Cirrus Jet (combined thread)

Yes, tastes change. But looking back, beautiful cars of the past are still beautiful.

I don’t think that’s really true always. In general design has made big steps just like technology. Yes, many of those cars from the 70s, for example, are “classics” today. Many others are just old. even some I dreamed of in the 80s,… many of them I wouldn’t want today.

I don’t think there’s a “V1” for a single engine jet, is there?

Flyer59 wrote:

I don’t think there’s a “V1” for a single engine jet, is there?

What Peter wrote is not literally precise, but the idea is pretty much the same. The actual requirement will be to calculate with the accelerate-stop distance, IIRC. That should be provided and will be, I assume, in this case determined for Vr. So you would need enough runway to accelerate to Vr and stop. This (definition of complex, runway requirements) was already discussed here, in this thread.

I don’t think that’s really true always.

Maybe. I might be just too picky. I can’t look 40 years into the past and judge if I still consider the same things beautiful as I wasn’t around back then. I’ll have to wait and see.

Yes, accelerate-stop-distance should be right, I understand that.

Martin wrote:

What Peter wrote is not literally precise, but the idea is pretty much the same. The actual requirement will be to calculate with the accelerate-stop distance, IIRC.

Well yes as discussed earlier in this thread there can’t be a decision speed V1 as if you lose an engine you have no choice but to stop however under NCC the aircraft will presumably be limited by Accelerate-Stop Distance at Vr or similar to allow stopping on the remaining runway if still on the ground.

Just a word on “balanced field”… There isn’t a single definitive V1 if the runway is longer than required.

• There is the absolute lower limit, which is driven by the “accelerate-go” requirement to achieve 35ft and V2 at the end of the runway (or clearway) with one engine out
• There is the absolute upper limit, which is driven by the “accelerate-stop” requirement to not go into the grass at the end of the runway (or stopway) when aborting.
• There are also other considerations (Vr, Vmcg, brake energy limits, tyre limits, and plain common sense as it makes little sense to continue a one-engine take-off from 35kt just because you have a 4,500m runway and you can).

The “balanced V1” is that speed where the runway required for both accelerate-go and accelerate-stop distance is the same. The “balanced field length required” is the minimum runway length that you need for a departure (or abort). Any slower or faster than the balanced V1 means that you need a longer runway, so this is the V1 that gives you the shortest runway requirement for a given weight, altitude an temperature.

So the jet performance tables basically say "at 17,500 lbs, 1000ft and 10 degrees and with no wind, you need 2,880ft runway and you have to use a V1=87 kt, Vr=92kt and V2 of 105kt. In most cases, this is the balanced field value since this gives the shortest overall runway length, although other considerations can mean that accelerate-stop or accelerate-go are limiting

Just for fun – here is one block from literally hundreds of performance pages for a Citation XLS

I wanted to add – the whole concept makes NO sense for an aircraft that cannot take off with one engine out, single OR twin.

Thankfully, EASA has seen a bit of light and is currently not implementing part-NCC (and hence the accelerate-stop requirements) for twin turboprops.

Certified single engine jets are new. A sensible regulator would adjust the operating rules accordingly. Let’s see…

Cobalt presumably ASDA also is not been implemented for Class B aircraft in general? SEP, MEP and SET?

I thought I had been corrected, correctly, and have been trying to figure out why European approved flight manuals for, say MEP, and operations manuals did not have ASDA. Was not sure if they were this way being pre EASA, or they needed updating. Then I spotted an ASDA for the PC12-NG using Vs + 10% as decision speed, which made me think it was a requirement. Finally the ATP books for the exams refer to ASDA for Class B, with a 1.3x public transport safety factor.

The ASDA in the POH would be for the FAA requirement for multi engine.

If ASDA is required, would you use the POH (usually with a low abort speed), or would you add TORR to LDR, which results in quite conservative numbers requiring an ILS type runway for most MEPs!

Cirrus has announced that each buyer will have a 10 to 14 day type rating training course included with delivery of the Vision Jet.

They have contracted with CAE to build a $9 million full motion sim. It even has an FAA reg number.

They are building a new customer fulfillment center in Knoxville and all deliveries of new aircraft will take place there.

Seating options are variable with up to 7 seats. Back two side seats are for children.

Having sat in the mockup and in the demo aircraft, the feeling is of a huge amount of space compared to the TBM or Meridien or Eclipse.

The windows are very large so the views outside are spectacular.