6 ms·

Cirrus Vision – Single-engine personal jet aircraft

48 points by cft 9y ago

anovikov 9y ago
Its speed and range specs are so poor that it is joke of a jet. It performs worse than many turboprops. Can totally see no point in owning this. There are no 'real' jets below Embraer Phenom 100 $4M price tag, sorry. Cessna Mustang at $3.3M but it doesn't have 'real' toilet. Or Eclipse 550 at $3M but it has none at all. There are aftermarket conversions of old Cessna Citations like Sierra, they start from $1M used or $2M new and provide a killer value compared to any of these, with 3000-4000km range, full size toilet and much bigger/comfier cabins.
- qrbLPHiKpiux 9y ago
  Turbine engines are horribly inefficient at low altitudes and speeds. This engine is totally mismatched for its real application.
  - jdhawk 9y ago
    It has a 8500m/26,000ft service ceiling....thats low altitude?
    - anovikov 9y ago
      yes it is.
- cft 9y ago
  Those jets must be flown by two pilots. This one is designed for a single owner-pilot. That's a huge difference.
  - mattrichardson 9y ago
    The Phenom 100 is single owner-pilot too.
  - anovikov 9y ago
    Nope. All of the modern light business jets can be technically and legally flown by a single pilot. Any light jet that can't is dead on arrival, no one would buy it. Other thing is that it is illegal to operate them (maybe not all and/or not on all markets, but most of the time for sure) with a single pilot while carrying paying passengers e.g. charter operations. But if you are an owner-pilot and fly alone or with your family - that's fine! People who want to 'hack' a plane industry by producing a much cheaper and better light jet should calm down. There is no way to do it. This is not space industry, or car industry, which is dominated by deeply entrenched, century old, corrupt weary monopolies. Existing light jet builders know what they are doing and they work in a real market all the way (this is why Boeing or Airbus doesn't make them - they would have been unable to compete).
    - maneesh 9y ago
      Have you ever heard of Charles H. Duell? He was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented."
      - anovikov 9y ago
        By inventing new physics/materials/production processes which will allow to build say, jet engines with much hotter hot sections, resulting in quantum leap in efficiency? Sure, but all of these startups are using stock engines. By inventing way to build airframes that are immune to both rusting and cracking and will require no X-rays or other (costly and time-consuming) inspections? Sure, people will jump on it! It will be a game changer. But no one seems to be trying. But not by simply fixing the broken business processes, the way Elon Musk did it with space rockets - building essentially same planes, but 'better'. Because in the world of private jets, things are not broken, that is a real competitive market.
    - ams6110 9y ago
      > if you are an owner-pilot and fly alone or with your family - that's fine! If you are that, please check your ego at the door. One story among many about a man who killed himself, his entire family, and a couple of his neighbors by being unwilling to admit the weather was too bad to be flying. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2017/01/01/divers-search-lake-erie-for-missing-plane.html http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2017/01/01/div...
- icc97 9y ago
  The difference doesn't seem huge, not considering the price. Phenom [0] vs Vision [1] Phenom: - Price: $4M - Capacity: 1 pilot, 7 passengers - Cruise Speed: 750 km/h - Range 2,182 km (4 x 200lb people) Vision: - Price: $2M - Capacity: 1 pilot, 6 passengers - Cruise Speed: 556 km/h - Range 1,111 km (6 x 200lb people) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_Phenom_100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_Phenom_100 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Vision_SF50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Vision_SF50
  - anovikov 9y ago
