The Jet
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: god knows
Age: 40
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Jet
So Cirrus unveiled the Jet just recently. Does anybody have any info regards theorder book and if most of the customers have been happy with the design? Personaly I think its horrible but thats just me.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must be me, but i kinda like the lines of this bird... my list goes in order of priority :
1. Eclipse 500
2. Cessna Mustang
3. The Jet - cirrus
Eclipse: i hope in the comming years they get the problems out of the way, i might buy one then, i loved the bird when i first saw it in Friedrichshafen, it looked rock solid
Cessna: i love it, but it's 1 million to expensive, i probably never buy one
The Jet: i love it, but i hope they build it with better finishing than their pistons.. i find the cirrus very very badly finished, i hate planes that feel crappy and cheap, and they are landing this jet on grass ?
D-Jet Diamond: what where they thinking ? Putting an engine intake on that location to pick up all the dirt debris ? Also finishing sucks at diamond. I liked the 3 screens G1000 tough.. the seats felt weird and non-movable
Piperjet: To expensive for a SE
Embraer phenom100: not my market, to expensive for private ownership
Adam700: Adam who ? I don't believe in them, i think they will fail.. i hope i'm wrong ofcorse
1. Eclipse 500
2. Cessna Mustang
3. The Jet - cirrus
Eclipse: i hope in the comming years they get the problems out of the way, i might buy one then, i loved the bird when i first saw it in Friedrichshafen, it looked rock solid
Cessna: i love it, but it's 1 million to expensive, i probably never buy one
The Jet: i love it, but i hope they build it with better finishing than their pistons.. i find the cirrus very very badly finished, i hate planes that feel crappy and cheap, and they are landing this jet on grass ?
D-Jet Diamond: what where they thinking ? Putting an engine intake on that location to pick up all the dirt debris ? Also finishing sucks at diamond. I liked the 3 screens G1000 tough.. the seats felt weird and non-movable
Piperjet: To expensive for a SE
Embraer phenom100: not my market, to expensive for private ownership
Adam700: Adam who ? I don't believe in them, i think they will fail.. i hope i'm wrong ofcorse
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3000fpm at MTOW is reasonable. The climb rate is largely a function of weight and thrust, and not a lot else.
To get +3000fpm from a 1500kg piston aircraft you would need about 500HP; it would then be pretty quick, of the order of 250kt IAS in cruise.
To get +3000fpm from a 1500kg piston aircraft you would need about 500HP; it would then be pretty quick, of the order of 250kt IAS in cruise.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twin jets climb fast because of the single engine performance requirement.
+6000fpm is great but you pay awfully heavily for the capability, through carrying a second engine guzzling avtur at some 3 figure # of gallons per hour.
The real trick IMHO would be a < 2000kg SE jet, with a 25k ceiling, 1500nm range (to zero fuel), and ability to operate from a 700m hard runway.
I think a turboprop will get there first though, because of the propwash lowering the stall speed and making the takeoff distance a lot shorter.
+6000fpm is great but you pay awfully heavily for the capability, through carrying a second engine guzzling avtur at some 3 figure # of gallons per hour.
The real trick IMHO would be a < 2000kg SE jet, with a 25k ceiling, 1500nm range (to zero fuel), and ability to operate from a 700m hard runway.
I think a turboprop will get there first though, because of the propwash lowering the stall speed and making the takeoff distance a lot shorter.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540, I agree with you on the TP.
I've always wondered about this. These new jets are claiming cruise speeds in the 300 knot range, short take off and good climb. But wouldn't you get the same thing from a turboprop, and at less fuel flow? I seem to recall jets not being terribly efficient at low speed, ie below 350 knots or so, compared to TPs which really shine at those speeds and lower altitudes ~25000 ft.
It all seems like hype to me. And I can't understand how these companies can build jets for 1 million dollars when there isn't a comparable TP anywhere close? What's the deal? Is it the prop that costs 500 kUSD extra?
I've always wondered about this. These new jets are claiming cruise speeds in the 300 knot range, short take off and good climb. But wouldn't you get the same thing from a turboprop, and at less fuel flow? I seem to recall jets not being terribly efficient at low speed, ie below 350 knots or so, compared to TPs which really shine at those speeds and lower altitudes ~25000 ft.
