Jet Rental!

[arnoha]

I was wondering the same thing. For some reason I don't think they do. A single engine with an approach speed of what, 130 knots? That thing is turning into a ball of fire unless you have a runway to put it down on.

In light singles, if you lose the engine the forced landing usually goes fine. Alls you need is a well placed incipient stall/spin on a medium sized tree, and walk away.

Being a single, I assume it is required to have the 70 MPH dirty stall speed like every other single. That means approach speed can't be all that high.

 

[Kritchlow]

Being a single, I assume it is required to have the 70 MPH dirty stall speed like every other single. That means approach speed can't be all that high.

I'm only guessing as I know nothing about this airplane. That said, approach speed is predicated on several factors including wing and weight. A heavy highly swept wing will have a higher app speed.
All that said, it's my guess the Vision would be slower than 130. That was my over the fence speed in a Citation X with 37° sweep. Of course that had leading edge slats which mitigated some of that.

 

[jordane93]

Being a single, I assume it is required to have the 70 MPH dirty stall speed like every other single. That means approach speed can't be all that high.

The approach speed is about 5-10 knots faster than an SR22. The owner of my flight school got to fly one. He said it one was of the easiest planes to fly but it was weird landing a jet at like 90 knots.

 

[arnoha]

I'm only guessing as I know nothing about this airplane. That said, approach speed is predicated on several factors including wing and weight. A heavy highly swept wing will have a higher app speed.
All that said, it's my guess the Vision would be slower than 130. That was my over the fence speed in a Citation X with 37° sweep. Of course that had leading edge slats which mitigated some of that.

The approach speed is about 5-10 knots faster than an SR22. The owner of my flight school got to fly one. He said it one was of the easiest planes to fly but it was weird landing a jet at like 90 knots.

My understanding is that they did not have a choice and could only have a max 61 knot stall speed in a single due to Part 23 rules. And that's true...unless you have an exception. I see that Pilatus was able to get 67 knots in the PC-12 by successfully claiming that their seats and safety items provided equivalent safety of the slower stall speed. Cirrus must have taken that precedent and done similar, since the dirty stall of the Vision is 67 knots. That puts approach at 87 knots, which matches your listed 90 knots closely.

 

[MassPilot]

The approach speed is about 5-10 knots faster than an SR22. The owner of my flight school got to fly one. He said it one was of the easiest planes to fly but it was weird landing a jet at like 90 knots.

It's going to be even weirder landing a 15,000+ lb Pilatus PC-24 at 90 knots.

 

[ZeroPapaGolf]

Being a single, I assume it is required to have the 70 MPH dirty stall speed like every other single. That means approach speed can't be all that high.

Pretty sure that comment was in response to the "do L-39s have active ejection seats" question.

 

[BigBadLou]

Ooh ooh! Rhino rides!

http://www.space-affairs.com/index.php?wohin=phantom_f4g

I'm sure it's pricey. Missed out on a ride when I was in the service on a Rhino w/ the trst wing at Eglin.

You bet it is pricey. Very thirsty 1960s engines (think Vietnam era technology) and lots of maintenance cost.
There's an outfit in Houston that offers "training" rides in Rhinos for 5 figures. And they say "flight is approximately 45 minutes long, depending on fuel". Meaning, if you light her up and go vertical on climbout, you're coming back in 15 minutes instead.
Aerobatics in a Rhino would be on my bucket list. When I find out I'm about to die, I am booking a ride, no question asked. And I'll put her through the paces until the instructor pukes.

 

[mscard88]

You bet it is pricey. Very thirsty 1960s engines (think Vietnam era technology) and lots of maintenance cost.
There's an outfit in Houston that offers "training" rides in Rhinos for 5 figures. And they say "flight is approximately 45 minutes long, depending on fuel". Meaning, if you light her up and go vertical on climbout, you're coming back in 15 minutes instead.
Aerobatics in a Rhino would be on my bucket list. When I find out I'm about to die, I am booking a ride, no question asked. And I'll put her through the paces until the instructor pukes.

Haha doubt you'll be able to make the IP puke, dude probably hasa couple thousand hours in it, combat time too. I was around F4s for the 20 years I was in, so I know how they operate. To me the TBirds & Blues were at their best when they used F4s for their shows. Loud, fast and big bastards.

 

[FormerHangie]

You bet it is pricey. Very thirsty 1960s engines (think Vietnam era technology) and lots of maintenance cost.
There's an outfit in Houston that offers "training" rides in Rhinos for 5 figures. And they say "flight is approximately 45 minutes long, depending on fuel". Meaning, if you light her up and go vertical on climbout, you're coming back in 15 minutes instead.
Aerobatics in a Rhino would be on my bucket list. When I find out I'm about to die, I am booking a ride, no question asked. And I'll put her through the paces until the instructor pukes.

Don't wait. The older you are, the less enjoyable things like that are. I've been around three terminally ill people in the last 10 years, and none of them were well enough to go for a hot air balloon ride, let alone for some serious aerobatics.

 

[Gerhardt]

The rental rates on the other planes look good. And an attractive fleet too. Not the stuff a lot of us were used to seeing when we first started.

Edit: holy crap, just saw the 50-70 gah fuel burn. Ouch.

 

[dell30rb]

Being a single, I assume it is required to have the 70 MPH dirty stall speed like every other single. That means approach speed can't be all that high.

I was talking about the warbirds

 

[arnoha]

The rental rates on the other planes look good. And an attractive fleet too. Not the stuff a lot of us were used to seeing when we first started.

Edit: holy crap, just saw the 50-70 gah fuel burn. Ouch.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Remember: 300 knots. My 172 gets about 40 MPG per passenger (3). The Vision gets about 30 MPG per passenger (6). In cruise...I'm assuming that once you add the less efficient parts, the 172 comes out further ahead. But still...in the same range.