    Half the range cuts you off from many markets. See, range below some 700km is better handled by a helicopter than a jet because of the time it takes to get to and from the airport. There isn't so much market between 700 and 1100 km ranges... And the speed is ridiculously low - typical for turboprops say Pilatus PC-12. And as others have pointed, it is really an abuse of jet engine. Operating it at this speed and altitude means deeply sub-optimal fuel use. The thing will be costly and scary (one engine) to operate. I don't think this will get anywhere at all. It is much worse than even the Eclipse, that offered a much better plane at a similar cost (1.5M initially in 2007 dollars ~$2M now), and still bankrupted. And there are many more good light jets on the market now than in 2007.
    - user5994461 9y ago
      700km is around 2 hours with a high speed train. There are railway stations in every city center and it doesn't take an hour trip to get to it, contrary to an airport.
      - icc97 9y ago
        I don't know which land you're from, but in the US (I assume the main market) almost all trains have a max of 177 km/h [0]. There are about 4 lines in western Europe that go faster than 300 km/h [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_the_United_States_2013.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:Hi... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_Europe.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:Hi...
- ivanech 9y ago
  I mean this with sincere curiosity - why do the toilets dictate the 'realness' of a jet?
  - wayn3 9y ago
    weak bladder
  - anovikov 9y ago
    Definitely. There is no potential for charter operations for a plane with no toilet. Many companies learned it the hard way trying to operate the Eclipse. With no charter market, plane is dead because there are never enough hobby pilots to buy it to pay back sunk costs. For low-range flights <600 miles where operating without toilet is feasible, helicopter works better.
  - 6stringmerc 9y ago
    The way I understand it growing up, if you can fly further than a normal human can wait to go to the restroom, you probably need one on board.
empressplay 9y ago
No toilet? Pass.
pcurve 9y ago
For $2 mil, you get a brand new plane with jet engine, modern cockpit for two pilots, and a parachute for the entire plane. I'd say that's revolutionary. No toilet? Is that such a big deal on small planes like this?
- tyingq 9y ago
  Assuming cruising at their "economy" speed, it's in the air for up to 5 hours.
- mrleinad 9y ago
  Considering you'll have to land before 1100 km and that shouldn't take more than an hour and a half, I'd say it's more nitpicking than a real issue. Just take it into account and go to the toilet beforehand, with some plastic bags or empty bottles for emergencies.
MiddleEndian 9y ago
Regarding bathroom comments: This seems to be a personal vehicle for very rich people. Most cars don't have bathrooms either.
- achamayou 9y ago
  But even the very rich need to use the bathroom from time to time, and landing a jet is significantly more involved than stopping a car for a break.
  - cft 9y ago
    "relief station” portable toilet that is available as an option “just in case of emergency,” http://m.aviationweek.com/ebace-2015/cirrus-closes-personal-jet-finish-line-after-10-year-stretch http://m.aviationweek.com/ebace-2015/cirrus-closes-personal-...
    - forthefuture 9y ago
      Hard to imagine paying $2 million for a plane and shitting in a bucket behind a curtain.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        That seems to be the option for $3M jets as well. You have to get up to $4M to get a door in front of your toilet. Here's the $3M toilet option (Cessna Citation Mustang): https://blog.privatefly.com/us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mustang-loo-2.jpg https://blog.privatefly.com/us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mu...
      - taf2 9y ago
        not really very hard to imagine. money doesn't always equal good at logistics...
      - avar 9y ago
        Just buy a 50¢ adult diaper and go to the bathroom without leaving the comfort of your seat.
phkahler 9y ago
How does this compare: http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-vtwin.html http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-vtwin.html
- unchocked 9y ago
