Flyer59 wrote:
My best bet is that the first customer airplane will be delivered this year.
Michael wrote:
Noted that you are betting on Certification AND Customer Delivery current 2016I will wager that neither will happen in 2016 .
So, gentlemen! What will you wage? We are waiting with interest!
Airborne_Again wrote:
So, gentlemen! What will you wage? We are waiting with interest!
How about an SF 50 ?
Flyer59 wrote:
SF50 and cannot be compared.
Both planes are in production. Both planes can and should be compared since they are in the same cabin-class, single pilot, light jet category with the same seating capacity.
The HondaJet comes out behind the SF50 in every way but ceiling and speed, but the extra 90kts costs you 40% more fuel burn. Btw, I considered ordering the SF50 instead of the SR22T but there is a three year wait for the SF50.
USFlyer wrote:
The HondaJet comes out behind the SF50 in every way but ceiling and speed,
And range and payload.
Seriously the Cirrus Jet may well turn out to be a great product for its intended audience. But this is a ridiculous comparison.
USFlyer wrote:
Both planes are in production.
“PRODUCTION” , in this context does not mean diddly-squat !
For Nth time: Until it is CERTIFIED you have NO IDEA what the REAL numbers will be, just a WAG
Airborne_Again wrote:
Flyer59 wrote:
My best bet is that the first customer airplane will be delivered this year.
Michael wrote:
Noted that you are betting on Certification AND Customer Delivery current 2016
I will wager that neither will happen in 2016 .
So, gentlemen! What will you wage? We are waiting with interest!
May I suggest a fine bottle of French Champagne ?
It’s my belief that Cirrus is trying to get an exception or get around the FAA FAR 23 requirement for failure-tolerant pressurization above FL250 and that my friends, will be a very difficult & time consuming task.
Michael, agree. Part 121 used to want quick oxygen masks at the ready above FL250 if there was only one pilot on the flight deck. Enough precedents of single and multi crew hypoxia accidents, a new single engine, single crew jet aimed at the private market will not be cut much slack. There also may be a failure connection between CAPS and de pressurisation. ie a CAPS deployment would typically be associated with, or soon followed by de pressurisation.
An engine failure at FL280 followed by a CAPS deployment would also require a lot of oxygen (vertical descent of only 20 fps under a canopy?) to keep pilot and passengers legal down to 10,000’ in Europe.
- Edit – In reply to the posts about pressurisation issues in the SF50 -
This makes little sense, there are several single-engine aircraft certified for flight above FL250 and operated single pilot; this is nothing special.
The parachute descent point makes little sense, either. In case of engine failure, the pilot can always make an emergency glide descent down to a safe altitude before deploying it. In case of loss of control, collision or in-flight break-up, oxygen will be the least of everybody’s concern. This is not really a scenario considered in certification, either… and even then, 15 minutes of oxygen is hardly a huge amount – that’s what it takes to go down from FL280 to 10,000ft at 1,200 ft/min (20 ft/sec).
I am not saying the rumour that they have pressurisation issues is wrong – they may well have difficulty meeting the requirements of FAR23 – but they are not that special and are met by quite a few aircraft, ancient and modern, single and multi engine (TBMxxx, PC12, Piper Meridian, Aerostar, …)
Other than that – I also subscribe to the view, it’s only real once it’s certfied and available.
Michael wrote:
“PRODUCTION”
Means everything. Why worry the SF50 is a great plane and will dominate the light jet market? Did you plan to buy one?
