banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 10:34 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 28 Jul 2021, 17:10 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/10/14
Posts: 1730
Post Likes: +828
Location: Northwest Arkansas (KVBT)
Aircraft: TBM850
Username Protected wrote:
Video from Avweb and Cirrus with a flight discussing the improved performance...

https://youtu.be/5eSK6CxR53U


On the demo flight the G2+ ground roll was reduced 400+ feet from the previous generation. That's significant. Makes me wonder what they are workin on for the G3.

I asked this question when I was in the booth at OSH, they waved it off like they have nothing in the works for a G3. Hard to believe that the company that reliably creates new upgrade paths from their current hardware every few years isn't working on something.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 28 Jul 2021, 17:18 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4410
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
I asked this question when I was in the booth at OSH, they waved it off like they have nothing in the works for a G3. Hard to believe that the company that reliably creates new upgrade paths from their current hardware every few years isn't working on something.

You don't sell G2s by telling buyers how great the G3 is going to be.

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 28 Jul 2021, 17:35 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/29/16
Posts: 1337
Post Likes: +1824
Company: RE/MAX at the Lake
Location: Mooresville, NC
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22
Username Protected wrote:
If you'd run Cirrus, they would be like, what.....


If Mike ran Cirrus? Ha, this could be fun.

Marketing department.
Stop calling CAPS activations "saves". Instead we will call them EPP or "Emboldened Pilot pulls".

Parachutes.
Get rid of them. If you need a chute you should have trained more. As a matter of "fact", just glide it to the ground, you will likely live.

Airplane manufacturing.
No SF50. Too slow. Too loud. (from an MU2 guy?) It will bankrupt the company because nobody in their right mind would buy it.

SR20 and SR22. Too expensive. You could buy 10 Piper Arrows for the cost of one. Get rid of them.

Promotional Items.
T-shirts and hats will be our focus. We will expand the line to include more sizes and shapes.

Just having some fun with you Mike C. :)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 28 Jul 2021, 19:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/28/17
Posts: 6624
Post Likes: +7925
Location: N. California
Aircraft: C-182
Username Protected wrote:
I asked this question when I was in the booth at OSH, they waved it off like they have nothing in the works for a G3. Hard to believe that the company that reliably creates new upgrade paths from their current hardware every few years isn't working on something.

You don't sell G2s by telling buyers how great the G3 is going to be.


The new G3, now with steerable parachute with aileron/elevator control interconnect. :D

Edit: "Available with optional exclusive Cirrus Aircraft PALS - Parachute Auto-land System, for that feather-soft touch down."

Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 02 Aug 2021, 14:58 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/13/11
Posts: 309
Post Likes: +92
Location: Austn, TX (KEDC)
Username Protected wrote:
On the demo flight the G2+ ground roll was reduced 400+ feet from the previous generation. That's significant.

I'm wondering if the ground roll is significant. I once looked at what it took to base a Cirrus jet on my home field, and the runway length was not sufficient by 50 ft in case of landing at gross at wet runway. The main reason is, the original SF50 did not have anti-lock brakes. So, adding more power may improve ability to fly more departures, or get out of ice, but the runway length and the number of accessible airports may be gated by something other than power. Of course not flying a high performance airplane at present I don't have the grasp on issues, and obviously more power is always welcome in general.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 02 Aug 2021, 15:09 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/19/10
Posts: 2719
Post Likes: +1155
Company: Keller Williams Realty
Location: Madison, WI (91C)
Aircraft: 1967 Bonanza V35
Username Protected wrote:
...and the runway length was not sufficient by 50 ft in case of landing at gross at wet runway...

unless it was equipped with aerial refueling package that condition never exists :)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 02 Aug 2021, 17:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/06/11
Posts: 791
Post Likes: +387
Username Protected wrote:
Could we all agree that the newest SF50 "sucks less"?

No, they claim it "blows" more.

To put it another way, Cirrus took 4 years to fix bad FADEC programming that limited performance. This is heralded as "innovation" by the aviation press and Cirrus advocates.

And, oh, they added a Wifi box they bought from someone else.

Mike C.


Didn’t the IFE (headphone jacks or USB plugs or something ) light on fire and toast a parked airframe in one of the early SNs?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 02 Aug 2021, 18:04 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 727
Post Likes: +340
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
...and the runway length was not sufficient by 50 ft in case of landing at gross at wet runway...

unless it was equipped with aerial refueling package that condition never exists :)


I’m sure he meant mlw.
And nothing is stopping you from taking off above mgw.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 02 Aug 2021, 21:04 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/29/16
Posts: 1337
Post Likes: +1824
Company: RE/MAX at the Lake
Location: Mooresville, NC
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22
Username Protected wrote:
Could we all agree that the newest SF50 "sucks less"?


Didn’t the IFE (headphone jacks or USB plugs or something ) light on fire and toast a parked airframe in one of the early SNs?


Yes it did. I recommend not buying a G1 of anything,

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20191227-1 especially a 2.5 million dollar jet.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2021, 21:34 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/22/08
Posts: 2913
Post Likes: +921
Company: USAF Propulsion Laboratory
Location: Dayton, OH
Aircraft: PA24, AEST 680, 421
Username Protected wrote:
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.

Another likely difference would be the difference in thrust lapse rates of the two engines. While the sea level thrust may be equivalent (well 2 vs 1), the thrust lapse rate is probably different. The P&W engine in the Eclipse is flat rated and has a lower bypass ratio than the Williams engine used in the Cirrus which typically results in less thrust loss at higher altitudes.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 28 Aug 2021, 20:28 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2572
Post Likes: +2329
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
Yesterday I asked the demo pilot of the G2+ (the only one so far, he said) what exactly had changed in the engine. Physically nothing, he said, but that Williams had now seen enough engine service history that they were comfortable raising the TIT limit from 760 to 860 (still 5 min limit) with the same TBO. Takeoff fuel flow went from 100 to 140 gph, he said, but I don't know if that's sea level, standard day or what he sees at his base in Denver. The POH performance table he pulled up showed the most improvement in required takeoff distance for hot n' high (20+%) as you'd expect, but even the coldest and lowest entry (0 deg at 0 feet) showed 6% improvement, the least I saw in my scan of the table. I don't see how that reconciles with the unchanged thrust in the TCDS but I'm no expert. He did say that ongoing refinements have improved the aerodynamics, that later airplanes perform notably better than the earlier ones, so maybe while they were updating the POH for the engine change they also updated their now too-conservative performance calculations.


Last edited on 28 Aug 2021, 22:16, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 28 Aug 2021, 20:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Sounds like the engine previously wasn’t delivering max thrust on takeoff.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 28 Aug 2021, 23:40 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Sounds like the engine previously wasn’t delivering max thrust on takeoff.

The TIT was artificially lower than a typical FJ44 at 760.

The FADEC FJ44 are all in the mid to upper 800s.

Basically, the original engine setup was crippled, now they can "upgrade" it.

The "service history" explanation is bogus since Williams can't have seen many engines due for HSI, just not many SF 50 at 2000 hours, perhaps zero of them, so how would they know how they are holding up if you can't see the insides?

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2021, 18:33 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Lack of catastrophic failures in a new installation is something


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus Vision G2+ announced today
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2021, 23:02 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Lack of catastrophic failures in a new installation is something

Lack of catastrophic failures indicates almost nothing about engine longevity.

Ask Mustang owners about burner can issues on the PW615F. Negligible catastrophic failures but very short operational life early on.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.