Dear Santa, I want one of these!
Thread Starter
Dear Santa, I want one of these!
Cirrus unveils single-engine personal jet
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 49
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scooter,
Thats a good question. We all better ask the same question as i have just come to the stark realization that we will not be recieving one from Sanata for christmas. He doesn't exist!!!! if he does I cant make the numbers addd up......look.
There are approximately two billion children in the world (under 18). However since santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu Jewish or Buddist religions, this reduces the workload on Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million. At an average global census rate of 3.5 children per household, that comes to 108 million homes.
Santa has about 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the rotation of the earth and different time zones. Presuming that there is at least one good child in each home this works out at 967.7 visits per second. This is to say that for each household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000th of a second to:
The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each good child gets at most a medium sized lego set of 2lbs, the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself - who is by all accounts a rather portly gent.
On land a Mk1 Reindeer can pull no more than 300lbs. Even granting that the 'flying reindeer' could pull ten times the normal amount, the job cannot be done with eight or nine or even ten of them - Santa would require 360,000 of them! this increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, by another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth 2 ( the ship, not the monarch).
Around 600,000 tonnes traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this would heat up the reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the Earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of Reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating ear deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire Reindeer team would be vaporized in 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip.
Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accelerating from a dead stop to 650 miles per second in 0.001 second, would be subjected to centrifugal forces of 17,500g's. A 250lb Santa (which seem ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015lbs of force, instantaneously crushing bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo!!
Thats a good question. We all better ask the same question as i have just come to the stark realization that we will not be recieving one from Sanata for christmas. He doesn't exist!!!! if he does I cant make the numbers addd up......look.
There are approximately two billion children in the world (under 18). However since santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu Jewish or Buddist religions, this reduces the workload on Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million. At an average global census rate of 3.5 children per household, that comes to 108 million homes.
Santa has about 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the rotation of the earth and different time zones. Presuming that there is at least one good child in each home this works out at 967.7 visits per second. This is to say that for each household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000th of a second to:
- Park the sleigh
- Hop out
- Distribute presents
- Eat whatever snaks have been left for him
- Take the carrot left for Rudolf and his pals back up the chimney
- Jump back on the sleigh and get on to the next house
The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each good child gets at most a medium sized lego set of 2lbs, the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself - who is by all accounts a rather portly gent.
On land a Mk1 Reindeer can pull no more than 300lbs. Even granting that the 'flying reindeer' could pull ten times the normal amount, the job cannot be done with eight or nine or even ten of them - Santa would require 360,000 of them! this increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, by another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth 2 ( the ship, not the monarch).
Around 600,000 tonnes traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this would heat up the reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the Earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of Reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating ear deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire Reindeer team would be vaporized in 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip.
Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accelerating from a dead stop to 650 miles per second in 0.001 second, would be subjected to centrifugal forces of 17,500g's. A 250lb Santa (which seem ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015lbs of force, instantaneously crushing bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo!!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus Jet to land on grass ?
Cirrus jet landing on grass ? And having no gauge backup instruments ???
Cirrus Unveils Seven-Place Personal Jet
By Russ Niles, Contributing Editor
Cirrus Design unveiled the mockup of its single-engine V-tail jet, with seating for up to seven people, at a media reception at its Duluth, Minn. headquarters on Thursday. The aerodynamically sculptured design includes a variety of innovations that will definitely make it stand out on any ramp, but its striking looks are a side benefit of some practical design, according to Cirrus CEO Alan Klapmeier. "We didn't do it just to make it look cool," Klapmeier told AVweb. "We wanted people to know that there are sound reasons behind the design." Cirrus designers opted to mount the engine on top of the fuselage for easy access, fire and turbine blade containment and for easy load balancing. The V-tail makes way for the thrust from the Williams FJ33 turbofan, which is expected to push the aircraft to about 300 knots. The engine is also mounted flush with the 20-degree slope of the aircraft's back and the thrust is vectored to point it in the right direction. Big straight wings with large control surfaces will make the aircraft easy to fly, says Klapmeier. The placement of the engine caused a design dilemma. It occupies space normally taken by the whole-airplane parachute that is standard on all Cirrus piston airplanes. In the jet, the chute is in the nose and the straps tear up through the center division of the windshield, which will undoubtedly make pulling that handle even more memorable. The aircraft also sports substantial winglets, which will enhance aileron authority at slow speeds and boost fuel efficiency.
