Cirrus reports that they expect the landing gear to be UP when hitting the ground under chute.

On the plus side, this means there is no gear/chute connection and landing in water is basically no different than land (which is unlike the SR series). It also means, perhaps, a chute landing is more repairable?

On the negative side, I worry that without the gear making contact first, where is the distance necessary for limiting the G force at impact? I don't think there is enough distance in the seat design to deal with this.

The other point is that with a ton of fuel in the wings, they will hit HARD, no real deceleration zone. That worries me that the wings will crack open and spill fuel, with the potential for post impact fire. The SR series doesn't have a history of post impact fire, but they land on the gear to absorb energy and the wings don't look breached in any of the photos I've seen. They also carry only about 1/4 the fuel weight, a big change.

There is a lot of subtle complexity to the chute. Will be interesting to see how it works out in practice.

Mike C.

Aspen Highlands is my fav in the area.

CJ2 won't do it for you. Full fuel useful load is less then 800 lbs. After that you give up range for payload, which you need.

CJ3+ is the right jet for you. Has the G3000 you like. CJ4 really doesn't have much more range then the 3.

looks like Swisses expect something serious happens

looks like Swisses expect something serious happens

Maybe this thread should end with one final glorious"the best of JC's eye candy" post and then it can get locked down forever.

JC you up for it? It's Friday, make it a good one for all of us!

I think not. This thread is a classic. Let's keep it going guys. Where the heck are you Tim? And even Florian entered the fray with one puny post. Come on Flo. This is like MTV. Your chance to show us your stuff.

I think not. This thread is a classic. Let's keep it going guys. Where the heck are you Tim? And even Florian entered the fray with one puny post. Come on Flo. This is like MTV. Your chance to show us your stuff.

None of us knows the real details of the SF-50, or why they made the design decisions that they did. What we do know about Cirrus is that they were a certified piston aircraft startup 15 years ago facing a market with very mature players, most with incredibly deep pockets. The "experts" didn't give them one chance in ten. Yet here they are at the top of the heap in 15 years. They now have the benefit of experience, financial backing, and a loyal customer base. Yet once again the "experts" have decided that they don't know what they're doing as there are already plenty of better jets on the market (like the Eclipse). Besides if Textron couldn't do it how could Cirrus?

We'll see said the wise man.

Don't disagree at all Tim: Don and others nailed it too.But I would argue that "ignore" would be better replaced with "not heard". It's no different than other manifestations of fear. Of course "helmet fire" would be the worst type, but generally people filled with fear that they aren't good enough, or even people filled with "super-egos" just don't hear the other person; the are invisible. I've seen it the most in billionaires actually. My greatest mentors listened closely to everything everybody said knowing we all have something to offer. The billionaires lived a miserable isolated existence.

Yes. That's what I want. Read a lot about it and got to sit in one at NBAA. It's gorgeous. Then I sat in the Citation X+. All the new G3000/5000 models are amazing and expensive.

As for "why not the CJ4?", from what I've read, it's 5% more airplane than the CJ3 for 30% more cost..... And it will never have a G3000.

Yes. That's what I want. Read a lot about it and got to sit in one at NBAA. It's gorgeous. Then I sat in the Citation X+. All the new G3000/5000 models are amazing and expensive.

As for "why not the CJ4?", from what I've read, it's 5% more airplane than the CJ3 for 30% more cost..... And it will never have a G3000.

Sounds like a heroic story.

Unfortunately, there were no "players" with deep pockets going after Cirrus market, so the story is false.

Cirrus was successful making a plane that performed well and advanced the state of the art. The SF-50 is going backwards.


Yes, we will.

Mike C.

Sounds like a heroic story.

Unfortunately, there were no "players" with deep pockets going after Cirrus market, so the story is false.

Cirrus was successful making a plane that performed well and advanced the state of the art. The SF-50 is going backwards.


Yes, we will.

Mike C.

Cessna: just making the old designs, which was reasonably successful.

Beech: ditto, less successful.

Mooney: ditto, even less successful.

Diamond: was successful.

Columbia: was successful, at least initially.

Who put money into piston singles? Not the old guard of Cessna, Beech, Mooney. Diamond and Columbia did manage a reasonable success but didn't have any money advantages over Cirrus.

This idea that Cirrus was this little upstart who beat people with huge cash reserves is totally bogus. Makes for a good fairly tale, but not accurate history.

Mike C.

Cessna: just making the old designs, which was reasonably successful.

Beech: ditto, less successful.

Mooney: ditto, even less successful.

Diamond: was successful.

Columbia: was successful, at least initially.

Who put money into piston singles? Not the old guard of Cessna, Beech, Mooney. Diamond and Columbia did manage a reasonable success but didn't have any money advantages over Cirrus.

This idea that Cirrus was this little upstart who beat people with huge cash reserves is totally bogus. Makes for a good fairly tale, but not accurate history.

Mike C.