Cirrus gets federal nod to build personal jet without per-plane inspections

TRocket said:
...Also, anyone else think this thing is ugly as hell???
Click to expand...

Less so than the HondaJet. There's something about deliberate protrusions on the upper wing surface I find objectionable.

Not as ugly as this either: :D
IMG_0227.JPG
 
What exactly is "per-plane inspections"? That has to be the strangest sounding opening statement I have ever heard.

Does that mean none will be test flown by designated FAA or company test pilots prior to issuing the airworthiness certificate? That would be incredibly dumb.

Someone has to sign the airworthiness certificate and no one in their right mind would do so without some level of inspection before doing it.

Or does it simply mean that each following serial number can be manufactured using the approved process and quality plan and everything is going to done like every other certified airplane in production, and its not a special Cirrus thing, its a PHA holder certification thing that everyone building airplanes does.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
I hope you are right. But for the typical SR-22/Bonanza/Baron guy, a pressurized jet at 20,000+ feet is going to be a big step-up. I hope we don't see a bunch of accidents from people getting in over their heads...
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but keep in mind that a lot of those people are currently stepping up to a 340/414/421. Yes, there are a lot of SR22 owners who step into a 421 as their first twin. Get their multi, get a checkout per insurance requirements for the 421, and off they go. I think it's a terrible idea, but the insurance companies are allowing it these days. A 421 is perhaps one of the least forgiving twins and most prone to engine failures (yes, that is a topic of hot debate, but that's where I stand on the issue).

Compare that to a single engine jet with slower approach speeds and your OEI approach is pull the chute. A turbofan engine is easier to operate than a piston, and even easier to operate than a turboprop. It's also much more reliable and simpler. Max cruise speed of 300 KTAS is fast, but really I think most people are going to cruise somewhere in the mid 200s. Faster than an SR22, but a step up that's easy enough to do. Altitudes are the same roughly as they'll fly in the pressurized piston twin.

On paper, yes, the jump from a fixed gear piston single to a jet sounds big, but it's not like we're talking about a Lear 23 here. They actually got this figured out pretty well and I think is quite arguably a lower risk than what many of these pilots are doing today for a step up.

James_Dean said:
No, but I wish it did. A fuel stop takes a long time, and I like the option of taking long flights.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is part of why getting a 414 with 203 gallons usable fuel was important for me. Granted most of the time with dogs I'll be taking off with 163 gallons (or perhaps less) for gross weight considerations, but there are flights where the 203 gallons of fuel would let me make a trip non-stop that I would otherwise need a stop for.

bnt83 said:
What exactly is "per-plane inspections"? That has to be the strangest sounding opening statement I have ever heard and it sounds like a complete misunderstanding to me.

Does that mean none will be test flown prior to issuing the airworthiness certificate? That would be incredibly dumb.
Click to expand...

It means they have a production certificate (PC) not just a type certificate (TC). Without a PC every item needs inspection. Lycoming and Continental have PCs as well. They worded it incorrectly. They still have to do their acceptance checks.
 
bnt83 said:
What exactly is "per-plane inspections"? That has to be the strangest sounding opening statement I have ever heard.

Does that mean none will be test flown by designated FAA or company test pilots prior to issuing the airworthiness certificate? That would be incredibly dumb.

Someone has to sign the airworthiness certificate and no one in their right mind would do so without some level of inspection before doing it.

Or does it simply mean that each following serial number can be manufactured using the approved process and quality plan and everything is going to done like every other certified airplane in production, and its not a special Cirrus thing, its a PHA holder certification thing that everyone building airplanes does.
Click to expand...

I think it means the FAA won't be doing the individual inspections and test flights, Cirrus (like most other established manufacturers) will be self-regulating in that regard. But I'm sure their paperwork for the FAA will be voluminous nevertheless.
 
James_Dean said:
Not scorched, but I wouldn't order one with a white tail. Soot happens.

