Cirrus Vision – Single-engine personal jet aircraft | Hacker News Reader

Cirrus Vision – Single-engine personal jet aircraft

money.cnn.com

48 pointscft53 comments

Its speed and range specs are so poor that it is joke of a jet. It performs worse than many turboprops. Can totally see no point in owning this.

There are no 'real' jets below Embraer Phenom 100 $4M price tag, sorry. Cessna Mustang at $3.3M but it doesn't have 'real' toilet. Or Eclipse 550 at $3M but it has none at all.

There are aftermarket conversions of old Cessna Citations like Sierra, they start from $1M used or $2M new and provide a killer value compared to any of these, with 3000-4000km range, full size toilet and much bigger/comfier cabins.

Turbine engines are horribly inefficient at low altitudes and speeds. This engine is totally mismatched for its real application.

It has a 8500m/26,000ft service ceiling....thats low altitude?

yes it is.

Those jets must be flown by two pilots. This one is designed for a single owner-pilot. That's a huge difference.

The Phenom 100 is single owner-pilot too.

Nope. All of the modern light business jets can be technically and legally flown by a single pilot. Any light jet that can't is dead on arrival, no one would buy it.

Other thing is that it is illegal to operate them (maybe not all and/or not on all markets, but most of the time for sure) with a single pilot while carrying paying passengers e.g. charter operations. But if you are an owner-pilot and fly alone or with your family - that's fine!

People who want to 'hack' a plane industry by producing a much cheaper and better light jet should calm down. There is no way to do it. This is not space industry, or car industry, which is dominated by deeply entrenched, century old, corrupt weary monopolies. Existing light jet builders know what they are doing and they work in a real market all the way (this is why Boeing or Airbus doesn't make them - they would have been unable to compete).

Have you ever heard of Charles H. Duell?

He was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented."

By inventing new physics/materials/production processes which will allow to build say, jet engines with much hotter hot sections, resulting in quantum leap in efficiency? Sure, but all of these startups are using stock engines.

By inventing way to build airframes that are immune to both rusting and cracking and will require no X-rays or other (costly and time-consuming) inspections? Sure, people will jump on it! It will be a game changer. But no one seems to be trying.

But not by simply fixing the broken business processes, the way Elon Musk did it with space rockets - building essentially same planes, but 'better'. Because in the world of private jets, things are not broken, that is a real competitive market.

> if you are an owner-pilot and fly alone or with your family - that's fine!

If you are that, please check your ego at the door. One story among many about a man who killed himself, his entire family, and a couple of his neighbors by being unwilling to admit the weather was too bad to be flying.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2017/01/01/div...

The difference doesn't seem huge, not considering the price. Phenom [0] vs Vision [1]

Phenom:

- Price: $4M

- Capacity: 1 pilot, 7 passengers

- Cruise Speed: 750 km/h

- Range 2,182 km (4 x 200lb people)

Vision:

- Price: $2M

- Capacity: 1 pilot, 6 passengers

- Cruise Speed: 556 km/h

- Range 1,111 km (6 x 200lb people)

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_Phenom_100

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Vision_SF50

Half the range cuts you off from many markets. See, range below some 700km is better handled by a helicopter than a jet because of the time it takes to get to and from the airport. There isn't so much market between 700 and 1100 km ranges... And the speed is ridiculously low - typical for turboprops say Pilatus PC-12.

And as others have pointed, it is really an abuse of jet engine. Operating it at this speed and altitude means deeply sub-optimal fuel use. The thing will be costly and scary (one engine) to operate.

I don't think this will get anywhere at all. It is much worse than even the Eclipse, that offered a much better plane at a similar cost (1.5M initially in 2007 dollars ~$2M now), and still bankrupted. And there are many more good light jets on the market now than in 2007.

700km is around 2 hours with a high speed train.

There are railway stations in every city center and it doesn't take an hour trip to get to it, contrary to an airport.