It all seems like hype to me. And I can't understand how these companies can build jets for 1 million dollars when there isn't a comparable TP anywhere close? What's the deal? Is it the prop that costs 500 kUSD extra?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
400 Orders For The Jet Cirrus Omg!!!
AVweb today: ..
February 3, 2008
Cirrus Jet Expected To Fly At AirVenture
Email this article |Print this article
By Meredith Saini, Managing Editor
Cirrus Design co-founder Dale Klapmeier said a prototype of the company's single-engine personal jet will probably make at least a fly-by at EAA AirVenture this summer. However, he told AVweb in an exclusive interview that the jet may not be ready for static display at the show. The Duluth, Minn., manufacturer has taken more than 400 deposits of $100,000 each for the jet, but the final price hasn't been disclosed. Klapmeier said the project is a few weeks behind schedule, due in part to difficulties in hiring qualified engineers who are willing to relocate to Duluth. He said the company is actively recruiting but is not going to extraordinary means, such as offering cash incentives, to convince people to take the plunge. Michael Van Staagen, Cirrus vice president of advanced development, said that the roughly 120 people currently assigned to the jet project have not yet moved into the company's recently acquired hangar space at the Duluth International Airport, where the jets will be produced. The hangar, formerly used by Northwest Airlines for maintenance, does not have the requisite network connections, Van Staagen said, but Cirrus is working on it.
February 3, 2008
Cirrus Jet Expected To Fly At AirVenture
Email this article |Print this article
By Meredith Saini, Managing Editor
Cirrus Design co-founder Dale Klapmeier said a prototype of the company's single-engine personal jet will probably make at least a fly-by at EAA AirVenture this summer. However, he told AVweb in an exclusive interview that the jet may not be ready for static display at the show. The Duluth, Minn., manufacturer has taken more than 400 deposits of $100,000 each for the jet, but the final price hasn't been disclosed. Klapmeier said the project is a few weeks behind schedule, due in part to difficulties in hiring qualified engineers who are willing to relocate to Duluth. He said the company is actively recruiting but is not going to extraordinary means, such as offering cash incentives, to convince people to take the plunge. Michael Van Staagen, Cirrus vice president of advanced development, said that the roughly 120 people currently assigned to the jet project have not yet moved into the company's recently acquired hangar space at the Duluth International Airport, where the jets will be produced. The hangar, formerly used by Northwest Airlines for maintenance, does not have the requisite network connections, Van Staagen said, but Cirrus is working on it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"400 Orders For The Jet Cirrus Omg!!!"
There is a fool born every minute, sternone!
The really beautiful thing IMHO was when Vern Rayburn totally upstaged the Klapmeiers and their crappy plastic aircraft by turning up in an Eclipse single engine jet at Oshkosh which looked remarkably identical to the one they were hoping to develop over the coming years. Funny that?
Why people would ever buy anything made by Cirrus (or Diamond) is totally beyond me.
SB
There is a fool born every minute, sternone!
The really beautiful thing IMHO was when Vern Rayburn totally upstaged the Klapmeiers and their crappy plastic aircraft by turning up in an Eclipse single engine jet at Oshkosh which looked remarkably identical to the one they were hoping to develop over the coming years. Funny that?
Why people would ever buy anything made by Cirrus (or Diamond) is totally beyond me.
SB
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is, a Jet is a Jet. TPs are nice, and if I had £1000,000 to spend on an aeroplane, then I'd get a Beach Duke with Royal Turbine conversion. (about $1,200,000 for the converstion, + $400,000 for the Duke).
The true operating costs of the D Jet are meant to be in the region of $400 per hour. Now compare that to a similar costing Citation (in other words reasonably old) which burns $20,000 worth of fuel just to cross the USA and has a pretty small range.
Speaking pf crappy plastioc aeroplanes....isn't the A380 and 787 mostly made of crappy plastic
(not to mention White Knight and Space Ship 1 come to think of it).
The true operating costs of the D Jet are meant to be in the region of $400 per hour. Now compare that to a similar costing Citation (in other words reasonably old) which burns $20,000 worth of fuel just to cross the USA and has a pretty small range.
