In case of a mid-air or airframe failure, the aircraft would likely be spinning/tumbling uncontrollably, rather than enter a smooth dive. That's going to slow the plane down dramatically. The terminal velocity of a skydiver is only about 130 kts, I expect a tumbling plane to be slower than that.

With airframe failure, the main concern would be whether the pilot can reach the handle while fighting the centrifugal forces. That's why ejection seats have these big loops over the pilot's head.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of the performance data.

900nm in 3 hours is a block speed of 300kts. I didn't think it was that fast. Cirrus lists max cruise at FL310 as 305kts. Thus, I thought it had a block speed more like 270-280kts for max cruise, and 50-60kts less for long-range cruise. Is that incorrect?
Also, if you put 1000 pounds in the cabin, that leaves around 1400 for fuel. I think the first hour burns about 80gal (540#), which leaves around 860#. I think the second and third hour burns are around 420pph. It looks like you'd be approaching fuel exhaustion at 3 hours. If you slowed to long-range cruise at 315pph, you'd have around 300# left, but you'd be nowhere near 900nm. Probably more like 700nm. I would think reserves would be around 300# VFR and 400# IFR.

With 1350 payload, that leaves 1050 for fuel. It looks like you could make a 1.5 hour flight with VFR reserve, but not 2.25.

I'm not sure if my data is accurate, but I'm not getting it to add up with what I understand.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of the performance data.

900nm in 3 hours is a block speed of 300kts. I didn't think it was that fast. Cirrus lists max cruise at FL310 as 305kts. Thus, I thought it had a block speed more like 270-280kts for max cruise, and 50-60kts less for long-range cruise. Is that incorrect?
Also, if you put 1000 pounds in the cabin, that leaves around 1400 for fuel. I think the first hour burns about 80gal (540#), which leaves around 860#. I think the second and third hour burns are around 420pph. It looks like you'd be approaching fuel exhaustion at 3 hours. If you slowed to long-range cruise at 315pph, you'd have around 300# left, but you'd be nowhere near 900nm. Probably more like 700nm. I would think reserves would be around 300# VFR and 400# IFR.

With 1350 payload, that leaves 1050 for fuel. It looks like you could make a 1.5 hour flight with VFR reserve, but not 2.25.

I'm not sure if my data is accurate, but I'm not getting it to add up with what I understand.

So I downloaded the profile. (Should have done in the first place instead of trolling BT brain trust w a Vision Jet reference) Denver to San Francisco is 820nm. 3:14 one way, 2:51 the other. About 18 knots of wind. With this wind it appears you could do this with 550lbs or so in the cabin.

Ok. I went ahead and built a FF profile. For 900nm, zero wind, you reach MGTOW at a 650# payload allowing for a 350# fuel reserve. Flight time is 3.2 hours. To get the published max range you have to slow to max range, which will take 5.5 hours. I’d go for a fuel stop instead.

You misspelled "Baron."

No, misspelled Mustang!

Yes a Baron or a TAT could do the same mission in the same time, give or take. Certainly would not have the cabin comfort or the same ability to go around weather. Then again, any deviation and you probably need to stop for fuel.

For some reason we all worry about those maximum-weight-maximum-distance flights, even though the large majority of our flights never need those maximums. Most flights, even for the Citations and MU2’s and Bonanzas have 1 or 2 or 3 people and go maybe 200-400 miles.

But, I guess it’s fun to argue about these things…

This x 1000

I’ve got a piston/single plane for sale right now and I’m a bit shocked at the amount of people who want to know about 1000nm flights with four adults, that isn’t a realistic mission for any four seat airplane, my advice if you want to carry four adults is to buy a plane with 6-8 seats, not four

Most of the vision jets are probably doing 1-2hr hops, and the owners are so happy they are out flying and not posting on message boards

Sure, most flights are 200 nm.

But applying that range to a plane-buying decision only works if you want to buy a plane that works for *most people.* I don't want to buy a plane that works for most people - I want a plane that works for me. Some of us fly max distance flights much more often than others.

I look at it differently. My bonanza with tip tanks can easily fly up well over 1000nm and I’ve done it. But 48 out of 50 flights I’m hopping between IA and WI - <200nm.

So if I could afford VJ it would save me the time, provide much greater comfort, improved dispatch rate and increase safety on those 48 flights, while on the remaining 2 (due to needed fuel stop) it would only provide much greater comfort, improved dispatch rate and increase safety.

I’ll take that any day and twice on Sunday.

At 1-3 people and 400nm an SR22 makes more sense than any turbine.

If that’s really the mission then why do turbine planes exist.

They exist because we buy planes for the limit of the mission not the median.

I live in Jackson, Mississippi. The place to have a beach house is Destin, Florida.

It's a six hour drive if you're traffic-lucky, but would be under an hour (233nm) in the Vision. Easy trip with your wife, kid, kid's wife and passel of grandkids. Everybody loves the plane, your buddies are jealous ... Not hard to see the appeal.

This is THE plane for somebody who can afford a $5 million jet but isn't set up to feed it or fly it.

come fly 3 in my turbine for 400nm and you will understand why people choose it over the cirrus, has nothing to do with the range