I don't know which land you're from, but in the US (I assume the main market) almost all trains have a max of 177 km/h [0]. There are about 4 lines in western Europe that go faster than 300 km/h [1].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:Hi...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:Hi...

I am from Europe.

Well, your trains are terrible. Our have a cruise speed > 300 km/h.

So am I.

If you check the second map from my previous comment it's of Europe from 2011 [0].

There were 5 >300 km/h trains, and 4 of those are in France.

But I think the market they're aiming at is more US - it's more sparse than Europe and more normal to travel long distances.

Nevertheless if someone was rich enough to own one and based themselves in Switzerland - with a range of 1000km you can get as far as Madrid, Malmo, any where in Italy and nearly Greece. With 2000km (which it is capable of) you can go anywhere in Europe in one go - no changing trains.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#/media/File:Hi...

The speed isn't ridiculously low compared to the Phenom is the only point I was making, certainly considering that it's half the price.

The range can be extended to 2,200 km if it's just one person flying.

I know very little about this - but casual Googling suggests helicopters aren't necessarily better.

This Quora answer from 2015 [0], suggests $6m for the Augusta 109 [1], that has range of 982 km but has a speed of 285 km/h.

So that is 3x the price for half the speed?

[0]: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-private-helicopter-to...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW109

I mean this with sincere curiosity - why do the toilets dictate the 'realness' of a jet?

weak bladder

Definitely. There is no potential for charter operations for a plane with no toilet. Many companies learned it the hard way trying to operate the Eclipse. With no charter market, plane is dead because there are never enough hobby pilots to buy it to pay back sunk costs. For low-range flights <600 miles where operating without toilet is feasible, helicopter works better.

The way I understand it growing up, if you can fly further than a normal human can wait to go to the restroom, you probably need one on board.

> The experienced pilot sitting beside me assured me I couldn't crash the plane. It pretty much wouldn't let me.

Isn't this what Airbus used to say?

Since computers are doing more and more of the flying, the one thing that is heard on Cockpit Voice recorder before the rash is "What is the plane doing?" There is a lot of research in this domain, there is no way we will go back to full manual flying, but there is a lot of research in how to let the pilot know what the airplane is doing in a clear manner that is obvious even during a stressful situation.

Two examples of planes crashing because of misunderstanding between the pilots and the computers:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Re... The reverser deployed on one side, did not let the pilot know, the computer cut the power on that side, did not let the pilot know why, the pilots assumed there issue was the power being cut off for no reason, so reapplying it making the situation worse

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_7... The pilots reduce power on one-side because of surging in that engine, the computer saw that as an anomaly and increased power in both engine resulting in the break up of both engine. The computer never told the pilots what it was doing, the pilot had never been briefed on this mechanism. The captain retired as he felt he could no longer flying safely if he didn't know what the planes were doing.

Yep, it's all fun and games until your ASI goes haywire because of ice or a bug in your pitot tube, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_re...

However one thing I DO find clever about the Vision is their fully integrated AOA indicator as a primary instrument. This seems to be gaining traction in the industry overall, which should have positive impact on flight safety.

For $2 mil, you get a brand new plane with jet engine, modern cockpit for two pilots, and a parachute for the entire plane. I'd say that's revolutionary. No toilet? Is that such a big deal on small planes like this?

Assuming cruising at their "economy" speed, it's in the air for up to 5 hours.

Considering you'll have to land before 1100 km and that shouldn't take more than an hour and a half, I'd say it's more nitpicking than a real issue. Just take it into account and go to the toilet beforehand, with some plastic bags or empty bottles for emergencies.

How does this compare: http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-vtwin.html

Incomparable, other than they both fly.

The Cirrus vision is a certified, pressurized turbofan aircraft. The Velocity is an experimental, piston engined unpressurized aircraft.

It's like comparing a garage-built VW replica with a Maybach.

Regarding bathroom comments:

This seems to be a personal vehicle for very rich people. Most cars don't have bathrooms either.