  Incomparable, other than they both fly. The Cirrus vision is a certified, pressurized turbofan aircraft. The Velocity is an experimental, piston engined unpressurized aircraft. It's like comparing a garage-built VW replica with a Maybach.
vosper 9y ago
Do the parachutes work reliably? Presumably once it's deployed you lose all control, and land wherever, which might be okay if you land on a field, but what about a lake?
- icc97 9y ago
  I assume it's a last ditch manouvre. Planes are designed to glide if the engine fails [0] - so you'd do your best to get over land / safe and then pull the parachute. But also I assume if it did land on water - you might have a short amount of time to get out. At least you're not crashing into the water at 100 mph. [0]: https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-airplane-glide-if-all-engines-fail https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-airplane-glide-if-all-...
  - vosper 9y ago
    Duh, I forgot about gliding. I read the article as "if anything goes wrong, just pop the parachute", but of course you'd try to glide and land it somewhere safely, first.
- sowbug 9y ago
  There is a joke among Cirrus owners that the way to deploy the parachute is to pull it with your right hand, and then call your insurance agent with your left hand. The implication is that the aircraft is likely a total loss from that point. Of the ~100 Cirrus parachute deployments to date, about 15 planes were repaired and put back into service. There were about 150 survivors and 1 fatality in those deployments. Cirrus says deployments have never failed when the system was being used within limits. I wasn't able to find the circumstances of that death, but the numbers show that yes, the parachutes are reliable. As you point out, they can't protect you from whatever you land on -- lake, volcano, piranhas, etc.
  - jamra 9y ago
    I was shown a video by my father who owns a Cirrus of a parachuting plane on fire. It may have been the fatality. I believe the parachute works beautifully, but you have to make sure you use it correctly.
dingaling 9y ago
I expected to find a modern equivalent to the Bede BD-5J ( single-engine, single-seat ) but it's just another small-cabin jet. Even Gulfstream tried that back in the 1980s with the single-engine Peregrine.
pbsurf 9y ago
Fuel consumption works out to between 2 and 4 mpg, depending on payload.
dorfsmay 9y ago
> The experienced pilot sitting beside me assured me I couldn't crash the plane. It pretty much wouldn't let me. Isn't this what Airbus used to say? Since computers are doing more and more of the flying, the one thing that is heard on Cockpit Voice recorder before the rash is "What is the plane doing?" There is a lot of research in this domain, there is no way we will go back to full manual flying, but there is a lot of research in how to let the pilot know what the airplane is doing in a clear manner that is obvious even during a stressful situation. Two examples of planes crashing because of misunderstanding between the pilots and the computers: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Regionais_Flight_402 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Re... The reverser deployed on one side, did not let the pilot know, the computer cut the power on that side, did not let the pilot know why, the pilots assumed there issue was the power being cut off for no reason, so reapplying it making the situation worse - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_7... The pilots reduce power on one-side because of surging in that engine, the computer saw that as an anomaly and increased power in both engine resulting in the break up of both engine. The computer never told the pilots what it was doing, the pilot had never been briefed on this mechanism. The captain retired as he felt he could no longer flying safely if he didn't know what the planes were doing.
- opticalflow 9y ago
  Yep, it's all fun and games until your ASI goes haywire because of ice or a bug in your pitot tube, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_re... However one thing I DO find clever about the Vision is their fully integrated AOA indicator as a primary instrument. This seems to be gaining traction in the industry overall, which should have positive impact on flight safety.