View attachment 53311
Click to expand...

At least your personal line boy (every Cirrus owner has one of those, right :D ) gets to wipe the top of the plane, instead of having to crawl around underneath getting his starched white coveralls dirty. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Exactly. This is part of why getting a 414 with 203 gallons usable fuel was important for me. Granted most of the time with dogs I'll be taking off with 163 gallons (or perhaps less) for gross weight considerations, but there are flights where the 203 gallons of fuel would let me make a trip non-stop that I would otherwise need a stop for.
Click to expand...

This was one thing I didn't appreciate at all when I stepped up to a twin. A single engine mindset is usually "more fuel is more better". Absolutely not true with a twin where every pound saved is a few more fpm climb(inches?) With the Conquest that has a 2450 lb fuel capacity...I'm hardly ever at full fuel unless I'm stretching her legs or I know that having to shoot two approaches is a possibility.
 
James_Dean said:
This was one thing I didn't appreciate at all when I stepped up to a twin. A single engine mindset is usually "more fuel is more better". Absolutely not true with a twin where every pound saved is a few more fpm climb(inches?) With the Conquest that has a 2450 lb fuel capacity...I'm hardly ever at full fuel unless I'm stretching her legs or I know that having to shoot two approaches is a possibility.
Click to expand...

Correct. And what's more difficult for someone like me is that realistically I want full fuel for range, but can't have it for weight and OEI performance. The 310 is great in that regard, but the 414 is a lot more challenging (really so is any cabin class twin).
 
If the fuel burn is 275lbs per hour, you can get 1,300lbs of meat in the cabin and a 3 hour range with an hour reserve.

You can get a lot of places with 1,000 mile range hauling 1,300lbs in the seats.
 
denverpilot said:
I still think the numbers are a jump too far. The jump from top of the line SR22T to the jet is a $2M leap.
Click to expand...

A new SR22T is $980k for 2017. An new SF50 is $1.9m.

Success in the tough, competitive industry of aviation cannot effectively be ignored, minimized or dismissed. Cirrus sells over 300 piston singles a year and over 600 (5 year backlog) for the SF50.
 
labbadabba said:
If the fuel burn is 275lbs per hour, you can get 1,300lbs of meat in the cabin and a 3 hour range with an hour reserve.

You can get a lot of places with 1,000 mile range hauling 1,300lbs in the seats.
Click to expand...

She is going to burn way more than 275 lbs/hr.
 
Last edited:
James_Dean said:
Not scorched, but I wouldn't order one with a white tail. Soot happens.

View attachment 53311
Click to expand...

I would guess the engine is mounted close to a water line with a mini s-type duct sort of like the 727. If it were mounted along the nacelle lines, I doubt there's enough tail to prevent wheelbarrow takeoffs:confused:

Cheers
 
labbadabba said:
462lbs per hour max according to this:

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...cirrus-teases-vision-sf50-performance-numbers
Click to expand...

The qualifier "At FL280" is very meaningful in this context. That fuel burn is going to be a much higher number at say FL180 which you might chose to stay out of the teeth of the wind - which are usually sharpest in the high 20's. This is one area where the big piston twins have an advantage and is going to be problematic for *some* VJet operators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
TRocket said:
Surely you are kidding? Yes many people become wealthy by their own use of logic and math skills but lets be honest, there are PLENTY of stupid rich people. What about screw ups that had very wealthy parents, reality stars, hell a great deal of Hollywood actors and celebrities, just to name a few manage to get very wealthy without reasonable math or logic skills.


Also, anyone else think this thing is ugly as hell???
Click to expand...

