Mike,

Sorry, you said 465 not 600. (This was back a couple of pages) And the trig I was referencing was you comment in the above post which implied at least to me that the plane was going to contend with a few hundred pounds of vertical thrust. If that as not your intent, then i read it incorrectly.

Tim

Guys, Mike is correct in what he's pointing out as inefficiencies and compromises in the design. It is impossible to design a SE jet without many of these compromises given that the engine must be aligned with the centerline of the a/c and needs the cleanest inlet flow and outlet flow possible.

The SE business jet design that I worked on (called the Century Jet) had the engine buried in the aft fuselage and an s-duct feeding it. This caused many problems including 'dirty' inlet air due to the flow separations on the duct turns, deicing of the duct, fireproofing and a host of other configuration and systems issues.

Cirrus considered MANY, MANY different configurations for the SE jet layout (I've seen all of their conceptual design configs) and settled on the one with the fewest compromises. However it still is riddled with compromises, including many of the points which Mike is making regarding the high, upwardly canted thrust line, curved outlet duct and many other points he's made. There's no doubt that these compromises impact the design and it's overall efficiency.

At the same time Mike, you're wearing only one hat throughout this entire thread - your Engineering hat. I don't disagree with many of the technical assessments you've made and how they compromise the design. What I believe you are continuing to underestimate is the marketing approach that Cirrus has taken. They are marketing this in large part as a step up to their very large existing client base. Sure it will be a compromised design but it will still be a substantial step up for existing SR22 owners. Could it have been better from an engineering standpoint with two engines? Yes, I believe so. Would it have been as good a market success with two engines? It's impossible to say but I would guess no. Once you're a twin jet and competing head to head with the likes of Cessna, Embraer, Eclipse, etc, now you are just one of many options.

While many of your viewpoints are technically correct, you are not considering the merits of the marketing strategy. You could have just as easily dissected the SR2X design in its infancy and discussed all the compromises, added weight, costs, certification risk etc of the CAPS system and been technically correct on every one of your points. However, in that assessment, you would have dismissed the potential marketing impact of the configuration and CAPS system and grossly underestimated its market potential. The SR2X has clearly been a market success regardless of all the engineering compromises related to their decision to include the CAPS.

Only time will tell and all this thus far is nothing but conjecture. However, my feeling is that the SE jet was a brilliant marketing move by Cirrus. They will distinguish themselves as a one-of-a-kind in the market and I believe will sell a bunch of them. We shall see...

People said the same thing about flying cars. Still waiting...

Mike C.

It doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be a simple ownership experience.

Get in, fire up, blast off, land....do it again tomorrow.

Simple, RELIABLE, with decent performance.

One of the main reasons I sold the 421 was the effort required to manage the airplane. As much as I fly, it became too much work. Factoring in my time made the hourly go through the roof.

My next cross-country machine will be simple (I hope!).

Thread drift...

I'm not sure how I missed you selling your 421 Jesse but your statement above is sobering against my current lust for 421's. I have very little patience for continuous mx issues and if your time factor in owning that airplane was that significant, then I would guess it would drive me bonkers.

SO WHAT'S NEXT???

Thread drift...

I'm not sure how I missed you selling your 421 Jesse but your statement above is sobering against my current lust for 421's. I have very little patience for continuous mx issues and if your time factor in owning that airplane was that significant, then I would guess it would drive me bonkers.

SO WHAT'S NEXT??? :popcorn:

Eclipse.

Subtract their self induced screw ups and they proved the concept of a very light personal jet was sound. The fact it had two engines was ENABLING and not an IMPEDIMENT. Recall they had an AD that limited their altitudes for a while and the owners COMPLAINED about that. They WANT altitude, they WANT speed, they WANT low fuel flow, they WANT range.

Put two PW610Fs on the TF-50, conventional T tail, basically a composite Eclipse with Garmin avionics, and it would outsell the SF-50 by 5 times. This makes it CHEAPER to make than the SF-50, and far cheaper to operate.


Why do you think crippling the SF50 helps it compete?


A jet for people stuck in piston think.

After the jet lust wears off and the owners realize they been sold a slow, low, costly, and limited jet, then the market will collapse.

Most of the compromises are not yet visible or tangible to the potential owners. Nobody outside Cirrus has even flown the SF-50.


If SR series was limited to 6000 ft and only flew 140 knots at 20 GPH, then it would not have sold, chute or not.

Cirrus made a top of the line piston aircraft. Now they are making the worst jet.


I predict it will be the DeLorean of the skies. Coveted by a few cult owners, never being a true success, never quite delivering the dream.

Mike C.

No one will give Mike enough credit. I will.

He simply refuses to quit. Gotta love that

Twin jet is simple. Push button to start, move levers to go. Jets are ALWAYS LOP!

Piston single is complex. It is 6 little motors (cylinders) on a common shaft all trying to break apart and requiring intense manual pilot oversight to manage. Look how much stuff has been written about mixture control!

Twin jet is no more effort than single jet. If an engine quits, I GUARANTEE the twin jet is less effort!

Mike C.

Twin jet is simple. Push button to start, move levers to go. Jets are ALWAYS LOP!

Piston single is complex. It is 6 little motors (cylinders) on a common shaft all trying to break apart and requiring intense manual pilot oversight to manage. Look how much stuff has been written about mixture control!

Twin jet is no more effort than single jet. If an engine quits, I GUARANTEE the twin jet is less effort!

Mike C.

Agreed, and despite the anti Mike sentiments I've enjoyed reading the posts, very educational.

You better actually know your stuff before you start BSing with Mike, he seems to know what he is talking about.

Yes, it is true.

The force came out in the nozzle, which is effectively a trim tab balancing the engine vertical force.

The ENGINE produces the vertical force due to its install angle. SOMETHING on the airplane has to react to it. The nozzle is one treatment, tail force is another.

Mike C.

One word: turbine.

You don't curate a turbine, you fly it.

My plane is 40 years old. I don't spend time on it between flights. This is one reason I bypassed the 421 (which was my intention at one time).

A surprisingly rewarding feature of turbines is that you don't deal with engine oil. I've never added oil to my airplane in 7 years. It goes 900 hours between oil changes. There is NOTHING to do to the engines. Just go fly.

Mike C.

One word: turbine.

You don't curate a turbine, you fly it.

My plane is 40 years old. I don't spend time on it between flights. This is one reason I bypassed the 421 (which was my intention at one time).

A surprisingly rewarding feature of turbines is that you don't deal with engine oil. I've never added oil to my airplane in 7 years. It goes 900 hours between oil changes. There is NOTHING to do to the engines. Just go fly.

Mike C.