Speaking pf crappy plastioc aeroplanes....isn't the A380 and 787 mostly made of crappy plastic
(not to mention White Knight and Space Ship 1 come to think of it).
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
isn't the A380 and 787 mostly made of crappy plastic (not to mention White Knight and Space Ship 1 come to think of it).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the $400/hr include Eurocontrol IFR charges? I suspect not, if it is priced in US$ for a U.S. sales brochure.
I reckon a 1999kg Jetprop would be significantly cheaper to operate in Europe, and with a similar (i.e. not great) range and probably similar payload. The IFR charges come to a similar amount to the cost of avtur.
I reckon a 1999kg Jetprop would be significantly cheaper to operate in Europe, and with a similar (i.e. not great) range and probably similar payload. The IFR charges come to a similar amount to the cost of avtur.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought that Eurocontrol charges only apply to a/c of an MTOW of 2400kg or more, hence the popularity of the PA23/BE58 etc.
As for the a/c, I work on the principal that if you want to make money out of something and unless you are really sure of your ground and the item is so unusual it may just work, stick to the manufacturer of a tried and tested product.
The Cessna Citation range of a/c are a proven and economic product, the rest have a lot to prove.
As for the a/c, I work on the principal that if you want to make money out of something and unless you are really sure of your ground and the item is so unusual it may just work, stick to the manufacturer of a tried and tested product.
The Cessna Citation range of a/c are a proven and economic product, the rest have a lot to prove.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eurocontrol collects the charges which are imposed by each airspace owner. They even do it for Egypt, I understand.
The charges apply to 2000kg or more, IFR.
That's why you can get a STC for the Seneca (which is just a POH change) certifying it at 1999kg.
The "biggest" touring plane you can get under 2000kg is the Jetprop - a PT6 conversion of the Piper Malibu or whatever it is called (Mirage?). The official Piper version is the Meridian which comes out at slightly over 2000kg.
Diamond probably tried to get under 2000kg with their jet but failed.
There is an argument that if too many managed to do it with airways planes, there would be a stronger case for removing the 2000kg threshold. There are people within NATS who would just like to screw everybody - some are quite open about it. If the existing route charge (by weight) formula was retained, this would massively increase the cost of flying across Europe - probably similar to a 50% rise in fuel price.
The common counter strategy is to fly VFR, often illegal VFR, which is not a good thing either. The jets are also inefficient at VFR levels, although the D-jet is an interesting case because it has been designed for lower speeds and lower levels, and could be flown VFR quite well provided the weather was OK.
The great secret of VFR flight is that it works really well so long as the pilot has an IR and can legally ask for an IFR clearance if necessary
If the charge threshold was removed, we would have a lot more of this. A 1999kg avtur burner would see a approx doubling of his fuel cost, and flying VFR at FL100 rather than IFR at FL200 would be economically well worth doing.
The charges apply to 2000kg or more, IFR.
That's why you can get a STC for the Seneca (which is just a POH change) certifying it at 1999kg.
The "biggest" touring plane you can get under 2000kg is the Jetprop - a PT6 conversion of the Piper Malibu or whatever it is called (Mirage?). The official Piper version is the Meridian which comes out at slightly over 2000kg.
Diamond probably tried to get under 2000kg with their jet but failed.
There is an argument that if too many managed to do it with airways planes, there would be a stronger case for removing the 2000kg threshold. There are people within NATS who would just like to screw everybody - some are quite open about it. If the existing route charge (by weight) formula was retained, this would massively increase the cost of flying across Europe - probably similar to a 50% rise in fuel price.
The common counter strategy is to fly VFR, often illegal VFR, which is not a good thing either. The jets are also inefficient at VFR levels, although the D-jet is an interesting case because it has been designed for lower speeds and lower levels, and could be flown VFR quite well provided the weather was OK.
The great secret of VFR flight is that it works really well so long as the pilot has an IR and can legally ask for an IFR clearance if necessary
If the charge threshold was removed, we would have a lot more of this. A 1999kg avtur burner would see a approx doubling of his fuel cost, and flying VFR at FL100 rather than IFR at FL200 would be economically well worth doing.
Last edited by IO540; 6th Feb 2008 at 08:19.
