Cirrus Vision Jet-Certified...Finally

dans2992 said:
Ok, so how much is a Meridian to operate from your perspective? Significantly more than a Malibu?
Click to expand...

Here is something that I never believed, but many on MMOPA that stepped up from the Malibu or Mirage to the Jetprop or Meridian told me. The cost of operating the turbine P46 all in, is about the same as the piston PA46. Most increase in fuel usage is offset in higher ground speed and cheaper jet A, maintenance tends to run a little lower in the turbine, some think due to decreased vibration which tries to shake an airframe apart. That has been my experience as well. I have had 2 piston and 2 turbine P46's. My DOC's in the Meridian over 750 hours are in the $300/hr range, and that includes everything even magazine subscriptions. Where the difference lies is acquisition cost. Add 600K for a Jetprop or 1 mil to a Meridian for the acquisition cost of a similar year similarly equipped P46T. The biggest advantage though, is the bulletproof PT6, and maintenance free intervals between annuals.
 
wayne said:
Target market is the owner-pilot. Their spouse / significant other / kids are not pilots. Why do they need a PFD?

Even in air taxi mode I would expect this to be used single pilot.
Click to expand...

Redundancy. Every single other new glass cockpit plane at this level has two PFD's. If the PFD on the left fails, you've got reversionary mode to push to the MFD. If that fails too you still have the other PFD. Then the two PFD's show the independent results from the two ADC's and the two AHRS's so you can cross reference. I hope this Cirrus has two ADC's and AHRS's? But I suppose the standard answer is "Who cares? Pull the chute".

That interior looks pretty but I have to admit I hate that cockpit. It looks like a toy. And those side sticks... No thanks. Hopefully it has more (read ANY) tactile feedback unlike the SR22/SR20.
 
Rockymountain said:
Here is something that I never believed, but many on MMOPA that stepped up from the Malibu or Mirage to the Jetprop or Meridian told me. The cost of operating the turbine P46 all in, is about the same as the piston PA46. Most increase in fuel usage is offset in higher ground speed and cheaper jet A, maintenance tends to run a little lower in the turbine, some think due to decreased vibration which tries to shake an airframe apart. That has been my experience as well. I have had 2 piston and 2 turbine P46's. My DOC's in the Meridian over 750 hours are in the $300/hr range, and that includes everything even magazine subscriptions. Where the difference lies is acquisition cost. Add 600K for a Jetprop or 1 mil to a Meridian for the acquisition cost of a similar year similarly equipped P46T. The biggest advantage though, is the bulletproof PT6, and maintenance free intervals between annuals.
Click to expand...

I've heard the same from friends who moved to a Meridian from the piston PA46.
 
Cavorter said:
Redundancy. Every single other new glass cockpit plane at this level has two PFD's. If the PFD on the left fails, you've got reversionary mode to push to the MFD. If that fails too you still have the other PFD. Then the two PFD's show the independent results from the two ADC's and the two AHRS's so you can cross reference. I hope this Cirrus has two ADC's and AHRS's? But I suppose the standard answer is "Who cares? Pull the chute".

That interior looks pretty but I have to admit I hate that cockpit. It looks like a toy. And those side sticks... No thanks. Hopefully it has more (read ANY) tactile feedback unlike the SR22/SR20.
Click to expand...

One of those three touchscreen controllers can be used as a standby PFD.
 
Cavorter said:
Redundancy. Every single other new glass cockpit plane at this level has two PFD's. If the PFD on the left fails, you've got reversionary mode to push to the MFD. If that fails too you still have the other PFD. Then the two PFD's show the independent results from the two ADC's and the two AHRS's so you can cross reference. I hope this Cirrus has two ADC's and AHRS's? But I suppose the standard answer is "Who cares? Pull the chute".

That interior looks pretty but I have to admit I hate that cockpit. It looks like a toy. And those side sticks... No thanks. Hopefully it has more (read ANY) tactile feedback unlike the SR22/SR20.
Click to expand...