Comfort, Convenience Key To Cirrus Jet's Cabin Design
Although the-jet by Cirrus is comparable in size to many four- and five-place jets, the cabin will actually hold up to seven people in admittedly close, but still relatively comfortable, quarters. In normal configuration, the plane is configured for five passengers, with a unique rear seat that allows the middle passenger to slide back about 12 inches so that all three in the back have plenty of elbow room. If the whole family is headed out, there is room for two more (kids or small adults) behind the three-abreast rear seat. Another unusual feature is full-sized doors on each side that allow walk-aboard access. Klapmeier said he hates having to climb over and between seats to get on an aircraft and the two-door configuration eliminates that. Because of the design, six-footers in the back seat have plenty of room to stretch out with the seats reclined. Although the final design of the cockpit hasn't been determined, there's the typical automotive feel to the front-seat area that is a feature of Cirrus piston products. The mockup seems to emphasize that this is a single-pilot aircraft by clustering the instruments toward the left side and a full glass panel will be standard (vendor not yet named). Sidesticks move the control surfaces and the rudder pedals are big enough for a basketball player's feet.
What We Don't Know About The Cirrus Jet
Cirrus has kept its jet project mostly under wraps for almost five years and there are still a lot of questions. Klapmeier declined to discuss the timeline, the cost or detail the projected performance of the jet, mostly because he said he didn't know. He said they're still hoping to produce the jet for around $1 million, but the other variables will affect the final figure. Naturally, with seven people aboard, the plane won't go as far or as fast when only one person is on board, but that, he says, is the beauty of the design. "It's all about flexibility," he emphasized. If the typical use of Cirrus' piston products is any guide, much of the-jet's time will be spent carrying one or two people, just like most SUVs rarely qualify for the high occupancy lane on the freeway. Although not detailed at the news briefing, the kind of utility that the company is demanding from the aircraft will likely require known icing capability and the ability to land on short fields. Klapmeier told the crowd on Thursday that he wants to be able to land on grass strips, and he didn't appear to be kidding. So far, reaction to the design has been positive, according to position holders AVweb spoke with. Cirrus jet position holder Wyn Lewis said the innovation and thoughtful design made him more anxious than ever to get his airplane.
http://www.the-jet.com/
Cirrus Unveils Seven-Place Personal Jet
By Russ Niles, Contributing Editor
Cirrus Design unveiled the mockup of its single-engine V-tail jet, with seating for up to seven people, at a media reception at its Duluth, Minn. headquarters on Thursday. The aerodynamically sculptured design includes a variety of innovations that will definitely make it stand out on any ramp, but its striking looks are a side benefit of some practical design, according to Cirrus CEO Alan Klapmeier. "We didn't do it just to make it look cool," Klapmeier told AVweb. "We wanted people to know that there are sound reasons behind the design." Cirrus designers opted to mount the engine on top of the fuselage for easy access, fire and turbine blade containment and for easy load balancing. The V-tail makes way for the thrust from the Williams FJ33 turbofan, which is expected to push the aircraft to about 300 knots. The engine is also mounted flush with the 20-degree slope of the aircraft's back and the thrust is vectored to point it in the right direction. Big straight wings with large control surfaces will make the aircraft easy to fly, says Klapmeier. The placement of the engine caused a design dilemma. It occupies space normally taken by the whole-airplane parachute that is standard on all Cirrus piston airplanes. In the jet, the chute is in the nose and the straps tear up through the center division of the windshield, which will undoubtedly make pulling that handle even more memorable. The aircraft also sports substantial winglets, which will enhance aileron authority at slow speeds and boost fuel efficiency.
