mustang is similar in required length at MTOW but this is generally driven by a combination of accelerate stop, one engine out accelerate go and 115% of multi engine distance needed to get to 35ft. Ignoring obstacle effect in departure path.
It is the first two that drive the long distance. For the Cirrus Jet it can only be either the factored run needed for a normal takeoff or accelerate to rotation speed then stop on remaining runway assuming an aborted takeoff. But based on the specs it seems it is the former.
Much better fuel economy, much cheaper to buy and maintain, and an extra seat. But service ceiling, cruise speed, range, and rate-of-climb are abysmal compared to the SR71.
BeechBaby wrote:
I see the problem also. So, my friend, with his out of the box SR22GTX, the purpose built hanger at his home airfield, which has………..810m tarmac. Whoops. All he has been talking about is his new jet. Cirrus have him on speed dial. Not sure he has even asked the question, So Mr Cirrus agent, what are the take off specs. I decided to keep my mouth shut. Let him find out from Cirrus.
Beech bonanza v35
BeechBaby
Fly safe. I want this thing to land l…
EGPF Glasgow
810m should be enough for most ops, given that they do give a ground roll of roughly 680m at MTOW. He will probably be runway limited and better find out on a longer runway as well as use every ft of tarmac when lining up…
For landing Cirrus claims 500 m, which gives a 300 m reserve to this strip. So also that should be enough, provided he knows how to put it on the numbers.
I’d say 1km is comfortable and realistic, anything less will require proper calculation every time.
Hopefully there are not too many obstacles in the way….
The tragedy in Columbia today apparently was an accident waiting to happen. just check this place and the airline out on youtube, you’ll find quite a few take offs which are similar. This time, the stats caught up with them and apparently they hit the fence causing a leak from one of the wings, which finally doomed the plane. What I at first did not get is that he actually did get airborne but crashed about 3 minutes after take off while trying to come back.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
810m should be enough for most ops, given that they do give a ground roll of roughly 680m at MTOW.
130m to stop in case the engine swallows a seagull at rotation speed would be too close for my personal comfort. Proper accelerate-stop distances for this aircraft will look more like 1200 or 1300m I guess.
what_next:
simple, no?