Jeez, where to start.

"at this level"? It's a jet powered SR22, not a CJ 4 and definitely not a G650. The max altitude is only FL280. Max cruise is only 300 KTAS.

The systems are redundant, including the left most controller panel being a back-up in reversionary mode. It's dual AHAR, dual ADC and dual static.

You really need three PFD's? If you get down to needing the 3rd PFD it's just not your day.

I love the side sticks on the SR22. Before I started the Cirrus transition training I was wondering how long it would take to get use to them. At the end of the first flight I realized I didn't even notice. I'm flying a Baron 58 these days, but I flew a SR22 for several years and would be happy flying one again.
 
wayne said:
"at this level"? It's a jet powered SR22, not a CJ 4 and definitely not a G650. The max altitude is only FL280. Max cruise is only 300 KTAS.
.
Click to expand...

???

How about a Meridian? The real street price for a new one is about that level (nobody pays full list price) and it is cheaper to operate. Max cruise is 260 KTAS and max altitude is also FL280 since it is not RSVM certified. So by the looks of things it appears to be "at this level" or lower wouldn't you say? Not sure why you are comparing to much more expensive and capable jets.

In fact show me any new glass cockpit turbine powered certified aircraft with only one PFD besides the Cirrus jet.
 
wayne said:
You really need three PFD's? If you get down to needing the 3rd PFD it's just not your day.
Click to expand...

At this price level yes. They're trying to cut costs pure and simple by leaving stuff off and probably justifying it by saying "oh well if the brown stuff hits the compressor we'll just tell them to pull the red handle". What other shortcuts have they taken? I'd love to see the full details of their systems and see what kind of redundancy it really has.
 
Cavorter said:
???

How about a Meridian? The real street price for a new one is about that level (nobody pays full list price) and it is cheaper to operate. Max cruise is 260 KTAS and max altitude is also FL280 since it is not RSVM certified. So by the looks of things it appears to be "at this level" or lower wouldn't you say? Not sure why you are comparing to much more expensive and capable jets.

In fact show me any new glass cockpit turbine powered certified aircraft with only one PFD besides the Cirrus jet.
Click to expand...

Did you not read what he said???

No one will be flying these with a two pilot crew so you don't need a second PFD in routine ops and it has 3 screens that can act as a PFD in case of primary or secondary screen failure. It also has 2 ADHRS, 2 ADCs and 2 static systems. So in fact, it has the same exact redundancy as a 3 screen G1000 for example in the Citation Mustang.
 
RudyP said:
Did you not read what he said???

No one will be flying these with a two pilot crew so you don't need a second PFD in routine ops and it has 3 screens that can act as a PFD in case of primary or secondary screen failure. It also has 2 ADHRS, 2 ADCs and 2 static systems. So in fact, it has the same exact redundancy as a 3 screen G1000 for example in the Citation Mustang.
Click to expand...

I did indeed. Maybe you need to reread what I said too. ;) I fly single pilot behind three screens with the occasional other pilot or my wife who could, in a pinch. get the plane down if I choked on a piece of jerky. Could she get it down squinting across to my screen or trying to make out the reversionary PFD on the touchscreen controller (I really hope that is a joke! :D That is pretty lame)? Maybe. Most of my operations are single pilot.

Maybe also reread my question about why NONE of the other manufacturers agree that a second PFD is not a good idea.

You're a CIrrus fan, I get that. Some like them, some don't.

RudyP said:
So in fact, it has the same exact redundancy as a 3 screen G1000 for example in the Citation Mustang.
Click to expand...

Oh please! :D :D :D
 
Cavorter said:
At this price level yes. They're trying to cut costs pure and simple by leaving stuff off and probably justifying it by saying "oh well if the brown stuff hits the compressor we'll just tell them to pull the red handle". What other shortcuts have they taken? I'd love to see the full details of their systems and see what kind of redundancy it really has.
Click to expand...

More is not always better.
 
