It needs 1200 ft for take off and 2000 feet for landing.
If that is distance over 50ft, not ground roll, that would not be too bad (around 900-1000ft take-off ground roll and about the same for landing). If it is ground roll, it needs better brakes – stall speed is 57kt.
Cobalt wrote:
If it is ground roll, it needs better brakes – stall speed is 57kt.
“Take off distance” and “landing distance” according to the specs (don’t know what they actually mean by it). I think landing is special though. This is a jet with a small jet engine and approach speed is 80 knots (I think I have seen), probably to have enough momentum to do a go around if needed. The stall speed is probably far to the left on the drag curve. It has no airbrakes, spoilers or reverse thrust and the airframe is super smooth.
Distance typically means over a 50ft obstacle.
On landing, for certified aircraft these days the first 1000ft are at a 3 degree angle from 50ft to touch-down, and landing roll thereafter, so you can deduct 1000ft from landing distance to get the landing roll, give or take a few feet for the last bits of the flare.
A 1000ft / 300m ground roll from 57kt sounds about right.
Cobalt wrote:
Distance typically means over a 50ft obstacle.
It should, but sales people are known to “forget” that. I recall how, at AERO Friedrichshafen, Diamond prominently displayed ground roll figures as being take-off and landing distances for the DA40. When I asked whether these distances were actual take-off/landing distances or ground roll only, their representatives (well, salespeople) first pretended not to understand the distinction. (Well, maybe they really didn’t, which would have been really bad.) When I insisted there was much consternation and humming and eventually someone had to pull a performance diagram from the web and show me on a laptop!
Cobalt wrote:
On landing, for certified aircraft these days the first 1000ft are at a 3 degree angle from 50ft to touch-down, and landing roll thereafter, so you can deduct 1000ft from landing distance to get the landing roll, give or take a few feet for the last bits of the flare.
Are you sure this applies to light aircraft? And what does “these days” mean? I checked both the DA40 and C172. For the C172 the difference is 760 ft at MTOM, 0 ft and ISA. For the DA40 it is reasonably close to 1000 ft at MTOM, 0 ft and ISA but changes much with mass and/or altitude, e.g. at 200 kg below MTOM the difference is 705 ft.
For certification, FAR 23.75 (2) requires a 3 degree path from 50ft to landing, which can be lowered but that requires extra work and stuff in the POH.
I have no idea when that changed, but I made the same observation as you: “recent” aircraft all seem to have this baked into the POH, while older airframes vary quite a bit.
Very nice video
https://www.avweb.com/multimedia/kitplanes-video-subsonex-jet-flight/
A bit hard to see from the video what the take-off/landing ground roll/distances are, but numbers mentioned above may be a little optimistic?
A guy I know is building one of these, the single seat version, and is well along. His experience includes a short period of fame for pointing his F-14 in the right direction before punching out over a populated area at low altitude. I suppose it’s possible that may be a good pre-qualification 
He also has a lot of sailplane time, ditto.
I noticed the wheels, landing gear etc are very lightweight ultralight style stuff. It’s obviously not intended to be a ‘serious’ heavy duty plane.
He’ll keep his RV-8 as his main plane, the jet is a toy, as intended. Our main runaway is over 5000 ft long, so no issue there.
Cool video, I thought „I want one“, but the performance figures are similar to 300hp SEPs?! Maybe more fun to stick a jet to a glider?
