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

This is the result of Cirrus demonstrating a high level of quality control and modern factory tools and processes. The FAA has tracked Cirrus making piston singles to a very high standard of quality for years also.
 
Last edited:
The jet is going to be a major game changer in the GA world. Regardless of where you stand on BRS, gear type, plastics, etc., everyone must admit that Cirrus has kept some much needed life and excitement in the GA world, especially after Piper and Cessna essentially gave up on it and started pumping their piston singles to schools, etc. Not only do they have good sales figures, but the company is healthy, their planes are solid, and I have yet to meet someone who has time in one who wasn't a happy customer
 
Tantalum said:
The jet is going to be a major game changer in the GA world. Regardless of where you stand on BRS, gear type, plastics, etc., everyone must admit that Cirrus has kept some much needed life and excitement in the GA world, especially after Piper and Cessna essentially gave up on it and started pumping their piston singles to schools, etc. Not only do they have good sales figures, but the company is healthy, their planes are solid, and I have yet to meet someone who has time in one who wasn't a happy customer
Click to expand...

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...
 
kyleb said:
I hope we don't see a bunch of accidents from people getting in over their heads...
Click to expand...
Hopefully the transition training is spot on and Cirrus learned from the SR20 and 22 early accident rates to get this one right
 
Yeah, I mean honestly this is exactly what we needed in the GA world. Thanks goodness someone is paving a path here, hopefully others will follow. Everyone else has really been phoning it in by taking their 1960 airplane and just tossing a G1000 in it

This is probably the closest we'll have to a "flying car" for now. They're not cheap, but honestly, it's also not crazy unattainable. How many $1-$4M hoses get sold every year? A ton. How many people own expensive yachts, second houses, etc. There is definitely a group of buyers out there that can afford this
 
I don't understand... it looks like that jet blast would scorch everything aft of the engine.
 
I could be wrong, but I think I read somewhere that the jet exhaust itself is angled either straight back or even up slightly to help offset the pitch down a throttle increase would result in. But yes, at first glance it does look like you'd have hot exhaust blasting that tail

In the picture below you can kind of see the angle

upload_2017-5-4_20-45-1.png
 
No weight info either... either useful load or otherwise... "5 adults and 2 children" could mean a lot of things. Methinks they're overselling the carrying capacity.
 
ircphoenix said:
No weight info either... either useful load or otherwise... "5 adults and 2 children" could mean a lot of things. Methinks they're overselling the carrying capacity.
Click to expand...
  • Maximum Takeoff Weight = 6000 lbs (2727 kg)
  • Basic Empty Weight = 3572 lbs (1620 kg)
  • Max Zero Fuel Weight = 4900 lbs (2223 kg)
  • Maximum Usable Fuel = 2000 lbs (907 kg)
Thus full fuel load = 428 lbs

So as long as the adults weigh no more than 80lbs each, and the children no more than 14 lbs each, you're good...
 
Full fuel payload is a silly and meaningless metric. Any plane with a full fuel payload of more than 400 lbs doesn't have enough fuel capacity.
 
James_Dean said:
Full fuel payload is a silly and meaningless metric. Any plane with a full fuel payload of more than 400 lbs doesn't have enough fuel capacity.
Click to expand...

Um, Cherokee 6, PA-28 235, Dakota, Lance. All full fuel payload greater than 400, all with more than 80 gallons of usable fuel (except Dakota at 72). Not exactly short legged.

I do understand what you mean regarding the relative [lack of] merit of the full fuel useful load number, but that logic has gone awry with the insistence of manufacturers to fatten up the airplanes with interior/comfort/furniture finishes that eats into useful load.
 
James_Dean said:
Full fuel payload is a silly and meaningless metric. Any plane with a full fuel payload of more than 400 lbs doesn't have enough fuel capacity.
Click to expand...

