I hope they sell millions of it, but the plane makes very little sense economically. I also happen to think it’s ugly – like a bulbous sperm getting pushed through the air. But I won’t hold that against it as a lot of people like the looks of it. In the end it’s a jet and a jet will always capture the hearts of many. But I think the CirrusJet will mostly find buyers that are pretty new to aviation. My bet is you’ll see a lot of direct entry pilots in this. People that have a lot of playboy money, probably. For them it’s a bit like buying a Ferrari – a fun thing they can take on weekend trips. I think people who actually need a plane for business, and where they pay their own bills, will probably go for something else. Probably a turboprop.
There’s also the possibility that some businesses might actually lose clients if they turn up in something that seems too frivolous. A “propeller plane” seems less egregious and more frugal, and can perhaps be accepted. Entirely dependent on your business and customers, of course. If you’re a hedge fund manager and turn up in anything but a jet, then you’re a failure. But in that case the CirrusJet wouldn’t do either – a G650 would have to be the ticket.
Well, I think it really depends how you look at it. No, the SF50 is definitely not a classic beauty like the C-510 or a C-303 or stuff like that … But taste in cars, airplanes and other technical things changes over time and is influenced strongly by the quality and functionality. So our perception on the design of the Cirrus Jet might change. I personally don’t find it “beautiful”, but I am sure that if I had one and flew it and if I was convinced about its qualities this would change.
@ Adam
Why is a jet that flies FL280 with 300 KTAS considered a “toy” when nobody would say that about a Piper Meridian for example that’s in the same price category but has lower performance, and no CAPS system. I think: it will be a good family airplane like for central Europe. Propbably very easy to fly as an upgrade to a SR22, and it can land on all but the smallest airports. What’s so wrong about that concept/idea?
Flyer59 wrote:
Propbably very easy to fly as an upgrade to a SR22
Except you will need a type rating and will be regulated under Part NCC.
Jason,
you know that better – but how expensive can the type rating be, how long can it take? You think that’s a big deal?
Part NCC:
What types of aircraft are affected?
All aircraft heavier than 5,700kg, or equipped with more than 19 seats, or equipped with more than one jet or turboprop engine must comply with Part-NCC. All helicopters heavier than 3,175kg, or equipped with more than nine seats, or with a minimum crew of at least two, must also be compliant with Part-NCC.
So it’s not affected? MTOM is 6040 lb
? MTOM 6040lb corresponds to 2740kg – however part NCC should read:
equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine
so one turbojet engine is sufficient to put it under the NCC regime
Flyer59 wrote:
Jason,
you know that better – but how expensive can the type rating be, how long can it take? You think that’s a big deal?
Yes although I assume Cirrus will set something up. Mine took 12 days to get full-time. An annual check ride which will normally need to be preceded by some training. And yes the twin engine restriction does not apply to turbojet powered aircraft so NCC will apply.
I see,.. you are right. The website where I read about Part NCC had it all wrong.
Cirrus_Man wrote:
Who will pay half a million more for an Eclipse or a Meridien or $1 million++ more for a TBM when these small beautiful jets are available?
As I’m sure was written already, single turboprops don’t compete directly. As is evidenced by quite high prices of used ones.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as the proverb goes. Decent paint job will help but, for me, it’s far from beautiful.
Flyer59 wrote:
But taste in cars, airplanes and other technical things changes over time and is influenced strongly by the quality and functionality.
Yes, tastes change. But looking back, beautiful cars of the past are still beautiful. In some ways even more so than current production beauties because everything has to be practical, safe, frugal etc. And sporty, I can’t forget that; even vans have to be sporty. 
Why is a jet that flies FL280 with 300 KTAS considered a “toy” when nobody would say that about a Piper Meridian for example
I don’t think Adam called it a toy. At least in his last post. With jets, sky is the limit. And this doesn’t exactly look like a scaled down Gulfstream. The performance is nothing to write home about either. Couldn’t they have done it with a turboprop? (Of course they could have.) For a turbofan to make sense, you have to fly high, which means long distances, and preferably fast, so the more economical (in running costs) turboprops can’t keep up. Otherwise you have turbofan just for its own sake. And that kind of money can buy you more capable jets, if it is a jet you want. Granted, not new, so apples and oranges, but not exactly tired, forty year old machines either.
Meridian might be on the lower end of SET world, but the top dog (PC-12) is not that far away and has a different mission. You basically get all the nice things that come with the Mirage, but with an engine better suited for the job. It’s not for free and you have a choice. I don’t think anyone would call the Mirage a toy (in the SEP world). M600 looks nice (range-wise pretty much catches up with Mirage), however I think they pushed the price just too far.
PS: There certainly are people, who consider all these planes toys. And so do I, for that matter, just in a different sense. 
