Clearly, the F16 and all the SE jets before it were a joke.

Is there a regulatory reason why the FAA wouldn't certify a single jet for the RVSM space ?

They certified the Eclipse, since then, all bets are off on what they are willing to certify

Cirrus has limited the vision to 28,000 for a reason, and it has nothing to do with RVSM.

Comparing a fighter jet to something you are going to put your family into? Brilliant. Are you going to make your family wear pressure suits when cruising at 40k feet to visit your in-laws?

Why does everyone say that single engine turbines are a joke. I mean look at PC12, TBM... The difference is if the fan is encased but fundamentally a "turbofan" and a turboprop are doing the same thing. What matters are two different items:
1. Engineering efficiency
2. Marketing

For the first, I was under the impression Cirrus worked with the engine company to make sure the turban selected has been tuned for lower altitude operation. Now, it may not be as tuned as a PT6 for those altitudes, but a lot can be done.

As for the second. Who sells the most GA aircraft? DO I need to say more?

Tim

Cirrus has limited the vision to 28,000 for a reason, and it has nothing to do with RVSM.

Comparing a fighter jet to something you are going to put your family into? Brilliant. Are you going to make your family wear pressure suits when cruising at 40k feet to visit your in-laws?

Cirrus has limited the vision to 28,000 for a reason, and it has nothing to do with RVSM.

Comparing a fighter jet to something you are going to put your family into? Brilliant. Are you going to make your family wear pressure suits when cruising at 40k feet to visit your in-laws?

Cirrus has limited the vision to 28,000 for a reason, and it has nothing to do with RVSM.

Comparing a fighter jet to something you are going to put your family into? Brilliant. Are you going to make your family wear pressure suits when cruising at 40k feet to visit your in-laws?

Cirrus has limited the vision to 28,000 for a reason, and it has nothing to do with RVSM.

Comparing a fighter jet to something you are going to put your family into? Brilliant. Are you going to make your family wear pressure suits when cruising at 40k feet to visit your in-laws?

Maybe someone can chase the regs or already know the answers. But there are multiple critical altitudes for the FAA during the certification process. I am sure there are more, but these were the ones mentioned by Cirrus and Diamond a long time ago for why a "low" ceiling.

-- 28K is RVSM
-- Somewhere around 30K there are pressure vessel changes required. I know it dramatically increases the structural weight; but I do not recall the details.
-- Somewhere around 40K you get into dual pilot requirements; possible to get waivers. But apparently not easy.

There are also emergency descent requirements, which as you approach 30K get harder to accomplish without speed brakes, spoilers and other drag inducing items. All of which increase complexity, weight, cost....

As Doug stated. It is a trade off.

Tim

Agreed. And it's a V-tail!!

Unless Beech decides to make a reboot of the 35, I'm thinking my next V tail might be a Cirrus....

I could never afford it, so it's just a dream.... but that jet looks BAD ASS

Cirrus gave a little presentation and in it they said they do have the money. Don't quote me but I think they said it would be done in 2 years.

+1 and the placement of the engine, rather stupid looking to me. The Diamond Jet looked more correct and it seems to be doomed now, when will they ever learn?

I like it.

Does it have a chute?

Yes it will have a chute.

2 engines = 2 Nacelles, and 2 Pylons, and that all adds up to more drag. That plus the inherent efficiency of larger turbines vs smaller turbines and it all adds up.

The TBM and the PC-12 are probably the fastest selling small Turbine airplanes in the new airplane market, and both are single engine. In theory, a jet is more reliable than a turbo-prop because it has no gear box, no propeller governor, and no propeller... Add the parachute to an airplane that probably has a glide ratio approaching 20 to 1 and the single engine proposition is not a stretch, at all.....

Almost certainly a similar sized turbo-prop would be more efficient, because typically a turbo-prop is ~30% more efficient than a jet. But it's a jet, and people like jets.

Doug,

Since you seem to have more connections than anyone else.
There was an older gentleman a few years ago who was known as one of the principle guys behind turbofans. He always proposed but never received funding to build a turbofan which was more efficient than a turboprop for lower altitudes. Would you happen to know anything about it? Or if his any of his proposed changes made it into the engine Cirrus is using?

Tim

If people like jets and can afford to buy one the Cirrus to me is far behind a Citation with Williams engines. I would much rather have an older Citation than that stretched SR22 with a jet engine. Let me think, a jet with a chute or a very safe jet with much more room inside plus a potty and twin engines? Too many people are drinking the Cirrus Kool-Aid. And don’t talk to me about cost to operate, if you can fly a jet you don’t have to worry about it.

I’ve got to cut back on the coffee this early in the morning, sorry about the rant.