My ancient plane, filled to the caps, holds 5:30 fuel at my normal cruise settings, and will carry an additional 669 lb of pilot, passengers and baggage. At economy settings, it will fly for more than 8 hours. Do I really need larger tanks? Or does my plane, and its couple of thousand model siblings plus several times as many later models, not count as "any plane"? Or did you overstate your premise?
 
Well.... they're marketing it as a 1200 nm plane, 300 kts, 5 adults and 2 kids.

So what they really mean is 1200nm OR 300 kts OR 5 adults and 2 kids. Pick 1.
 
ircphoenix said:
Well.... they're marketing it as a 1200 nm plane, 300 kts, 5 adults and 2 kids.

So what they really mean is 1200nm OR 300 kts OR 5 adults and 2 kids. Pick 1.
Click to expand...

Of course. That's the way almost all airplane performance is specified, isn't it? The range of possibilities. What would you prefer?

Even the Cessna 172 POH specifies the max range based on full fuel, not full seats and whatever fuel that leaves.
 
RussR said:
Of course. That's the way almost all airplane performance is specified, isn't it? The range of possibilities. What would you prefer?

Even the Cessna 172 POH specifies the max range based on full fuel, not full seats and whatever fuel that leaves.
Click to expand...

I just like raw numbers. But I'm not a marketing guy, and I understand they're targeting people that don't bother with actually knowing real numbers.
 
ircphoenix said:
I just like raw numbers. But I'm not a marketing guy, and I understand they're targeting people that don't bother with actually knowing real numbers.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the folks who can afford to buy and fly one of 'em have a pretty darned good understanding of numbers. In general, you don't become wealthy without reasonable math and logic skills.
 
Hank S said:
My ancient plane, filled to the caps, holds 5:30 fuel at my normal cruise settings, and will carry an additional 669 lb of pilot, passengers and baggage. At economy settings, it will fly for more than 8 hours. Do I really need larger tanks? Or does my plane, and its couple of thousand model siblings plus several times as many later models, not count as "any plane"? Or did you overstate your premise?
Click to expand...

Exactly what I said. Any plane with a full fuel payload of more than 400 lbs should would ideally have more fuel capacity. My conquest has a useful of over 800 lbs with full fuel that takes it more than 1000 miles. I wish it would carry another 500 lbs of fuel.
 
James_Dean said:
Full fuel payload is a silly and meaningless metric. Any plane with a full fuel payload of more than 400 lbs doesn't have enough fuel capacity.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you have posted here?

My Aztec can carry 1100 lbs of fuel and still has well more than 800 lbs payload left above that.

IIRC your 310 has about 2000 lbs of useful load. Does it really carry up to 1600 lbs of fuel?
 
Got your point with the second post. ;)
 
GRG55 said:
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you have posted here?

My Aztec can carry 1100 lbs of fuel and still has well more than 800 lbs oayload left above that.

IIRC your 310 has about 2000 lbs of useful load. Does it really carry up to 1600 lbs of fuel?
Click to expand...

No, but I wish it did. A fuel stop takes a long time, and I like the option of taking long flights.
 
Tantalum said:
The jet is going to be a major game changer in the GA world. Regardless of where you stand on BRS, gear type, plastics, etc., everyone must admit that Cirrus has kept some much needed life and excitement in the GA world, especially after Piper and Cessna essentially gave up on it and started pumping their piston singles to schools, etc. Not only do they have good sales figures, but the company is healthy, their planes are solid, and I have yet to meet someone who has time in one who wasn't a happy customer
Click to expand...

We have no idea if the company is financially healthy; its privately held.
 
Tantalum said:
Hopefully the transition training is spot on and Cirrus learned from the SR20 and 22 early accident rates to get this one right
Click to expand...

I don't think there will be any problem with Cirrus in this regard. If there's a problem it'll be with the owner/pilots, just like the doctor who stuffed it last week with his son in the plane.
 
GRG55 said:
We have no idea if the company is financially healthy; its privately held.
Click to expand...
That's true, but the perception seems to be of one that is running quite well, unlike Mooney, Icon, and others before them, and in this regard perception is reality. I'm sure however that financing their jet was no cheap venture!
 