48 points by cft 9y ago

Its speed and range specs are so poor that it is joke of a jet. It performs worse than many turboprops. Can totally see no point in owning this. There are no 'real' jets below Embraer Phenom 100 $4M price tag, sorry. Cessna Mustang at $3.3M but it doesn't have 'real' toilet. Or Eclipse 550 at $3M but it has none at all. There are aftermarket conversions of old Cessna Citations like Sierra, they start from $1M used or $2M new and provide a killer value compared to any of these, with 3000-4000km range, full size toilet and much bigger/comfier cabins.

qrbLPHiKpiux 9y ago
Turbine engines are horribly inefficient at low altitudes and speeds. This engine is totally mismatched for its real application.
- jdhawk 9y ago
  It has a 8500m/26,000ft service ceiling....thats low altitude?
  - anovikov 9y ago
    yes it is.
cft 9y ago
Those jets must be flown by two pilots. This one is designed for a single owner-pilot. That's a huge difference.
- mattrichardson 9y ago
  The Phenom 100 is single owner-pilot too.
- anovikov 9y ago
  Nope. All of the modern light business jets can be technically and legally flown by a single pilot. Any light jet that can't is dead on arrival, no one would buy it. Other thing is that it is illegal to operate them (maybe not all and/or not on all markets, but most of the time for sure) with a single pilot while carrying paying passengers e.g. charter operations. But if you are an owner-pilot and fly alone or with your family - that's fine! People who want to 'hack' a plane industry by producing a much cheaper and better light jet should calm down. There is no way to do it. This is not space industry, or car industry, which is dominated by deeply entrenched, century old, corrupt weary monopolies. Existing light jet builders know what they are doing and they work in a real market all the way (this is why Boeing or Airbus doesn't make them - they would have been unable to compete).
  - maneesh 9y ago
    Have you ever heard of Charles H. Duell? He was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented."
    - anovikov 9y ago
      By inventing new physics/materials/production processes which will allow to build say, jet engines with much hotter hot sections, resulting in quantum leap in efficiency? Sure, but all of these startups are using stock engines. By inventing way to build airframes that are immune to both rusting and cracking and will require no X-rays or other (costly and time-consuming) inspections? Sure, people will jump on it! It will be a game changer. But no one seems to be trying. But not by simply fixing the broken business processes, the way Elon Musk did it with space rockets - building essentially same planes, but 'better'. Because in the world of private jets, things are not broken, that is a real competitive market.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    > if you are an owner-pilot and fly alone or with your family - that's fine! If you are that, please check your ego at the door. One story among many about a man who killed himself, his entire family, and a couple of his neighbors by being unwilling to admit the weather was too bad to be flying. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2017/01/01/divers-search-lake-erie-for-missing-plane.html http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2017/01/01/div...
icc97 9y ago
The difference doesn't seem huge, not considering the price. Phenom [0] vs Vision [1] Phenom: - Price: $4M - Capacity: 1 pilot, 7 passengers - Cruise Speed: 750 km/h - Range 2,182 km (4 x 200lb people) Vision: - Price: $2M - Capacity: 1 pilot, 6 passengers - Cruise Speed: 556 km/h - Range 1,111 km (6 x 200lb people) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_Phenom_100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_Phenom_100 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Vision_SF50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Vision_SF50
- anovikov 9y ago
  Half the range cuts you off from many markets. See, range below some 700km is better handled by a helicopter than a jet because of the time it takes to get to and from the airport. There isn't so much market between 700 and 1100 km ranges... And the speed is ridiculously low - typical for turboprops say Pilatus PC-12. And as others have pointed, it is really an abuse of jet engine. Operating it at this speed and altitude means deeply sub-optimal fuel use. The thing will be costly and scary (one engine) to operate. I don't think this will get anywhere at all. It is much worse than even the Eclipse, that offered a much better plane at a similar cost (1.5M initially in 2007 dollars ~$2M now), and still bankrupted. And there are many more good light jets on the market now than in 2007.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    700km is around 2 hours with a high speed train. There are railway stations in every city center and it doesn't take an hour trip to get to it, contrary to an airport.
    - icc97 9y ago
      I don't know which land you're from, but in the US (I assume the main market) almost all trains have a max of 177 km/h [0]. There are about 4 lines in western Europe that go faster than 300 km/h [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_the_United_States_2013.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:Hi... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_Europe.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:Hi...
ivanech 9y ago
I mean this with sincere curiosity - why do the toilets dictate the 'realness' of a jet?
- wayn3 9y ago
  weak bladder
- anovikov 9y ago
  Definitely. There is no potential for charter operations for a plane with no toilet. Many companies learned it the hard way trying to operate the Eclipse. With no charter market, plane is dead because there are never enough hobby pilots to buy it to pay back sunk costs. For low-range flights <600 miles where operating without toilet is feasible, helicopter works better.
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  The way I understand it growing up, if you can fly further than a normal human can wait to go to the restroom, you probably need one on board.

empressplay 9y ago

No toilet? Pass.

pcurve 9y ago

For $2 mil, you get a brand new plane with jet engine, modern cockpit for two pilots, and a parachute for the entire plane. I'd say that's revolutionary. No toilet? Is that such a big deal on small planes like this?

tyingq 9y ago
Assuming cruising at their "economy" speed, it's in the air for up to 5 hours.
mrleinad 9y ago
Considering you'll have to land before 1100 km and that shouldn't take more than an hour and a half, I'd say it's more nitpicking than a real issue. Just take it into account and go to the toilet beforehand, with some plastic bags or empty bottles for emergencies.

