Coming to a GA Airport Near You... Pretty Cool

[On Your Six]

http://www.the-jet.com/pdf/specifications.pdf

I am sure they'll hit Class B airports too. Current Cirrus pilots will evidently be able to transition easily into this airplane (includes a parachute). I imagine the training program will have to be pretty rigorous. Ease-of-use is one of the design factors. The first test aircraft actually flew yesterday:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/

It's not meant to be super fast (like the Eclipse and others) and I believe it will be restricted to lower altitudes to get out of the way of bigger airplanes.

Looks like it might be fun to fly. Total cost: less than $1.2 million (for now). Discuss.

 

[svcta]

Well, there are very few airplanes as super fast as an eclipse.

Doctor killers just keep getting more and more lethal. (it is cool, though).

 

[On Your Six]

Here's the actual video of the first flight as well as some previous development-related videos (including rationale for the airplane itself):

http://www.the-jet.com/news/index.html

 

[BoilerUP]

Too many Cirrus pilots have already been killed because they think their aircraft is equipped to handle more than 1. it is, and 2. the pilot's experience level safely allows.

Now we're gonna have these guys in the lower flight levels, where the worst weather exists, in a small, pressurized, anti-iced jet.

A jet with a parachute.

Considering the insurance on your average SR-22 runs between $4000-10000/yr, I can't wait to see what underwriters are going to want in terms of pilot experience, initial/recurrent training, and price.

 

[On Your Six]

Well, there are very few airplanes as super fast as an eclipse.

Doctor killers just keep getting more and more lethal. (it is cool, though).

You clearly don't get sarcasm...

 

[ArtVandalay]

god that is one ugly airplane. No V1 cuts I guess though...

 

[siouxicide]

Personally I think it's pretty incredible. Cirrus has always had a way with user-friendly operation and taking modern tech and making it happen, something Cessna had to buy into(Columbia).
On the other hand, I too think there's gonna be a ton of wrecks with this. No matter how single-pilot friendly they make this, you can't fix stupid.
Any guesses why they limited it to FL250? Seems low when many turbo-props are good to FL310.

 

[On Your Six]

Personally I think it's pretty incredible. Cirrus has always had a way with user-friendly operation and taking modern tech and making it happen, something Cessna had to buy into(Columbia).
On the other hand, I too think there's gonna be a ton of wrecks with this. No matter how single-pilot friendly they make this, you can't fix stupid.
Any guesses why they limited it to FL250? Seems low when many turbo-props are good to FL310.

I think Cirrus intentionally didn't want it to mix with faster airplanes up high (as a courtesy to everyone else). Hey, I think it looks pretty cool - looks comfy inside compared to the narrow Eclipse jet.

 

[ableone]

Cool Factor High.

I think 9.2 out of 10.

Had I been smart, and gone to law school instead of basing my career choice on a circa 1965 airline pilot brochure, I would be writing a deposit check now.

 

[woutlaw]

Any guesses why they limited it to FL250? Seems low when many turbo-props are good to FL310.

My understanding is that it had to do with the more stringent certification requirements to go above FL250. (What changes re: certification above FL250 is beyond me, but I suppose it has to do with system redundancy, emergency oxygen, stuff like that.)

When they announced the jet Cirrus was pretty clear that it would be the lowest flying, slowest jet on the market.

There's a decent article on the jet here: http://www.avbuyer.com/Articles/Article.asp?Id=872

The scuttlebutt on insurance is that Cirrus is working with insurers to get it into the $35,000 range, at least that's what's being thrown around on the Cirrus Owners and Pilot's Association.

I agree it'll be interesting to see how it does safety-wise. Cirrus' training program is pretty darn thorough for a piston single (full disclosure, I teach the SR20/22 and have gone through the factory instructor's course) but it drives me nuts when I look at the accidents that have happened and the individual stupidity involved.

Their safety record started out worse than the overall GA average then dropped to about the GA average or even slightly below. This year may be worse again because of a few fatal accidents early in the year.

It's an interesting airplane and while I'm not a Kool-Aid drinker, I really respect Cirrus for their innovative thinking.

 

[svcta]

I think Cirrus intentionally didn't want it to mix with faster airplanes up high (as a courtesy to everyone else). Hey, I think it looks pretty cool - looks comfy inside compared to the narrow Eclipse jet.

Because companies often 'take one for the team' and make do with sub-average performance numbers relative to the competition.

Let's be realistic here, if they could have gotten easily certified for FL350 or something they would have. I'm happy that they didn't, and I envision (and hope)that one day they will restrict jets that aren't at least capable of .72 or better to lower flight levels.

I'm really not trying piss in anyone's cherios, I know that's how it looks. If I had the money and didn't know better I'd probably but one, too.

