Vision Jet

[Brandt]

I’ve always viewed Cirrus skeptically. They’re an OK airplane, but the parachute marketing causes me to roll my eyes to the point of spraining them.  With that in mind, I found this comparison of light jets fascinating. Assuming it’s accurate, Cirrus underperforms.  

 

[Ragsf15e]

42 minutes ago, Brandt said:

I’ve always viewed Cirrus skeptically. They’re an OK airplane, but the parachute marketing causes me to roll my eyes to the point of spraining them.  With that in mind, I found this comparison of light jets fascinating. Assuming it’s accurate, Cirrus underperforms.  

 

Possibly it does underperform…it’s slower than a TBM.  However it only has 1 engine compared to 2 on other light jets and it has the chute which nothing else has in that class.  Nevermind that light jets shouldn’t really need a chute…

[A64Pilot]

Been years ago maybe 15 or so? I talked to the pilot that flew their experimental one down to Sun-N-Fun and doing the math on its fuel burn vs the speed, it burned less fuel per mile than either my Maule or C-210.

Of course if you can afford a new jet, surely fuel is irrelevant? But it was interesting.

While there may be several turbo props that out perform it, but to quote an old Eclipse commercial

”Lets take the Jet”

“Sounds good doesn’t it?”

And that parachute sells, whatever else you want to say about it, I’ve heard several times “I wouldn’t fly anything without a chute” or the my Wife won’t.

[Skates97]

The guys on the Opposing Bases Podcast had a listener that flies a Vision Jet who sent in some feedback. They said that they would get requests for climb rates and speeds from ATC that they just couldn't meet despite being a jet. So, they started putting "Just treat me like a turboprop" in the comments when they filed. 

[carusoam]

If Brandt is eyeing turbine videos….

Does his Acclaim have the 310hp update?

The only thing better than Acclaim performance… is turbine.

Best regards,

-a-

[Brandt]

4 hours ago, carusoam said:

If Brandt is eyeing turbine videos….

Does his Acclaim have the 310hp update?

The only thing better than Acclaim performance… is turbine.

Best regards,

-a-

No turbine for me.  Just found the analysis interesting.

And I was was advised against the 310 update for the Acclaim by a couple of people I respect.  I really don’t think it would add much to cruise.  Likely helpful short field, but not worth it to me in terms of engine wear.

[Canadian Gal]

Reading about it, they seemed to have fallen into a weird area. If someone wants a jet, wouldn't the bare minimum be a Honda Jet Elite.

 

Its like buying a school bus, when you really wanted a Porsche 911.

[A64Pilot]

Cirrus enjoys a sort of cult status, similar to what Tesla used to.

So I’m thinking Cirrus will sell a bunch of them to wealthy individuals who want to move up to a jet from their SR-22 and can afford to do so, plus between the auto land thing and the parachute they sell to a market that’s apparently more concerned with safety issues, every crash they can say if they had a parachute they would be home watching TV, and a whole lot of people buy into that. Between the auto land thing and the parachute it’s not hard to convince people that it’s the safest aircraft you could buy.

However it seems that many people that can afford a jet often face issues with insurance etc to fly one, operating costs are so high that I think paying a pilot is just not much money in the scheme of things so I wonder how many Honda jets are owner flown, bigger than Honda and I think it’s gets real rare.

[Canadian Gal]

I don't get the Cirrus cult following, but then again I don't need autoland or a parachute either.

If I won a lottery I would buy a Honda Jet, if I won a huge lottery a Gulfstream.

 

[N201MKTurbo]

17 minutes ago, Canadian Gal said:

I don't get the Cirrus cult following

They probably don’t get us either. Imagine the foolhardy idiots that would fly a plane without a parachute?

[exM20K]

If your 80% mission is big runway to big runway, and those runways are not really far apart, the Vision Jet may be more suitable than the tight cabin of a TBM or P46T.  Lucky for me, my 80% mission is short runway (with no Jet-A) to medium runway, and they are 750 NM apart, so I don’t have to struggle with which to buy.  Acclaim is as well or better suited than anything else, save for the PA46, but that won’t fit in either hangar.  Whew.  No more looking at airplanes for me!

-dan

[Canadian Gal]

2 hours ago, exM20K said:

If your 80% mission is big runway to big runway, and those runways are not really far apart, the Vision Jet may be more suitable than the tight cabin of a TBM or P46T.  Lucky for me, my 80% mission is short runway (with no Jet-A) to medium runway, and they are 750 NM apart, so I don’t have to struggle with which to buy.  Acclaim is as well or better suited than anything else, save for the PA46, but that won’t fit in either hangar.  Whew.  No more looking at airplanes for me!