But even the very rich need to use the bathroom from time to time, and landing a jet is significantly more involved than stopping a car for a break.

"relief station” portable toilet that is available as an option “just in case of emergency,”

http://m.aviationweek.com/ebace-2015/cirrus-closes-personal-...

Hard to imagine paying $2 million for a plane and shitting in a bucket behind a curtain.

That seems to be the option for $3M jets as well. You have to get up to $4M to get a door in front of your toilet.

Here's the $3M toilet option (Cessna Citation Mustang): https://blog.privatefly.com/us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mu...

not really very hard to imagine. money doesn't always equal good at logistics...

Just buy a 50¢ adult diaper and go to the bathroom without leaving the comfort of your seat.

There's a good story about that... https://medium.com/@JohnLeFevre/the-roadshow-aka-the-worst-p...

Why stop when you can leak in the sky.

I'd imagine you wouldn't buy this plane if that was a concern. So you'd be only looking at flight times of a 2-3 hours.

It'll do roughly 700 (2 hours) - 1400 (3.5 hours) miles [0]. Depending on weight and speed. So seems about perfect for flying the kids up to ski the weekend in Colorado [1] for all the Silicon Valley folk.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Vision_SF50#Specificati...

[1]: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palo+Alto,+CA/@38.7389353,...

I expected to find a modern equivalent to the Bede BD-5J ( single-engine, single-seat ) but it's just another small-cabin jet. Even Gulfstream tried that back in the 1980s with the single-engine Peregrine.

Fuel consumption works out to between 2 and 4 mpg, depending on payload.

Do the parachutes work reliably?

Presumably once it's deployed you lose all control, and land wherever, which might be okay if you land on a field, but what about a lake?

I assume it's a last ditch manouvre. Planes are designed to glide if the engine fails [0] - so you'd do your best to get over land / safe and then pull the parachute.

But also I assume if it did land on water - you might have a short amount of time to get out. At least you're not crashing into the water at 100 mph.

[0]: https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-airplane-glide-if-all-...

Duh, I forgot about gliding. I read the article as "if anything goes wrong, just pop the parachute", but of course you'd try to glide and land it somewhere safely, first.

There is a joke among Cirrus owners that the way to deploy the parachute is to pull it with your right hand, and then call your insurance agent with your left hand. The implication is that the aircraft is likely a total loss from that point.

Of the ~100 Cirrus parachute deployments to date, about 15 planes were repaired and put back into service. There were about 150 survivors and 1 fatality in those deployments. Cirrus says deployments have never failed when the system was being used within limits. I wasn't able to find the circumstances of that death, but the numbers show that yes, the parachutes are reliable.

As you point out, they can't protect you from whatever you land on -- lake, volcano, piranhas, etc.

I was shown a video by my father who owns a Cirrus of a parachuting plane on fire. It may have been the fatality. I believe the parachute works beautifully, but you have to make sure you use it correctly.

Yeah but who really cares if the plane is a loss? If you pull that lever, you are doing it because you would otherwise probably die. I'd say that's worth a total loss.

I doubt anyone does care. You might have misinterpreted the joke as advice not to use the mechanism when it's needed. It's just making light of the next step after surviving having crashed your plane.

Don't have the report handy on tbe phone, but it was in a dive in imc over the sierras exceeded Vne shredded the chute.

It's likely Cirrus doesn't count that incident as a failure because it was past Vne.

Here's a video of the company's piston-engined model landing under parachute in the middle of the Pacific ocean, taken by a Coast Guard rescue aircraft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCUQlF3MMU

Something really has to seriously go wrong for you to want to pull that lever. Once you do, as you said, you are totally at the mercy of this parachute system. It will land you where it lands you, and if something goes wrong with it, you are pretty much screwed. If the single engine goes out, you can still operate the plane as a glider and have some control over where and how it lands. I'd rather go this route than chance a parachute system that disrupts the natural lift of the aircraft for almost any situation except some kind of very serious control surface issue.

No toilet? Pass.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com