28 Mar 2024, 09:14 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 25 Jul 2021, 18:52 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/23/10 Posts: 843 Post Likes: +660
|
|
This thread is no longer any fun. Looking forward to checking back in on it after the new performance charts are published.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 25 Jul 2021, 20:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/16 Posts: 1337 Post Likes: +1824 Company: RE/MAX at the Lake Location: Mooresville, NC
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I find it humorous that most of the criticism about this aircraft have been or are being improved and addressed. It can't get worse, so there is only one direction to go. Mike C.
Bet you are a blast at parties.
Meanwhile, Cirrus is selling these airplanes as fast as they can build them. And Eclipse is out of business.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 25 Jul 2021, 21:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/20/09 Posts: 2394 Post Likes: +1856 Company: Jcrane, Inc. Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C441, RV7A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Bet you are a blast at parties.
Meanwhile, Cirrus is selling these airplanes as fast as they can build them. And Eclipse is out of business. Mike has hated Cirrus for many years. There's something personal there. Go back through the old posts...it's...questionable??? Here's the start... search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=32700&start=13440
_________________ Jack Stull
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 25 Jul 2021, 21:20 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/24/19 Posts: 1230 Post Likes: +1662 Location: Ontario, Canada
Aircraft: Glasair Sportsman
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Except the thrust lever is just the FADEC suggestion box. OK, this has me chuckling away to myself. I hadn't heard that line before but wow is it hitting close to the truth!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 25 Jul 2021, 22:08 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/11/17 Posts: 1156 Post Likes: +1817 Location: KOLV
Aircraft: A36, 767
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike - we don’t know what the fadec ramp to max power looked like at sea level. Seems like they could have changed the curve to getting to max thrust sooner - eg - spool engine to higher thrust before ram air rise.
Or, they could have been getting the 4% on 110 degree days at sea level. I don’t get this one, are you suggesting more thrust for the same N1? As far as I know, barring any physical modifications to inlets and exhausts, or changes to the scheduling of variable angle vanes (which I am unaware if they exist in this engine), you can only get more thrust from more N1- which means more N2 (and more fuel, more heat, etc). It’s the same as me reaching up and pressing G/A on my TMSP when CRZ was previously selected, suddenly my FADEC goes to a new higher N1 with the levers to the limit. As was said above, if all you do is reprogram the TMSP/FADEC/etc to allow for higher limits, you’re just reducing margins and/or potentially reducing service life. Am I wrong in thinking this is analogous to painting a new redline on a tachometer with no other associated changes?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 25 Jul 2021, 23:11 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23612 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike has hated Cirrus for many years. There's something personal there. I don't hate Cirrus, I just wish they would make better decisions. The SR series is a fine airplane. The chute is not nearly the safety advantage claimed and can have negative impact on safety. The SF50 is a terrible jet from a performance standpoint, knowable before they ever built it. Cirrus is poisoned by its single engine religion which prevented it from building a proper jet. If Cirrus had built something similar to the Eclipse, it would have been much faster to market and outperformed the SF50 by leaps and bounds. That would have been a jet that truly changed the world. Cirrus advocates tend to view anyone not as blindly enthused as they are as a "hater". It is a coping mechanism so they can dismiss any criticism easily. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 26 Jul 2021, 02:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/21 Posts: 2512 Post Likes: +1240
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I wonder if they put a much more powerful engine in it that could achieve FL410, would the fuel savings from flying higher offset the extra fuel comsumption of the larger engine? I'm thinking probably not. The SF50 already has more thrust than the Eclipse 500 with the same weight which suggests it can aerodynamically reach FL410 already. If the SF50 can't make it to FL410 aerodynamically, then it exposes how inefficient the design is and the engine isn't the problem. Even if it needed a bigger engine, I expect the SF50 would save fuel flying higher. There is a pretty big change in fuel efficiency between FL310 and FL410 for jets. Mike C. We had a saying in the RF business that "there is no radio engineering problem that cannot be solved by the use of more power."
Not sure this concept totally transfers to aerodynamics. True, looking at the charts for the 501 as an example there is a 40% improvement in nm/lb from FL 310 to 410 at the same TAS (with the same engines of course). However, bigger engine for the VJ means more weight. More power means temptation to cob it and fly faster at altitude. So I'm thinking the nm/lbs isn't going to be much better. But at least it will get there faster.
