The parachute lowered the plane to the ground?

Or did you mean that YOU used YOUR parachute, and the plane had NONE?

Mike C.

those are called motorcycles. And they sell quite well, just like the cirrus will.

That doesn't jibe with the production schedule I was told. They expected to make 90 planes in the first year.

This was what was given to me early 2015.

Where is the production schedule you based your statement on?

Mike C.

No real jet does that.

No real jet maker is planning to do it, either.

The weights and speeds of the jets simply don't make it feasible.

Mike C.

Well, there is this...

[youtube]https://youtu.be/dVatc9or740[/youtube]

Mike C.

Here you go:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... production

Tim

Sounds like both are right. 40 planes by year-end, 90 planes by the end of the first 12 months after the production certification in May.

B&CA has a review of the SF50 in their latest issue:

http://aviationweek.com/november-2017#51

Some interesting points:

The tested plane was 136 lbs over the brochure figure. Useful load full fuel is 348 lbs (the article used BOW which includes 200 lbs for pilot). Finally we have a real weight to work with. Mostly a one place airplane with full fuel, maybe two small people and no bags.

Rate of climb was listed as 1869 FPM. That seems low. The article said the airplane needs more thrust despite it having a higher thrust to weight ratio than an Eclipse. "Aircraft acceleration was leisurely" during takeoff.

Price was listed as $2.334M. This example was loaded up with options. I presume this is present list base price, plus option prices, plus CPI escalator to article date. Early position holders (well into the 300s at least) get it for less. Given only the base price was assured in the contract, I bet options are pricey.

"When the aircraft was launched in 2006, Cirrus officials predicted it would be the "lowest, slowest, and least-expensive" jet on the market. The planemaker succeeded in spades." Not clear that was a positive statement.

Production goals are scaled back from previous estimates. 30 in 2017, 50 in 2018, 125 in 2019. So it seems the factory can't spool up to max rate for another 2 years.

Confirms the odd dual yaw damper setup. Ventral fins below 200 AGL, "normal" surfaces above that. I wonder about the failure modes involved. I don't think it is common for a jet to require yaw damper all the way to/from the ground.

"Active noise-cancelling headsets for all occupants are a must in this aircraft." That misses one of the great features of a jet, no headsets for passengers.

Two people, not full fuel, takeoff distance was 3,327 ft (12C, 705 ft field elevation). That's seems pretty long. At 5000 ft, ISA+20 (Denver conditions, fairly common), takeoff distance was about 6000 ft. Landing distances are also long, 2,800 ft in the article test conditions.

"Each thrust change produced considerable thrust/pitch coupling." They said the plane would benefit from some mechanism to reduce the pilot effort. Electric trim wasn't fast enough to handle it. The author cautioned it may be an issue on missed approaches, you could be descending on go around without realizing it.

Range is short. As tested, 4 people, 300 KTAS cruise, it is under 600 miles. Slowing down to long range cruise got you another 100 miles, but it was much slower, of course. Economically, the extra hours on the engine and airframe to get those 100 miles don't make sense.

"The main gear are well aft of the center of gravity, so it takes a concerted pull on the sidestick to raise the nose." Gee, sounds like a short body MU2.

My take away: you need to fly in one and fly one before you plunk money down. The brochure is perfect, the real airplane is far from it.

Mike C.

I'd hire them to make video graphics, not a plane.

On second thought, the graphics weren't even that good...

Mike C.

“We should be able to crank up production this summer,” and by year-end deliver “between 40 and 50 [jet] airplanes,”

Now aiming for 30. The have delivered 12, and 7 more are flying, so that's 19 that are known to exist in flyable condition presently. They might not even make the 30 number this year.

Mike C.

Weird. None of the other reviews have found any of those shortcomings. Even a video by Flying magazine touted how quiet the cabin was, not requiring the use of headphone. Something in the milk isn’t white.

Some of these sources must be printing fake news....

Peace,
Don

wow... that review was painful to read.

From the Flying review:

"I’d keep the ANR headset on at all times in this airplane."

https://www.flyingmag.com/cirrus-sf50-vision-jet-we-fly

From the Aviation Consumer review:

"Passengers will want to wear noise-cancelling headsets, however. The whine from the Williams engine is dominant, partly because of its piggybacked placement on top of the cabin."

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/ ... 122-1.html

There you go, three separate trade press articles, B&CA, Flying, AvCon, they all match on the noise issue.


You mean repeating Cirrus marketing?

There is a reason there were essentially zero trade press flights and reviews prior to deliveries.

Mike C.

It's all in your frame of reference. A step up from what you're used to is always more attractive than a step down. "Biz"ness & Commercial Aviation is looking at it as a step down from its usual bizjets so of course it's not as impressed as someone looking at a step up from their usual personal plane. And if Cirrus were marketing it as a mini bizjet B&CA's review would be meaningful but it's not. Instead they're very clear that it is a "personal" jet.

There are a lot of compromises on that airframe. Things that seem little on review that probably aren't that little in the real world operating like a turbine. I was wondering why they are excluded from Part 135 usage, I guess one of the answers lies in the article. The back up alternator is only 72 amps. I can't imagine that is enough power to run all the necessary equipment in an all electric aircraft for night, IFR, IMC icing if you were too lose the generator. You would have to go to a load shed maneuver and pick and choose what support systems you want to use. Since you would be draining the battery, you would probably be required to terminate the flight as soon as practicable. Anyone have a POH? So a generator failure becomes an emergency, not an abnormal condition. I would imagine most single turbines are like mine. If the generator goes off line, and you can't get it back online the back up generator or alternator is sufficiently powered to support normal continued flight operating all relevant equipment with instruction to repair the generator prior to next flight. I know in night IMC with potential for icing, I am running around 90 amps. My backup alternator is rated for 130 amps continuous in flight, plenty of extra capacity.