Comfort, Convenience Key To Cirrus Jet's Cabin Design
Although the-jet by Cirrus is comparable in size to many four- and five-place jets, the cabin will actually hold up to seven people in admittedly close, but still relatively comfortable, quarters. In normal configuration, the plane is configured for five passengers, with a unique rear seat that allows the middle passenger to slide back about 12 inches so that all three in the back have plenty of elbow room. If the whole family is headed out, there is room for two more (kids or small adults) behind the three-abreast rear seat. Another unusual feature is full-sized doors on each side that allow walk-aboard access. Klapmeier said he hates having to climb over and between seats to get on an aircraft and the two-door configuration eliminates that. Because of the design, six-footers in the back seat have plenty of room to stretch out with the seats reclined. Although the final design of the cockpit hasn't been determined, there's the typical automotive feel to the front-seat area that is a feature of Cirrus piston products. The mockup seems to emphasize that this is a single-pilot aircraft by clustering the instruments toward the left side and a full glass panel will be standard (vendor not yet named). Sidesticks move the control surfaces and the rudder pedals are big enough for a basketball player's feet.
What We Don't Know About The Cirrus Jet
Cirrus has kept its jet project mostly under wraps for almost five years and there are still a lot of questions. Klapmeier declined to discuss the timeline, the cost or detail the projected performance of the jet, mostly because he said he didn't know. He said they're still hoping to produce the jet for around $1 million, but the other variables will affect the final figure. Naturally, with seven people aboard, the plane won't go as far or as fast when only one person is on board, but that, he says, is the beauty of the design. "It's all about flexibility," he emphasized. If the typical use of Cirrus' piston products is any guide, much of the-jet's time will be spent carrying one or two people, just like most SUVs rarely qualify for the high occupancy lane on the freeway. Although not detailed at the news briefing, the kind of utility that the company is demanding from the aircraft will likely require known icing capability and the ability to land on short fields. Klapmeier told the crowd on Thursday that he wants to be able to land on grass strips, and he didn't appear to be kidding. So far, reaction to the design has been positive, according to position holders AVweb spoke with. Cirrus jet position holder Wyn Lewis said the innovation and thoughtful design made him more anxious than ever to get his airplane.
http://www.the-jet.com/
No thanks, Santa!
Is it wrong not to lust after one of these? I just don't see the point?
I think that flying should be more about the travelling than the getting there.
The only way to make something like that economic (and with a decent range) is to fly at stratospheric flight levels, where you get to see nowt. It becomes nothing more than the utility value of getting from A to B efficiently. At this point, do you really care if you fly (personal jet - remember) or you pay someone else to fly you? If someone came up with the Teleporter, would you trade your personal jet in on one?
If it doesn't have bubble canopy vis and aerobatic capability, it doesn't push my aviation buttons, I'm afraid.
sorry Santa!
I think that flying should be more about the travelling than the getting there.
The only way to make something like that economic (and with a decent range) is to fly at stratospheric flight levels, where you get to see nowt. It becomes nothing more than the utility value of getting from A to B efficiently. At this point, do you really care if you fly (personal jet - remember) or you pay someone else to fly you? If someone came up with the Teleporter, would you trade your personal jet in on one?
If it doesn't have bubble canopy vis and aerobatic capability, it doesn't push my aviation buttons, I'm afraid.
sorry Santa!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Perth
Age: 36
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"why the forked tail??"
from the photo it's got a jet mounted on the roof, kinda gets in the way, and the tail isn't big enough to mount it in the tail...
the cockpit looks fantastic, very spacey
from the photo it's got a jet mounted on the roof, kinda gets in the way, and the tail isn't big enough to mount it in the tail...
the cockpit looks fantastic, very spacey
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I'd prefer one of these...
http://www.pal-v.com/
That trip via the M25 would never be the same again! (Although beware the cyclists heads in the vicinity when opening her up!?!)
http://www.pal-v.com/
That trip via the M25 would never be the same again! (Although beware the cyclists heads in the vicinity when opening her up!?!)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-tail = extra speed.
With a T-tail, you have 3 big things sticking out into the airflow. 2 of which do something useful; the 3rd just gives you yaw stability.
With a V-tail, you lose the 3rd one. You also get less yaw stability, but with a plane in this class (price) you will have a yaw damper anyway.
