Cirrus Jet reviewed...

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

Tommy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
First Name: Tommy
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N591CA
Airports: KCGF
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: Cirrus Jet reviewed...

Post by Tommy »

That's part of the mission Cary. Looking cool is part of the mission for some people.
More for some less for others. All for some and none for others. It just depends.
User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:37 pm
First Name: Colin
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N972RD
Airports: KFHR
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Re: Cirrus Jet reviewed...

Post by Colin »

A friend has a Citation jet. I don't think it's a fancy one, sort of on the older side. He said the ADS-B upgrade was going to cost him $110k. But I asked where he landed in LA and he said he parks at Hawthorne because LAX was too expensive after a while. Not the services, those were about the same between the two places, but he burns 90% of his cruise GPH when he's sitting on the ground and the hold times for takeoff at LAX were getting too long.

I was stunned, but if you are burning 40 gph on the ground vs. 65 gph in the sky that makes a lot of sense.

I guess I need a jet where I taxi around with an electric motor until I'm second in line for takeoff.

If payload isn't much of an issue I guess I could have a Austro engine in there pushing me along, burning the same JetA, running the AC until it was time to turn the turbine.
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~3,000hrs
colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
Tommy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
First Name: Tommy
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N591CA
Airports: KCGF
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: Cirrus Jet reviewed...

Post by Tommy »

The grass is not always greener on the other side. Define your mission and don't deviate.
Stay practical and get your head out of the sky and keep it in the cockpit.
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Cirrus Jet reviewed...

Post by rwtucker »

Not to beat a dead horse (even one that will lead the charge for several hundred sales) but the Cirrus Vision is such an inferior aircraft when compared with the Eclipse 500. Sometimes I don't understand how the market makes its decisions . . but it does. I have 20+ hours in the 500 now: 375 kts., FL 410, 60 GPH all day long, good slow speed handling, lighting fast avionics and displays, cabin pressure usually around 6,200 ft., comfortable. About the only drawback is range. It took us 25-30 minutes to get out of Phoenix airspace one day zig-zagging and held at 4,000 feet by ATC and we had to stop for fuel on the way to Austin. The Vision is 60 GPH for 315 kts. so I suppose its range is even more restricted, especially since it won't fly high enough to gain maximum potantial efficiencies.
User avatar
TimS
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
First Name: Timothy
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N1446C
Airports: 6B6 Stowe MA
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: Cirrus Jet reviewed...

Post by TimS »

rwtucker wrote:Not to beat a dead horse (even one that will lead the charge for several hundred sales) but the Cirrus Vision is such an inferior aircraft when compared with the Eclipse 500. Sometimes I don't understand how the market makes its decisions . . but it does. I have 20+ hours in the 500 now: 375 kts., FL 410, 60 GPH all day long, good slow speed handling, lighting fast avionics and displays, cabin pressure usually around 6,200 ft., comfortable. About the only drawback is range. It took us 25-30 minutes to get out of Phoenix airspace one day zig-zagging and held at 4,000 feet by ATC and we had to stop for fuel on the way to Austin. The Vision is 60 GPH for 315 kts. so I suppose its range is even more restricted, especially since it won't fly high enough to gain maximum potantial efficiencies.
Easy, Garmin, flies like a known plane (Cirrus SR22/SR20), does not have bad reputation (Eclipse not coming with promised stuff, new company being a stickler on parts, cost of parts...), has a good sales force, takes care of the used market, continues to improve new versions/models....

Tim
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2043
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
First Name: Antoine
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N121AG
Airports: LSGG
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Cirrus Jet reviewed...

Post by Antoine »

I don't think the Cirrus Jet is an inferior aircraft because there is nothing comparable.
It is specifically targeted at the Cirrus SR22 owner who wants to become a jet pilot.
With its single engine, familiar Garmin avionics and limited altitude potential, it is a much smaller step up for the target customer than an Eclipse or any other twin engined jet.
It is also very roomy and luxurious. Ego boost!
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Cirrus Jet reviewed...

Post by rwtucker »

The Microsoft whiz kids skipped a few important beats getting the Eclipse to the market and past the second greatest recession in history. My points go to performance and features per dollar, whether purchase price or hourly. Spec for spec, the 500 is closer to the Honda and you can pick up a 500 with all of the upgrades for less than $2M, less than $1M with older tech.

The point on parts is a good one. We had a 1,500 hour starter fail at less than 400 hours (bad brushes, arced over) and they wanted to replace the entire starter. Parts aren't cheap but it remains to be seen how Cirrus will deal with that.

We need some data on ease of transition. One local Eclipse pilot (the ones I have flown in are hdq in another state) transitioned to the 500 from a C1182, commenting that it was a surprisingly easy transition.

Hats off to Cirrus for superiority in marketing and sales . . . and timing.
Tommy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
First Name: Tommy
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N591CA
Airports: KCGF
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: Cirrus Jet reviewed...

Post by Tommy »

More than any other product than I can think of, support is everything. In this industry, I truly believe whether you consciously realize it or not, you are buying factory support first and the airplane second. It is that important. With the kind of money that we invest in these airplanes, we definitely want to know with a high degree of certainty that our planes will be readily supported as needed. There's just to much money invested in these planes to have to worry about whether or not a part or ground support is available when needed at a reasonable price. This is the very reason (along with others) that I have held Diamond at arms length (and still do) when I decided to upgrade to a twin. I just was not comfortable with Diamond's demonstrated support or lack there of over the history of their existence. I didn't get or have the warm fuzzies for Diamond. We'll see what happens with their latest shakeup.
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2043
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
First Name: Antoine
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N121AG
Airports: LSGG
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Cirrus Jet reviewed...

Post by Antoine »

Agreed Tommy. In this respect the Extra is not an easy one. Fortunately the "owner produced" provisions in FAA land help a lot.
Rob would you mind starting a thread on the Eclipse? It looks like an amazing aircraft to me and if my daughter every marries a very rich Russian I might be tempted...
What I don't understand is how "unaccceptable" it is to fly such an aircraft in scenic VFR over mountains, just for fun. Apart from the fuel burn any other issues?
Also would like to know if there's a way to make engine maintenance costs predictable (some program)
Post Reply