Tantalum said:
That's true, but the perception seems to be of one that is running quite well, unlike Mooney, Icon, and others before them, and in this regard perception is reality. I'm sure however that financing their jet was no cheap venture!
Click to expand...

Perception was reality at Enron too. Until it wasn't...
 
kyleb said:
I'm guessing the folks who can afford to buy and fly one of 'em have a pretty darned good understanding of numbers. In general, you don't become wealthy without reasonable math and logic skills.
Click to expand...

There are PLENTY of people with lots of dollars and zero sense.
 
deonb said:
  • Maximum Takeoff Weight = 6000 lbs (2727 kg)
  • Basic Empty Weight = 3572 lbs (1620 kg)
  • Max Zero Fuel Weight = 4900 lbs (2223 kg)
  • Maximum Usable Fuel = 2000 lbs (907 kg)
Thus full fuel load = 428 lbs

So as long as the adults weigh no more than 80lbs each, and the children no more than 14 lbs each, you're good...
Click to expand...

James_Dean said:
Full fuel payload is a silly and meaningless metric. Any plane with a full fuel payload of more than 400 lbs doesn't have enough fuel capacity.
Click to expand...

I think Cirrus also knows that a lot of buyers are going to fly themselves somewhere for business and a lot of trips will be single pilot, and maybe a golf bag and a small bag with one change of clothes.

But...

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. There's a LOT of stuff that'll get real close to the jet's performance for an additional $2M.

They're courting the SR owners around here HEAVILY though. The factory demo plane has been in and out of APA and surrounding area airports giving rides to existing Cirrus owners nearly non-stop for a number of weeks.

All sorts of locals have been sticking their noses inside the thing on the ground and taking photos on FB lately. A few local Cirri owners have selfies in the thing aloft now.

I haven't heard even a hint of a rumor that they've made any local sales yet, though. But I could certainly be well out of the loop in that regard. None of the Cirri owners I know personally have bitten, yet, other than to take their free demo ride.

Someone mentioned you don't get wealthy not knowing the numbers. That $2M jump isn't chump change on the spreadsheet. Can buy a lot of jet and turboprop charters for that, even... without adding operating costs. Or even a very wimpy jet timeshare contract. But those are recurring, and the $2M for the CirrusJet isn't, so... grab the calculators kiddies.

I assume Cirrus is offering some spiffy deals on maintenance up front for early adopters, too. Maybe even close to loss-leader pricing. Hard to say how hard they're really pushing it. They need plenty of examples flying and showing up on random ramps to give a feel of "success" to get traction on profitable sales numbers without the "buy early" discounts and deals.
 
ircphoenix said:
Well.... they're marketing it as a 1200 nm plane, 300 kts, 5 adults and 2 kids.

So what they really mean is 1200nm OR 300 kts OR 5 adults and 2 kids. Pick 1.
Click to expand...
Please tell me that's in the FL240 range...??

Do they have a MMO published?
 
deonb said:
  • Maximum Takeoff Weight = 6000 lbs (2727 kg)
  • Basic Empty Weight = 3572 lbs (1620 kg)
  • Max Zero Fuel Weight = 4900 lbs (2223 kg)
  • Maximum Usable Fuel = 2000 lbs (907 kg)
Thus full fuel load = 428 lbs

So as long as the adults weigh no more than 80lbs each, and the children no more than 14 lbs each, you're good...
Click to expand...

Full fuel payload of the King Air 250 is 116lbs. By your measure it must be a truly awful plane.
 
denverpilot said:
I think Cirrus also knows that a lot of buyers are going to fly themselves somewhere for business and a lot of trips will be single pilot, and maybe a golf bag and a small bag with one change of clothes.

But...

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. There's a LOT of stuff that'll get real close to the jet's performance for an additional $2M.

...
Click to expand...

I hope I am wrong, but I'm not as optimistic as some others about the market for this jet.

