I guess it did fly. Not sure why they moth-balled it. Whether it was too costly, market projection, or if there is something in the design that they couldn’t figure out. But it was a lot more jet than the SF50. Carried more, more seats, faster, longer range, higher maximum operating altitude. That was kind of my long game, as they no longer make the Mustang, which I like, but it is stuck in old technology, the SF50 just doesn’t do a lot of my missions.

I always thought the D-Jet was the best looking of the group.

https://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports ... nds-d-jet/

Charles, was any of the M600 wing design carried over from the Piper Jet?

You know, I am sure some of the research and development was incorporated. Just how similar, I don’t really know. I know when you’re flying the M600 and look out at that wing, it is almost identical in shape and size and with similar flying characteristics to the Mustang. Gives a very solid ride.

That was very nice looking. Might not be so fun if that engine grenaded.

A pylon is a tremendous safety feature. It puts the engine away from the fuselage so that fire, vibration, mechanical damage don't as easily compromise the aircraft's ability to fly.

Buried engines are also hard to service, preflight, and keep deiced. They also create more noise in the airframe.

It is really, really hard to come up with a decent single engine jet concept when considering safety, noise, thrust vector, trim drag, tail design, etc. That is why they are all crippled in some way. Cirrus made it to market on the back of piston single pilots placing orders, aiming for poor performance, and lots of funding.

By comparison, it is trivial to configure a twin jet. Two engines on thin pylons. Done.

Mike C.

After years of reading Mike C’s opinion of the SF50, he has me convinced...A twin jet truly makes more sense than a single. It’s kinda like taping an Estes model rocket engine to a wine bottle. How do you make it fly straight with only one?

Except that is not correct.

Top 10 richest people in USA (as of July 2020 per Forbes):

1. Jeff Bezos - $179 billion
2. Bill Gates - $111 billion
3. Mark Zuckerberg - $85 billion
4. Warren Buffet - $73.5 billion
5. Larry Ellison - $72 billion
6. Steve Ballmer - $69 billion
7. Elon Musk - $68 billion
8. Larry Page - $67.5 billion
9. Sergey Brin - $65.7 billion
10. Alice Walton - $62.3 billion

I don't see a "dozens" to 1 ratio from "old" to "new" money. Of the above, only 1 is "old" money, the top 9 are self made.

The VAST majority of the wealth above is virtual. It isn't actually "money", it is perceived worth on paper mostly of the stock they hold in their enterprises. All of that wealth wasn't "taken" from someone, it is derived almost entirely from the opinion of others what their companies are worth. A huge number of people collectively decided what Jeff Bezos is worth, not himself, and he's not sitting on a $179B pile of gold he stole from everybody. It is a complete myth that Jeff Bezos "took" something, he instead "created" something that others find valuable.

You imagine some sort of evil imbalance of wealth, but in reality, the wealth is virtual and you can't "take it" and give it to the poor because it does not truly exist. As soon as you "take it", it disappears, it is just perception, a mirage.

If everybody in the above list decided to "cash out", sell all their holdings, they would devalue their holding so much as to make them worthless. There just isn't enough hard wealth to buy it all. If that is attempted, all the little investors who have that stock are losing wealth. Indeed, a wealth tax, forcing the above to pay actual real money based on perceived wealth, will cause them to have to sell stock, which will lower their stock price, which will take wealth from the little investors. The little investors are ultimately the ones who pay the wealth tax.

I think it is amazing and wonderful that the wealthiest humans on the planet are those who created things used by just about everybody else. You do not have to go too far back in human history to find the wealthiest humans on the planet were those who oppressed and stole their way to wealth.

Mike C.

It looked good in the magazines but not so much in person, IMO.
I visited the factory with a friend in 2006.
The lines and symmetry were just off, to me.

Any comments on how the engine placement on the Cirrus would be a factor in a bird strike? Would the bird bounce off the windshield and pass clear over the engine or is it most likely going to get sucked in?

Even though the Cirrus has a parachute, a bird ingestion is more likely to happen on landing/takeoff where the chute may be ineffective.

It looked good in the magazines but not so much in person, IMO.
I visited the factory with a friend in 2006.
The lines and symmetry were just off, to me.

If someone told me this photo was taken in Germany in 1942, I might actually believe them.

Hmm... everything but the pinstripe.

Ran across this video of the D-Jet. It shows the interior.

Conflicting stats on the internet.
315kts
900-1,100 (LRC) NM range
1.89 million in 2010 dollars.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/XPRT39_vKi0[/youtube]

https://stratosaircraft.com/

I like the looks of the Stratos Jet.