Ugly as a sack of smashed arseholes. :yesnod:
 
James_Dean said:
The qualifier "At FL280" is very meaningful in this context. That fuel burn is going to be a much higher number at say FL180 which you might chose to stay out of the teeth of the wind - which are usually sharpest in the high 20's. This is one area where the big piston twins have an advantage and is going to be problematic for *some* VJet operators.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In the 414 I can fly at FL190 or 2,500 MSL, and fuel burn is the same. TAS is different (so is IAS) but my favorite part about that plane is I can head one direction at FL190 and come home really low if the winds dictate that's what I want to do. This is especially key in the winter when the winds get really strong.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Exactly. In the 414 I can fly at FL190 or 2,500 MSL, and fuel burn is the same. TAS is different (so is IAS) but my favorite part about that plane is I can head one direction at FL190 and come home really low if the winds dictate that's what I want to do. This is especially key in the winter when the winds get really strong.
Click to expand...

I can crank along against the barber pole at 10k truing about 240 but burning over 100gph, or climb up to FL280 and do 285 on 65gph. It does change the range picture more than a bit and the Cirrus Jet is going to have an even tougher time of it.
 
I'm sure there is a market for it, I'm not it, but I know guys that will buy it! For that kind of money, I'd prefer a larger twin engine jet. 300 knots is nice, faster than my 425, but with the small looking cabin, I think I'd want a bigger airplane. Full dislosure, I have no interest in buying a $2 million dollar airplane!!:D
 
James_Dean said:
I can crank along against the barber pole at 10k truing about 240 but burning over 100gph, or climb up to FL280 and do 285 on 65gph. It does change the range picture more than a bit and the Cirrus Jet is going to have an even tougher time of it.
Click to expand...
The speeds you give here.. are you talking indicated or true. Big difference at FL280.
 
I went to a Cirrus event in HPN a few weeks ago. They brought a mock up as well as the real thing. They told us they have all the equipment for an auto throttle system and RVSM equipment ready just not certified. They'll have a G2 Vision Jet in a few years no doubt. The marketing and training is on point. No other GA company is doing what Cirrus is doing. And yes, it's ugly in person too.
 
ircphoenix said:
PREEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTTYYYYYYYYYYYYYY sure that puts you in the minority around here. Most of us would be EXTREMELY interested in buying 2 million airplane... if we could. LoL
Click to expand...
OK, let me rephrase my comment. I have no plans or means to afford a 2 million dollar airplane! :D:D
 
citizen5000 said:
No one buys the base plane (sans FIKI, A/C, digital package, leather seats, ADS-B, carbon or platinum colors). And the SF50 is fully loaded at $1.9m. It is an apple to apple comparison between the fully loaded SR22T and the SF50.
Click to expand...

The SF50 is NOT loaded at $1.9.
No weather radar, no synthetic vision, no TCAS, no TAWS, no NextGen TIS-B traffic or FIS-B weather, no two tone paint, no fancy leather interior and the #6 & #7 seats cost extra. Oh, and if you want any personalization options that's more still.

As you said, no one buys the base plane.
 
GRG55 said:
The SF50 is NOT loaded at $1.9.
No weather radar, no synthetic vision, no TCAS, no TAWS, no NextGen TIS-B traffic or FIS-B weather, no two tone paint, no fancy leather interior and the #6 & #7 seats cost extra. Oh, and if you want any personalization options that's more still.

As you said, no one buys the base plane.
Click to expand...
No radar on a jet?? That's got to be a joke.
All we need in the flight levels are yahoos flying around without proper equipment.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It means they have a production certificate (PC) not just a type certificate (TC). Without a PC every item needs inspection. Lycoming and Continental have PCs as well. They worded it incorrectly. They still have to do their acceptance checks.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know the story about type certificates and production certificates if it weren't for the Eclipse 500 and Eclipse 550. Because both manufacturers were building a new and very different aircraft, the issuance of these approvals for production made news stories in several aviation publications.

I remember when the first version of Eclipse Aviation received the production certificate for Eclipse 500s in 2006. They had already built a few aircraft, and each one of these early production aircraft had been individually inspected by the FAA before receiving its airworthiness certificate. As Ted explained, the issuance of the production certificate enabled them to build the aircraft serially and without the individual inspections. The follow on company, Eclipse Aerospace, received their PC to build Eclipse 550s in April 2012.
 