I don't know how much extra speed this is worth but it will be a LOT. Looking in my TB20 POH, each antenna is worth about 0.5kt, and I have about half a dozen of VHF, UHF etc ones sticking out. The vertical stabiliser is vastly bigger and must be worth 10-20kt - at 150kt. At 300kt (TAS) the stabiliser must be costing many more knots.
I would have a rough stab around the 30kt mark, and that is a helluva lot on a sales brochure which is trying to draw in a few hundred position holders, each paying a big enough bundle to buy an SR22
With a T-tail, you have 3 big things sticking out into the airflow. 2 of which do something useful; the 3rd just gives you yaw stability.
With a V-tail, you lose the 3rd one. You also get less yaw stability, but with a plane in this class (price) you will have a yaw damper anyway.
I don't know how much extra speed this is worth but it will be a LOT. Looking in my TB20 POH, each antenna is worth about 0.5kt, and I have about half a dozen of VHF, UHF etc ones sticking out. The vertical stabiliser is vastly bigger and must be worth 10-20kt - at 150kt. At 300kt (TAS) the stabiliser must be costing many more knots.
I would have a rough stab around the 30kt mark, and that is a helluva lot on a sales brochure which is trying to draw in a few hundred position holders, each paying a big enough bundle to buy an SR22
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the Eclipse still in a similar price bracket? If so, why would anyone opt for a single engine jet, over a twin engine jet?
I appreciate that the operating costs of a twin will probably be higher, but would that really be a major factor at this level?
dp
I appreciate that the operating costs of a twin will probably be higher, but would that really be a major factor at this level?
dp
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the marketing case for the Eclipse hangs heavily on it being able to get routings at FL300+. Below that, it loses a lot of TAS (obviously) and the figures don't look half as good.
However, the indications are that ATC will not give the routings to a plane that flies significantly slower than big passenger jets but at the same levels, and that this will be the case in the USA as well as Europe.
There is a significant market for a jet which can operate efficiently in the "great void" which exists between the base of usable IFR airspace (typically, in Europe, useful Eurocontrol routings start at FL070 and start to get interesting at FL130) and about FL290. This is what Diamond are squarely aiming for, and I guess Cirrus is doing something similar. There is virtually no traffic there - you can fly say 700nm at FL150-200 and not see another plane.
Also, you need RVSM above FL290 (I think) and that adds a few hundred k £ to the cost of a plane (don't ask me why; it's obviously a ripoff).
This is where turboprops score. They like FL250, which gets you above most weather, and currently a prop delivers better MPG than a jet at those levels. A jet doesn't get better until you get to FL300+ and benefit from the extra TAS.
Perhaps somebody who is looking at light jets seriously can input.
However, the indications are that ATC will not give the routings to a plane that flies significantly slower than big passenger jets but at the same levels, and that this will be the case in the USA as well as Europe.
There is a significant market for a jet which can operate efficiently in the "great void" which exists between the base of usable IFR airspace (typically, in Europe, useful Eurocontrol routings start at FL070 and start to get interesting at FL130) and about FL290. This is what Diamond are squarely aiming for, and I guess Cirrus is doing something similar. There is virtually no traffic there - you can fly say 700nm at FL150-200 and not see another plane.
Also, you need RVSM above FL290 (I think) and that adds a few hundred k £ to the cost of a plane (don't ask me why; it's obviously a ripoff).
This is where turboprops score. They like FL250, which gets you above most weather, and currently a prop delivers better MPG than a jet at those levels. A jet doesn't get better until you get to FL300+ and benefit from the extra TAS.
Perhaps somebody who is looking at light jets seriously can input.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What puzzles me about these aircraft and their wealthy buyers is the level of qualification and maintenance of said licences required. What quals do you need to fly one single pilot? Presumably their usp is 'high and fast', don't you have to be highly qualified for that, or am I mistaken?
Just how many of the buyers have and can maintain such ratings? And if they hire a pilot, don't they then negate the 'personal' part of the spec?
Sorry if this is a basic question, but will they have to sell a pilot 'training and rating' package with the plane, and then, will it just apply to that model?
Copterfan.
Just how many of the buyers have and can maintain such ratings? And if they hire a pilot, don't they then negate the 'personal' part of the spec?