In any event, if Cirrus wants to keep the single-engine jet concept, I think they will have to super-size everything. Bigger engine, bigger (more efficient) wing, bigger fuel tanks, etc. Oh, bigger parachute too.
_________________ Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 26 Jul 2021, 08:16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/03/11 Posts: 1845 Post Likes: +1819
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
Maybe someone with an Eclipse can comment but I thought they slowed down quite a bit at FL410? My guess is small wing bites you up there. I think it only does 370kts in the low 30s. Mike - if this is the case you are starting to suffer from Cirrus-speak - two claims in one sentence that can’t exist at the same time I predict Cirrus will get up to FL340 within a few years. That will be how they get better range at speed. The Epic 1000 is certified to Fl340, which, if you bothered to read the 1000 page original Vision Jet thread is impossible for a single engine certified plane, yet, they did it somehow. I wish they would jet call it the Vision ‘plane’ so people would stop comparing it other jets. Even comparing it to an Eclipse is silly. Had they made the cabin 50% smaller, I am sure the Vision would go faster. From a passenger perspective it is so much better than any SETP imo. One thing the Piaggio taught me is that size matters for pax comfort.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 26 Jul 2021, 08:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/25/11 Posts: 9168 Post Likes: +17159 Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Agreed! They should innovate more. You know, like Beechcrafessna does with the Bonanza.
Now that's funny. As said in another Cirrus bashing thread, Cirrus Bashing diminish the credibility of all content on this forum, and impunes the integrity and intelligence of all participants by association. I opened this thread because I am genuinely interested in how Cirrus is continuing to excite their customers and grow the aviation industry. (How many new Bo/Barons were delivered last year?) I would probably not buy a Vision jet, but I can absolutely understand why many pilots would. This kind of crap makes me wonder why I spend my time here.
No truer posted ever made on BT.
Jg
_________________ Waste no time with fools. They have nothing to lose.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 26 Jul 2021, 08:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/16 Posts: 1337 Post Likes: +1824 Company: RE/MAX at the Lake Location: Mooresville, NC
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike has hated Cirrus for many years. There's something personal there. Go back through the old posts...it's...questionable??? Here's the start... search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=32700&start=13440It's obsessive for sure. Almost bordering on needed intervention. If that fails there is always an Internet restraining order.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 26 Jul 2021, 08:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/29/13 Posts: 24 Post Likes: +13
Aircraft: SF50
|
|
There is one thing that Cirrus Aircraft is doing well and that is providing the highest level of training for its customers. In the SF50 Vision Jet it is not an option in that the type rating is only offered in Knoxville. It is a high quality program and no one get's a " rubber stamped" type rating. If you don't pass you go in for more training- or you don't get it. How many crashes, incidents etc. would have been avoided had the new owner or pilot received a thorough initial training sponsored by the manufacturer and a sign off based on an objective analysis? I post this only because Cirrus does get a lot of criticism on this Forum and doesn't get enough credit for those things they do so well.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 26 Jul 2021, 08:49 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/07/11 Posts: 721 Post Likes: +392 Location: KBED, KCRE
Aircraft: Phenom 100
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Maybe someone with an Eclipse can comment but I thought they slowed down quite a bit at FL410? My guess is small wing bites you up there. I think it only does 370kts in the low 30s. Mike - if this is the case you are starting to suffer from Cirrus-speak - two claims in one sentence that can’t exist at the same time Our Phenom is 70 knots faster at FL310 than at FL410. I don't think the M2 loses nearly as much speed if I'm remembering right from our demo flight. Chip-
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today Posted: 26 Jul 2021, 08:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23612 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How many crashes, incidents etc. would have been avoided had the new owner or pilot received a thorough initial training sponsored by the manufacturer and a sign off based on an objective analysis? Too bad this wasn't the strategy when the SR series was first introduced. Instead, the marketing department created an aura of invincibility with the chute and the accident record reflected that. The training program Cirrus implemented in 2012 had a significant impact on the accident rate. Pilot training is once again shown to be the most effective safety strategy, better than any gadget on the plane itself. It is good to see the type rating for the SF50 is very thorough. This will basically obviate the need for the chute. There doesn't seem to be any meaningful reduction in training effort due to the airplane being a single. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|