MiddleEndian 9y ago

Regarding bathroom comments: This seems to be a personal vehicle for very rich people. Most cars don't have bathrooms either.

achamayou 9y ago
But even the very rich need to use the bathroom from time to time, and landing a jet is significantly more involved than stopping a car for a break.
- cft 9y ago
  "relief station” portable toilet that is available as an option “just in case of emergency,” http://m.aviationweek.com/ebace-2015/cirrus-closes-personal-jet-finish-line-after-10-year-stretch http://m.aviationweek.com/ebace-2015/cirrus-closes-personal-...
  - forthefuture 9y ago
    Hard to imagine paying $2 million for a plane and shitting in a bucket behind a curtain.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      That seems to be the option for $3M jets as well. You have to get up to $4M to get a door in front of your toilet. Here's the $3M toilet option (Cessna Citation Mustang): https://blog.privatefly.com/us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mustang-loo-2.jpg https://blog.privatefly.com/us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mu...
    - taf2 9y ago
      not really very hard to imagine. money doesn't always equal good at logistics...
    - avar 9y ago
      Just buy a 50¢ adult diaper and go to the bathroom without leaving the comfort of your seat.

phkahler 9y ago

How does this compare: http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-vtwin.html http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-vtwin.html

unchocked 9y ago
Incomparable, other than they both fly. The Cirrus vision is a certified, pressurized turbofan aircraft. The Velocity is an experimental, piston engined unpressurized aircraft. It's like comparing a garage-built VW replica with a Maybach.

vosper 9y ago

Do the parachutes work reliably? Presumably once it's deployed you lose all control, and land wherever, which might be okay if you land on a field, but what about a lake?

icc97 9y ago
I assume it's a last ditch manouvre. Planes are designed to glide if the engine fails [0] - so you'd do your best to get over land / safe and then pull the parachute. But also I assume if it did land on water - you might have a short amount of time to get out. At least you're not crashing into the water at 100 mph. [0]: https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-airplane-glide-if-all-engines-fail https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-airplane-glide-if-all-...
- vosper 9y ago
  Duh, I forgot about gliding. I read the article as "if anything goes wrong, just pop the parachute", but of course you'd try to glide and land it somewhere safely, first.
sowbug 9y ago
There is a joke among Cirrus owners that the way to deploy the parachute is to pull it with your right hand, and then call your insurance agent with your left hand. The implication is that the aircraft is likely a total loss from that point. Of the ~100 Cirrus parachute deployments to date, about 15 planes were repaired and put back into service. There were about 150 survivors and 1 fatality in those deployments. Cirrus says deployments have never failed when the system was being used within limits. I wasn't able to find the circumstances of that death, but the numbers show that yes, the parachutes are reliable. As you point out, they can't protect you from whatever you land on -- lake, volcano, piranhas, etc.
- jamra 9y ago
  I was shown a video by my father who owns a Cirrus of a parachuting plane on fire. It may have been the fatality. I believe the parachute works beautifully, but you have to make sure you use it correctly.

dingaling 9y ago

I expected to find a modern equivalent to the Bede BD-5J ( single-engine, single-seat ) but it's just another small-cabin jet. Even Gulfstream tried that back in the 1980s with the single-engine Peregrine.

pbsurf 9y ago

Fuel consumption works out to between 2 and 4 mpg, depending on payload.

dorfsmay 9y ago

> The experienced pilot sitting beside me assured me I couldn't crash the plane. It pretty much wouldn't let me. Isn't this what Airbus used to say? Since computers are doing more and more of the flying, the one thing that is heard on Cockpit Voice recorder before the rash is "What is the plane doing?" There is a lot of research in this domain, there is no way we will go back to full manual flying, but there is a lot of research in how to let the pilot know what the airplane is doing in a clear manner that is obvious even during a stressful situation. Two examples of planes crashing because of misunderstanding between the pilots and the computers: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Regionais_Flight_402 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Re... The reverser deployed on one side, did not let the pilot know, the computer cut the power on that side, did not let the pilot know why, the pilots assumed there issue was the power being cut off for no reason, so reapplying it making the situation worse - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_7... The pilots reduce power on one-side because of surging in that engine, the computer saw that as an anomaly and increased power in both engine resulting in the break up of both engine. The computer never told the pilots what it was doing, the pilot had never been briefed on this mechanism. The captain retired as he felt he could no longer flying safely if he didn't know what the planes were doing.

opticalflow 9y ago
Yep, it's all fun and games until your ASI goes haywire because of ice or a bug in your pitot tube, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_re... However one thing I DO find clever about the Vision is their fully integrated AOA indicator as a primary instrument. This seems to be gaining traction in the industry overall, which should have positive impact on flight safety.