-dan

My usual is short to medium sized runways, occasionally long, and very few have Jet A, but many offer Avgas. Typically 300 to 700 nm hops, but then occasionally just 100 or 3000 nm so who knows.

My Doctors and patients have to trust me and my judgement not to kill them.

Being a personal assistant is the best job I could imagine ever having.

I'm a licensed RN, but nursing is now only a small part of what I do.

Being the personal assistant to 7 specialists, and a GP is truly great.

The government has decided to wage war with Physicians who don't believe in their lies, so many have gone into private practice.

When they came to me and asked me to come work for them, it took me less than a second to yell YES.

Getting away from the public hospital and healthcare system was the best thing I have ever done.

Flying people around is an honor, and a lot of fun as well.

 

Today I dropped 1 of my Doctors off at her home town for a visit with her parents and siblings, and then a short hop to pick up another Doc i dropped off Monday, and I flew him back.

 

If my skills deteriorate to the point where I need autoland or a parachute to land, I will just voluntarily stop flying.

 

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Canadian Gal

[StevenL757]

23 minutes ago, Canadian Gal said:

If my skills deteriorate to the point where I need autoland or a parachute to land, I will just voluntarily stop flying.

Well-said.  I wish more people in aviation…particularly GA…had that attitude.

[ilovecornfields]

[hais]

19 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

I'm curious what kind of a render the good folks over at COPA would retaliate with 

[mkerian10]

People make fun of Cirrus’ parachute but 

 

A. Regular (non-pilot) people put high stock in that. A question I commonly get asked is if the plane I’m going in has a parachute. For some reason people would rather float down than glide down!

 

B. It genuinely does improve safety, it has costs of course but used correctly the parachute will undoubtedly save lives.

 

C. It gets more people into GA.

[Canadian Gal]

40 minutes ago, mkerian10 said:

People make fun of Cirrus’ parachute but 

 

A. Regular (non-pilot) people put high stock in that. A question I commonly get asked is if the plane I’m going in has a parachute. For some reason people would rather float down than glide down!

 

B. It genuinely does improve safety, it has costs of course but used correctly the parachute will undoubtedly save lives.

 

C. It gets more people into GA.

Toss them a parachute as they climb on board.

At least skydiving the person can steer.

In fact skydiving is a lot of fun.

Drifting into God knows what under a whole plane chute doesn't sound fun to me.

 

[Brandt]

4 hours ago, mkerian10 said:

People make fun of Cirrus’ parachute but 

 

A. Regular (non-pilot) people put high stock in that. A question I commonly get asked is if the plane I’m going in has a parachute. For some reason people would rather float down than glide down!

 

B. It genuinely does improve safety, it has costs of course but used correctly the parachute will undoubtedly save lives.

 

C. It gets more people into GA.

I remind people that if it was a really great idea, 737s would have parachutes….

[A64Pilot]

The whole airplane parachute thing is honestly about 100 years old, it was done successfully back then, but for whatever reason you decide to believe just wasn’t ever done again to my knowledge until the Ultralight era if you will in the 70’s.

To me it’s interesting that to this day that a parachute is still a Cirrus only thing. They aren’t all that difficult to include in a design

[Canadian Gal]

On 1/22/2023 at 2:35 AM, Brandt said:

I remind people that if it was a really great idea, 737s would have parachutes….

Well i can never ride in another 737 now thanks to this thread...

[Hank]

On 1/22/2023 at 12:34 AM, mkerian10 said:

A. Regular (non-pilot) people put high stock in that. A question I commonly get asked is if the plane I’m going in has a parachute. For some reason people would rather float down than glide down!

Regular (non-pilot) people think the plane will fall out of the sky if the engine stops. We know better, thus we laugh at the Cirri for making so much of the chute, which can float the plane down to a non-gentle landing wherever the wind blows you . . .

I'm quite happy to not have a chute in my Mooney, for me or for the whole blooming plane!

[carusoam]

On 1/18/2023 at 6:56 AM, Brandt said:

No turbine for me.  Just found the analysis interesting.

And I was was advised against the 310 update for the Acclaim by a couple of people I respect.  I really don’t think it would add much to cruise.  Likely helpful short field, but not worth it to me in terms of engine wear.

get a better look into the 310 upgrade…

It’s all about T/O distance and climb rate.