Sorry if this is a basic question, but will they have to sell a pilot 'training and rating' package with the plane, and then, will it just apply to that model?
Copterfan.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Pratt "why oh why the fork tail though?" - so it can kill doctors like me of course 
(like the old v-tailed bonanza! the "fork tailed doctor killer")
Copterfan - take a look at the requirements for becoming rated in your own eclipse VLJ on the Eclipse site - they are pretty stringent. Cirrus will no doubt come up with something similar. Personally I prefer what Eclipse are offering - far more in touch with reality than the D-jet or the cirrus jet.
I would pay money to watch a cirrus jet trying to get airborne from a grass strip with 7 average sized Americans on board - it just aint gonna happen Mr Klapmeier.
IO540 - I agree that access issues to the higher flight levels will ultimately determine how the VLJs get used. Other key issues are practical conversion of the aircraft to an air taxi role, it seems you need 2 crew in Europe to offer this service so unless you use pygmy pilots or get around it through some kind of fractional ownership loophole then its air taxi role may be limited. Any of these VLJs represent a lot of money for a private owner to spend on an aircraft that will be sitting in the hangar most of the week.
WRT the comment about the teleporter - I would buy one tomorrow, for me flying is mainly business and 90% about getting there and 10% about slipping the surly bonds.
"Chacun a son gout" as they say in Aberystwyth.
SB
(like the old v-tailed bonanza! the "fork tailed doctor killer")Copterfan - take a look at the requirements for becoming rated in your own eclipse VLJ on the Eclipse site - they are pretty stringent. Cirrus will no doubt come up with something similar. Personally I prefer what Eclipse are offering - far more in touch with reality than the D-jet or the cirrus jet.
I would pay money to watch a cirrus jet trying to get airborne from a grass strip with 7 average sized Americans on board - it just aint gonna happen Mr Klapmeier.
IO540 - I agree that access issues to the higher flight levels will ultimately determine how the VLJs get used. Other key issues are practical conversion of the aircraft to an air taxi role, it seems you need 2 crew in Europe to offer this service so unless you use pygmy pilots or get around it through some kind of fractional ownership loophole then its air taxi role may be limited. Any of these VLJs represent a lot of money for a private owner to spend on an aircraft that will be sitting in the hangar most of the week.
WRT the comment about the teleporter - I would buy one tomorrow, for me flying is mainly business and 90% about getting there and 10% about slipping the surly bonds.
"Chacun a son gout" as they say in Aberystwyth.
SB
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would pay money to watch a cirrus jet trying to get airborne from a grass strip with 7 average sized Americans on board
You won't get 7 average Americans (or 7 average Brits for that matter) into an Eclipse either, and get it off the ground on an average European tarmac runway.
It's where the payload/range tradeoff is set that will determine what these things can be used for.
The air taxi role seems to work for Netjets, who use a Portugese registry to make it possible. But they use two pilots with JAA ratings. There is no way to do an N-reg air taxi operation anywhere in modern Europe. But they use bigger planes, so if half a dozen fatties with a load of golf gear turn up it's OK. It won't be OK with any of these light jets.
As regards grass, almost anything can operate off grass if the grass is smooth and the runway is long enough, but eventually this will reflect itself in extra maintenance.
The more I read about these things the more I think the Epic will look like a winner, for European long range touring. The payload/range tradeoff on that looks amazing.
You won't get 7 average Americans (or 7 average Brits for that matter) into an Eclipse either, and get it off the ground on an average European tarmac runway.
It's where the payload/range tradeoff is set that will determine what these things can be used for.
The air taxi role seems to work for Netjets, who use a Portugese registry to make it possible. But they use two pilots with JAA ratings. There is no way to do an N-reg air taxi operation anywhere in modern Europe. But they use bigger planes, so if half a dozen fatties with a load of golf gear turn up it's OK. It won't be OK with any of these light jets.
As regards grass, almost anything can operate off grass if the grass is smooth and the runway is long enough, but eventually this will reflect itself in extra maintenance.
The more I read about these things the more I think the Epic will look like a winner, for European long range touring. The payload/range tradeoff on that looks amazing.