Naysayers be damned, it's great to see Cirrus continue to innovate its product line.

https://cirrusaircraft.com/ca/cirrus-un ... ision-jet/

That is beautiful. And congrats to Cirrus for continuing to evolve, innovate, improve.

From the right angles its a beautiful airplane.
Other angles not so much, but very cool and agreed it's nice to see cirrus continuing to improve their product generation after generation.

Just makes the older ones closer to my reach

Great at lifestyle marketing. You take that same video package and feature a Piper Tomahawk and it's still going to punch pretty well.

BBSJ

Big
Beautiful
Short
Jet

Hats off to Cirrus

For those of you who have seen some of my posts, you know I've defended Cirrus every step of the way, especially when people knocked the 'chute, safe return, the planes. I've owned two and they were the best all-around planes that I have owned.

But Cirrus failed on this. 5 years later from the G2+ and this is it. That tells me a few things in my opinion:
1. They couldn't figure out how to get more fuel/range/payload and any combo of both with that engine and wing/platform.
2. There's nothing here that makes it that much better. Yes, Cirrus improves their products, but jeez, this after 5 years. Still the same speed, range, etc.

They're payload full fuel is terrible and can't go far. A TBM is more money and does more, goes faster and longer. Even an M600/700's have more range with a 4-person payload and will be almost as fast.

I was sure G3 VJ would add 200 or more miles and a few hundred lbs, and be more competitive in the 4 person, 1000NM trip.

This tells me that Cirrus must have hit the wall and they need an all new platform.

I’ve been a Cirrus “Fan Boy” since I bought my first SR20 from the factory over a decade ago, but this Cirrus is sad, really sad.

Those limitations are intrinsic to being a single engine jet.

The plane is forced to operate at altitudes where it can't be efficient or fast.

If it had two engines, it could go much further. The Eclipse EA500 has less fuel, has less total engine thrust, goes much faster, and goes further.

If it had one turboprop engine, it could go much further. TBM for example.

A jet restricted to turboprop altitudes is just a bad deal. If you want range speed, and altitude, you need something else. If you want a jet just to have a jet, go for it, but be realistic about the practical limitations it has.

The SF50 will create a whole new class of customers for entry level twin jets when they tire of the limitations.

Mike C.

Those limitations are intrinsic to being a single engine jet.

The plane is forced to operate at altitudes where it can't be efficient or fast.

If it had two engines, it could go much further. The Eclipse EA500 has less fuel, has less total engine thrust, goes much faster, and goes further.

If it had one turboprop engine, it could go much further. TBM for example.

A jet restricted to turboprop altitudes is just a bad deal. If you want range speed, and altitude, you need something else. If you want a jet just to have a jet, go for it, but be realistic about the practical limitations it has.

The SF50 will create a whole new class of customers for entry level twin jets when they tire of the limitations.

Mike C.

The range numbers on the VJ are very optimistic. Requires an optimal climb and descent profile, which unless you are flying remote to remote airports is not real world. The plane burns over twice as much fuel as a turboprop at lower altitudes. When you climb at 160 knots, you are in the way, and they are going to keep you lower than the airlines in the departure terminal and arrival corridors, which really kills your reserves. With 400 or less full fuel useful load you are often trading fuel for payload. But really nice for shorter flights. The range payload doesn’t work for many of my flights. Especially the fun ones where I’m carrying friends and family. Maybe the G4? For now that light utility market is Piper, Epic, and Daher.

https://youtu.be/MZXSj8Fns-s?si=9RuV8hG4Drkyjrqn

TBM vs VJ from owner

They are, but the Eclipse goes a lot faster, goes higher, carries 300 lbs LESS fuel, and still manages to go further by some amount while carrying more cabin load.

Unlike piston, two jet engines makes the plane BETTER. Unlike piston, there's no negative for having two engines safety wise.

The V tail ( actually X tail) design is quite a lot of drag.


They could make the TF-60, two small jet engines, and the plane will go further, faster, higher, for the same gross weight. The Eclipse did it.

Mike C.

I keep wondering when we're going to see Cirrus do it. The aviation market has nothing else to touch the Eclipse combination of speed, fuel economy, and service ceiling.

If Eclipse had managed to bring the 700 to market (G3000 avionics, 14" longer tube, and 1470nm advertised range), I think it would have been a smashing success.

A twin jet would violate the entrenched Cirrus religion of single engine airplanes.

The SEJ is bult around a false notion that it would be better than a twin jet just like a piston single is better than a piston twin. Jets just aren't like that.

If Cirrus came out with a piston twin, say TR22, and it went 150 knots, burned 3 times the fuel as an SR22, would that sell? They have done basically that with the SEJ.

Cirrus said at one time they wanted to make the slowest, lowest jet, and, with some difficulty, they did it.

Mike C.

And to make it an even better deal, Cirrus has that nice program to manage your maintenance!