Last edited:
N747JB said:
I'm sure there is a market for it, I'm not it, but I know guys that will buy it! For that kind of money, I'd prefer a larger twin engine jet. 300 knots is nice, faster than my 425, but with the small looking cabin, I think I'd want a bigger airplane. Full disclosure, I have no interest in buying a $2 million dollar airplane!!:D
Click to expand...

But you've already owned a $3 million airplane! Your Citation I/SP cost around $800,000 new in 1977. That's $3.5 million in 2017 dollars. :D

Of course it depreciated a little bit prior to your acquisition of it. ;)

You've been a big shot oozing money for a long time. You just didn't know it. :D :D
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
But you've already owned a $3 million airplane! Your Citation I/SP cost around $800,000 new in 1977. That's $3.5 million in 2017 dollars. :D

You've been a big shot oozing money for a long time. You just didn't know it. :D :D
Click to expand...
I don't think a Citation 1 SP exactly qualifies as a jet however.... :D
 
GRG55 said:
The SF50 is NOT loaded at $1.9.
No weather radar, no synthetic vision, no TCAS, no TAWS, no NextGen TIS-B traffic or FIS-B weather, no two tone paint, no fancy leather interior and the #6 & #7 seats cost extra. Oh, and if you want any personalization options that's more still.

As you said, no one buys the base plane.
Click to expand...
No sure where you're getting your information. It has radar (see nose), synthetic vision and TAWS. It'd be a pretty useless jet not to have radar.
 
jordane93 said:
No sure where you're getting your information. It has radar (see nose), synthetic vision and TAWS. It'd be a pretty useless jet not to have radar.
Click to expand...

He's saying some of those things are on the options list and aren't included at the $1.9M base price. I don't know, I'm just pointing out he's not saying they're unavailable, he's discussing the price.
 
denverpilot said:
He's saying some of those things are on the options list and aren't included at the $1.9M base price. I don't know, I'm just pointing out he's not saying they're unavailable, he's discussing the price.
Click to expand...
Wow having to pay extra for radar seems silly. But I guess the Cirrus guys can afford it.
 
jordane93 said:
Wow having to pay extra for radar seems silly. But I guess the Cirrus guys can afford it.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I haven't seen any pricing. What I've *heard* is $3M is the reality once you have the thing on your ramp, ready to fly.

He said he's seen pricing and base is $1.9M, with options above that. And the person he's responding to was saying a piston Cirrus won't run $1M.

Both are correct. The piston Cirri have a range of pricing.

The discussion started with me saying there a "gap" of $2M between the TOP of the line piston model, and the jet at the number ($3M) that I've heard it will take to get it onto your doorstep at your airport community house. :) ...

They're adding detail to the discussion, which is fine, but someone who wants the top of the line in the piston, probably also wants the top of the line in the jet, IMHO.

And I think a $2M gal is a bridge too far. Too much out there that can be bought for that $2M that competes and in some missions, surpasses the CJet.

At the top of the line on the piston side, there's a few that compete, but Cirrus marketing wins. The question is... does their marketing win in the CJet?

Eclipse survived, barely. Adam didn't. Just as examples.

That segment is a rough rough segment, because the number of buyers drops dramatically from $1M to $3M. You're knocking on the door of traditional flight departments and even fractionals on stuff like the Eclipse.

(I met someone who flew Eclipses in a fractional... California area I think it was? I don't follow that biz much, but that's what he did for a living. Could see fractionals in the CJet? But honestly it seems to be being marketed to the piston Cirrus upgraders only right now. That's a very small market.)
 
20 knots faster than a PC12 with 800 miles less range, 2,000' lower service ceiling, and MUCH MUCH MUCH less payload???

Yawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top