4 ms·

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 '

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.

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.