If you frequent short strips, about 2k’ in length… the 310hp gets you off the ground at the halfway point (most often)…  leaving room to stop if things don’t go as planned…

If you climb all the way to the FLs often… the 2kfpm climb rates are pretty nice…

The extra 10% hp doesn’t sound like much… because it’s not…

It is 30 extra excess hp…. Where excess hp is the good stuff… 

As far as changing cruise performance… it can, but Mooneys are all about aerodynamics, speed and efficiency…

The TopProp is most efficient at 2550rpm… so that’s where I run it…

 

It can also be used  as a safety device… climbing out of icing…

It is sure to make your Acclaim a better machine… there isn’t a bad part you have to put up with…

There are a few MSers that have the 310hp added to their Acclaim… I don’t think it has ever been a standard like the Os got with the 03..

PP thoughts  only, not an hp sales guy…

Best regards,

-a-

[Canadian Gal]

9 minutes ago, Hank said:

Regular (non-pilot) people think the plane will fall out of the sky if the engine stops. We know better, thus we laugh at the Cirri for making so much of the chute, which can float the plane down to a non-gentle landing wherever the wind blows you . . .

I'm quite happy to not have a chute in my Mooney, for me or for the whole blooming plane!

If I ever do buy a cirrus, which is highly doubtful, the chute would be removed.

Why add the weight, complexity, maintenance, and cost, for something that I would never use.

I'll glide to my point of crash in control thank you very much.

I've practiced so many forced landings that when I had to do it for real, it was nothing.

Didn't even get a scratch on the plane, or us inside.

Had someone else been flying, and pulling a chute was an option, they might have, and likely people would have died, or at least been seriously hurt, the plane totalled, and God knows when they would have been found out in the desolate forest, or maybe igniting a forest fire, as it was dry.

Instead it was a good landing, on a gravel road, and about 90 minutes later a driver stopped and picked us up, we had pushed the plane to the side enough and parked it an an angle with the 1 tire slightly in the ditch, the wing was tipped up enough to drive under it.

It was there for 19 days total, and once the engine was replaced, I flew it out.

I was fortunate to have instructors who raked me over the coals regularly, and pushed me to be proficient in actually flying the plane.

While doing my multi ifr rating, on a windy, raining night, hours after the sun had set, my instructor called me up and said lets go flying, its miserable out.

On the way back to the airport around 01:00 hours, bumping along in the pouring rain, she said to me "left or right".

Not knowing what she was asking me that for, i replied 'right', she eased the power back on the right engine, and then to fuel cut off. She didn't utter a word to except for this " No you are NOT allowed to attempt engine restart, so skip that step".

The last 20 minutes were on 1 engine, in poor vis, heavy rain, pitch black night, and I was so damn proud when I greased the landing.

After tying the Seneca down, she said to me "Great job, you are ready for your ride, I'll gladly recommend you". 

 

She was my gentlest instructor of the 12 I've flown with.

 

My float instructor was known by his nickname 'Grumpy'.

Anything less than perfect wasn't good enough.

He was a grumpy old man, but no denying that his 30 years of bush flying, and half of it on floats, hadn't made him really good.

My first flight with him was up a narrow river, landing as close to possible, to a broken river boat, so we could drop off parts for them to fix it. It was shallow, rapids, and narrow.

He pointed out a spot between two sets of rapids, and told me to put it down there.

When i asked him to land it, as it was his plane, and was used to it, and i had very little float time.

He loudly told me to stop making excuses and land the damn plane, he was my instructor,  not my bleep bleep bleep counselor. After what I thought was a pretty good landing,  he mumbled something about having seen worse, then jumped out, and i steered for shore...he was already walking away with the parts in hand before I made it to shore.

After that, the rest seemed pretty easy.

[carusoam]

38 minutes ago, Canadian Gal said:

If I ever do buy a cirrus, which is highly doubtful, the chute would be removed.

Check the POH…

I would bet…

The chute is required for AW reasons… look in the limitations section for the chart… day, night, VFR, IFR…

Without the equipment… the plane would not be air worthy…

Of course… this is US FAA rules that don’t apply everywhere…

Go Mooney!

Best regards,

-a-

[hais]

On 1/24/2023 at 5:02 PM, A64Pilot said:

The whole airplane parachute thing is honestly about 100 years old, it was done successfully back then, but for whatever reason you decide to believe just wasn’t ever done again to my knowledge until the Ultralight era if you will in the 70’s.

To me it’s interesting that to this day that a parachute is still a Cirrus only thing. They aren’t all that difficult to include in a design

The Panthera is coming... hopefully...