 

[ackattacker]

Plenty of slow airplanes are certified higher than FL250... TBM700 is certified to FL310 and goes about 300kts... Pilatus PC12 is FL300, King Air 200 is also around FL300 I think.

I'm betting on certification or oxygen requirements keeping it at FL250. Full face quick don oxygen systems are heavy and expensive.

I cringe every time I see an aircraft marketed as being "easy to fly". I think they need to make them harder to fly, to keep the boneheads on the ground.

 

[BoilerUP]

...and I envision (and hope)that one day they will restrict jets that aren't at least capable of .72 or better to lower flight levels.

Making a legal restriction for perfectly capable airplanes from flying at their proper cruise altitudes simply because of their MMo would be asinine.

 

[NCherches]

definitely time to reinforce my roof...

 

[psysicx]

Pretty awesome. Plenty of other jets a Doctor could buy in that price range. How big is the baggage compartment?

 

[svcta]

Making a legal restriction for perfectly capable airplanes from flying at their proper cruise altitudes simply because of their MMo would be asinine.

Why is that?

 

[siouxicide]

Why is that?

It's a lot better to be above the battlefield looking down than it is to be forced to fly through it. Thunderstorms, ice, turbulence..among other reasons. It'd be that much more unfortunate if it was a regulation holding up a perfectly capable airplane.
Take a CE-550, for example. Not a .72 airplane but capable of FL430, enough to get you above most nasty stuff or at least get a better view.

 

[BoilerUP]

Why is that?

Because your attempt to rid the upper flight levels of VLJs under the guise of efficiency would also eliminate the Citation I/II, as well as the CJ1 and maybe even the CJ2. All of these are capable airplanes and fly extremely well in the mid to upper 30s; the CJs even do the low to mid 40s.

Your regulation would eliminate the operating efficiencies of these airplanes, by forcing them to operate at lower altitude. It shoots their DOCs up and would likely cause many of these airplanes to be parked, putting even more people out of jobs. That'd be okay for you though, as you wouldn't have to be inconvenienced to slow to 250 IAS...

If a slower airplane is causing problems, 99 out of 100 times it is on an arrival or departure. In those situations (and even that odd time it's not) there are plenty of options:

1. Turn them off the arrival/departure
2. Descent them to an altitude below normal arrival/departure traffic
3. Put the slower jet on a prop arrival/departure, where it would mix better

The slower Citations have met every regulatory requirement for operating in the 30s and above, and do so safely and economically every day. Its a BIG sky out there...don't go throwing us all under the bus because of what happens into the larger metros...

 

[svcta]

Relax, boiler, I was asking a legit question, not throwing anyone under any bus.

I'll stick to it, though, that if the literally thousands (by their own predictions) of VLJs hit the upper flight levels it will routinely cause more capable airplanes to maneuver around them. What are airplanes going that slow doing climbing up to the high 30s or even low 40s doing? I think it's time for some cost benefit analysis if you're taking that airplane that far.

By the way, I'm prepared to lose this argument on basis of opinion. The occasional VLJ or whatever speed bump it is making up there is okay, whatever. But a few years ago there were predictions of, again, thousands of VLJs being built. It won't be nearly as "big a sky" with that much more saturation. I'm not that passsionate about it, it just seems logical to me.

 

[BoilerUP]

Relax, boiler, I was asking a legit question, not throwing anyone under any bus.

I'm plenty relaxed...this was an academic exercise only, but the Law of Unintended Consequences is what causes me to drive a stake through proposals like this unless then seem obviously tongue-in-cheek. Yours wasn't, and still does not appear to be, TIC.

I'll stick to it, though, that if the literally thousands (by their own predictions) of VLJs hit the upper flight levels it will routinely cause more capable airplanes to maneuver around them. What are airplanes going that slow doing climbing up to the high 30s or even low 40s doing? I think it's time for some cost benefit analysis if you're taking that airplane that far.

"Airplanes that slow" in the high 30s and low 40s are giving their operators good TAS and very low fuel burns. It's where they are designed to fly and operate most effectively and efficiently. Why should I or anyone else flying similar performing airplanes be forced to fly at FL270 with 370 KTAS and 1200pph burn when I can fly just as well at FL370 with 355 KTAS burning 900pph? The same argument could be made for airplanes like the PC12, TBM700, King Air family, etc.

While such an operational restriction may be "logical" to you, you've offered no compelling argument to support such a discriminatory operational regulation.

Again, there are options available to ATC that give them flexibility to mix aircraft with varying maximum and cruise speeds that don't involve a wholesale limitation creating undue hardship to many thousands of operators.

I've got no beef with ya', svtca...I just think you're good intentions about operational issues with VLJs (some that I share) are waaaaaaaaaaaaay off base on this.