There's lots of late model Cessna Citations available for $2 million asking. 40 knots faster, 13,000 ft higher and twin engine redundancy. Plus a solid company with an extensive jet aircraft track record backing it. I know which one I would choose.
 
GRG55 said:
I hope I am wrong, but I'm not as optimistic as some others about the market for this jet.

There's lots of late model Cessna Citations available for $2 million asking. 40 knots faster, 13,000 ft higher and twin engine redundancy. Plus a solid company with an extensive jet aircraft track record backing it. I know which one I would choose.
Click to expand...

Many of those need new engines at that price.

They also (comparatively) gobble fuel, meaning their operating costs are much higher.

But I hear what you're saying.
 
denverpilot said:
Many of those need new engines at that price.

They also (comparatively) gobble fuel, meaning their operating costs are much higher.

But I hear what you're saying.
Click to expand...

If it needs engines it's not going for $2 million.
Yes, it uses more fuel. If I had $2 million to plunk down on a personal jet ask me how much I would care. ;)
At those FLs the second engine is worth more to me than the parachute.

The insurance companies are likely to be the enforcers of the training requirements. If you have to go through that much effort, investment of time and expense, might as well have a plane that really performs.
 
GRG55 said:
If it needs engines it's not going for $2 million.
Yes, it uses more fuel. If I had $2 million to plunk down on a personal jet ask me how much I would care. ;)
At those FLs the second engine is worth more to me than the parachute.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. No disagreements here. Plus, it's all just a spectator sport for me.

Ham and Eggs: The Chicken is involved, but the Pig is fully committed. :)
 
GRG55 said:
I hope I am wrong, but I'm not as optimistic as some others about the market for this jet.

There's lots of late model Cessna Citations available for $2 million asking. 40 knots faster, 13,000 ft higher and twin engine redundancy. Plus a solid company with an extensive jet aircraft track record backing it. I know which one I would choose.
Click to expand...

That's not really a fair comparison. Either compare against a new Mustang ($2.7m), or a similarly aged VisionJet ($1.3m?).

So $700k difference in price and 50% more operating cost. If you fly 150 hours per year that's the difference between $180k per year and $300k per year. Not everybody who can afford the one can afford the other.
 
deonb said:
That's not really a fair comparison. Either compare against a new Mustang ($2.7m), or a similarly aged VisionJet ($1.3m?).

So $700k difference in price and 50% more operating cost. If you fly 150 hours per year that's the difference between $180k per year and $300k per year. Not everybody who can afford the one can afford the other.
Click to expand...

It's a perfectly fair comparison.

A new Vjet lists at ~$2 million, and there is no used market for them yet. It's illogical to assume many of those potential purchasers aren't going to consider what else in the aviation market their $2 mill might buy. In addition the $2 mill Vjet price does NOT include weather radar, synthetic vision, TAWS, TCAS, fancy paint, premium interior or any third row seats, so once Cirrus clears their pre-certification order backlog I doubt a single one of these jets will go out the door anywhere near $2 million.

A new Vjet is going to appeal to those making a vanity purchase, those that have a high brand loyalty to Cirrus (not to be underestimated imo), those that place high importance on the parachute and those private pilots that simply don't log a lot of hours every year and think the complexity/opex of a twin jet too daunting.

Anyone else coming into the jet market with a $2 mill purchase budget will probably find the performance compromises of the Vjet unattractive compared to a 600-900 hour Citation that still looks and smells like a brand new airplane.

Finally, in this age of Federal Reserve Board sponsored cheap credit, and given the current tax policies, most "buyers" of these things are going to lease them, and the annual net payment difference between a Cirrus Vjet and all manner of more capable Citations, Embraer Phenom 100s and Eclipse jets will narrow. Don't underestimate the competitive response to the introduction of the Vjet from these other companies. They won't cut their list prices, but they will offer other ways to narrow the ownership cost gap.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
I'm guessing the folks who can afford to buy and fly one of 'em have a pretty darned good understanding of numbers. In general, you don't become wealthy without reasonable math and logic skills.
Click to expand...

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