The Cirrus Jet:
I kind of don't understand it. The Cirrus has a service ceiling of 28,000', which puts it right with the turboprops. Unlike the turboprops, you'll need a type rating to fly it.
The price is quoted about $2 million, but considering that the thing hasn't been certified yet, expect the real price to be higher. Maybe a lot higher. Maybe high enough to make one think about buying a Cessna Mustang, which can cruise at FL 410, or a TBM-900 turboprop, which is 10% faster than the Cirrus.
For I question whether Cirrus is going to be able to bring its jet in at a list price that is cheaper than any of the single-engined turboprops.
The ones your girlfriends warned you about.
1 hour ago
7 comments:
Probably doesn't matter. Once someone has $2M to spare on private GA transportation, they probably have $3M to spare. If Cirrus can make a profit, it will be a success.
On the service ceiling - I wonder if 280 is a paper limit so they don't have to deal with RVSM equipment and certification.
The key is likely two things:
1) I fly a jet.
2) The system is heavily tilted toward the jets.
Let's look at a jet vs turboprop departing the DFW terminal area.
In your Cirrus jet, you are cleared off, say ADS, and climb to at least 11,000, bit probably 16,000 or 17,000 within 10 minutes. The only delays in your climb are one off the runway for possible DFW traffic, and another at 10,000 to stay below arrivals. Once you're in the departure gate and/or clear of inbounds, it's 17,000 and Center, unless you're stacked a 1-6,000 feet under some climbing airliner. Then Fort Worth Center gets you up to cruise promptly, perhaps a step climb as other jets climb over you, but you'll be at cruise reasonably quickly. Also, in a slow VLJ you'll often get a direct route off the main routes to make things easier, especially if your destination is a smaller field.
Now, let's do the same thing in a Piaggio Avanti. You're faster, and can climb better, but will be held down to between 8,000 and 10,000 feet until between 20-35 miles from the field. Often, you don't even reach 10,000 feet before you talk to Center. Once you're on Fort Worth Center, you slowly climbed under the jets in a similar manner as the VLJ above, but you start from as much as 10-15,000 feet lower because you were held down on departure. The lower your final cruise, ideally at/below 23,000, the more direct routing you are likely to receive, but you've still spent a lot of time much lower/slower.
On a return to ADS, similar things occur. The Cirrus crosses the approach boundary as high as 23,000 feet, while the Piaggio is down at or below 8-10,000 feet at the same distance. Before OAPM, the jet advantage was only about 5,000 feet, but if you have the RNAV RNA value, you can be much higher now (Further out, by PRX, the Cirrus is still at cruise, while the Piaggio is below 20,000 and assigned 10,000...all the while, running away from the Cirrus).
That's the appeal to jets, you're a "big boy".
CP88: You don't think that once ATC figures out that the Cirrus is a jet in name only, that it's performance is that of a turboprop, that they'll make it fly with the turboprops?
Sarah: Probably more than likely. And there is the requirement for a single-pilot to wear an O2 mask above FL350-- FAR 91.211(b)(ii).
Keeping in mind my worldview is restricted by geography—my final 25 years was at ZAU, a geographically small facility loaded with transitioning traffic—and time—I last keyed the mike in anger in 1997.
However, my experience within those two limitations, is that many of the current, high 20s capable aircraft were around then, and we rarely saw any in High (FL240 and above).
Out away from major terminals, in the wide open spaces, it's possible that King Airs and TBMs might go higher than 23 but the performance advantage one might attain in those 5,000 feet probably isn't worth going for. I know the High guys (controllers) are happier with them staying low.
I wrote a lengthy comment on the Flying rag page regarding the TBM that went down near Jamaica. Flying was wildly wrong and unkind in their analysis of controller involvement in that incident. I detailed some controller issues with high and slow airplanes in my response.
There are more than you might think. It shouldn't be hard to find with normal search skills and my name. This link may work.
LRod
ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired
It looks like a solution in search of a problem... But that's just me.
Comrade, no.
The Eclipse jet is the butt of controller jokes (as was the Citation I and II, reinforced for bird strikes from behind) but still gets mixed in with the big boys because of the magic "turbojet" designation. I've seen this since 1988 at ZFW, and until they differentiate the types of jets somehow, we just make things work.
We've had the SF-34A and B (the B would eat the A in front of it alive), the Fokker-100 ("I've got that Fokker in sight" was a favorite pilot call), and so forth. When I came in, we had the L-1011's that killed everything in sight plus the DC-10's, MD-11's and those lovely B-727's heat outran everything but the Lockheed's. we'll make it work.
CenterGuy (civil, since I were one, too),
Twenty years earlier, we had the CV88s. They were the fastest airplane in my lineup. If I had one in front, I could slow everyone behind it to 400 (KIAS) and still build room.
My favorite anomaly between old and new was back in the day, NW had a company policy to not exceed 320 Kts. They were automatically last in Chicago. When we got down to 250 with everyone, we'd even tuck them in behind the CV58s.
In the late '80s and all through the '90s, everyone got all fuel persnickity, and everyone started running at a max 320. New kids ran their problems behind the best placed front runner at 320. I would dazzle them occasionally when I'd get someone to do 370 and then run my problem behind him.
"Whaaa? I didn't know they could go that fast."
The speed that got NW placed last became the lead speed in twenty years.
And yes, SlowTations. All they could outrun was a Herky Perk or an Electra…barely.
LRod
ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired
Post a Comment