Cavorter said:
I did indeed. Maybe you need to reread what I said too. ;) I fly single pilot behind three screens with the occasional other pilot or my wife who could, in a pinch. get the plane down if I choked on a piece of jerky. Could she get it down squinting across to my screen or trying to make out the reversionary PFD on the touchscreen controller (I really hope that is a joke! :D That is pretty lame)? Maybe. Most of my operations are single pilot.

Maybe also reread my question about why NONE of the other manufacturers agree that a second PFD is not a good idea.

You're a CIrrus fan, I get that. Some like them, some don't.

Oh please! :D :D :D
Click to expand...

Your wife could fly and successfully land a SF50? Maybe so. I doubt many would want to bet on that.

Pretty much all of the planes I've flown, and others I've looked at only had PFD / instruments on the left side. Even an Aerostar Superstar 700 which is in this league capability-wise (no, it's not new) only has instruments on the left. For the planes that are almost wholly flown single-pilot a PFD on the right side is a waste of money and often more importantly weight. Dual AHARs? Great. Dual ADC? Great. Dual PFD? Why bother? Have the MFD swap with the PFD and you're covered for both seats.

You want full panel triple redundancy, but not a second engine or a chute? :confused:

I've lost vacuum in IMC in single engine plane with the family onboard. Ignored the AI and HSI and used the TC and GPS. Turned down ATC's offer of a small airport just off to my right and motored on a little more to an airport I knew had good approaches, longer runway and maintenance shops. One level of redundancy and training is the best way to handle issues, not more equipment ad nauseum. One back-up is fine. After that you're in deep trouble and it's unlikely more money and weight for 3rd or 4th redundant equipment is going to save your butt.

I'm not a Cirrus nut. I like their planes, but I'm happy flying others too. Sounds more like you're a Cirrus hater.
 
Love the haters!
 
Type ratings and enough hours to become/remain insurable will an issue.

AIG is pulling back from owner flown jets as we speak, and that may be the beginning of an industry trend. Although the owner flown accident rate is far below that of 135 and 91k, the insurance companies talk to the sim centers and they may be seeing the same trend I am. Guys that barely met the minimum are slipping and having issues with a simple recurrent that has a MUCH lower standard than a check ride (tasks can be failed on a recurrent yet if preformed to satisfaction later its still a valid recurrent).

Contrary to the opinion of some, high performance, high altitudes and high costs severly limit the pool of guys able too, and can afford too fly these. They are a very cool aircraft, but future sales will be interesting. Cirrus is about 10 years late to the game IMHO for this product.
 
Insurance has always been an issue with owner flown jets, when I bought the Citation, they said it would be high the first year and come down after that, it never did. The hull value was pretty high at the time about 4X what it would be today, but it was still crazy expensive!! I did check on a 501 earlier this year and it was about the same as my 425.

n20junkie said:
Type ratings and enough hours to become/remain insurable will an issue.

AIG is pulling back from owner flown jets as we speak, and that may be the beginning of an industry trend. Although the owner flown accident rate is far below that of 135 and 91k, the insurance companies talk to the sim centers and they may be seeing the same trend I am. Guys that barely met the minimum are slipping and having issues with a simple recurrent that has a MUCH lower standard than a check ride (tasks can be failed on a recurrent yet if preformed to satisfaction later its still a valid recurrent).

Contrary to the opinion of some, high performance, high altitudes and high costs severly limit the pool of guys able too, and can afford too fly these. They are a very cool aircraft, but future sales will be interesting. Cirrus is about 10 years late to the game IMHO for this product.
Click to expand...
 
Another drawback is that its composite.

We see with the cirrus and cessna corvallis how terrible they hold up from an paint/cracks issue. They just do not hold up like and aluminum aircraft. Our 2009 phenom looks brand new compared to our 2009 corvallis that looks like crap and has had issues with bonded in windows cracking and the resulting repair never looking factory fresh. All the filler material has decent sized cracks and they CF just does not retain paint the same way a solid aluminum aircraft does.

Many will come on and say I am wrong and state the superiority of composites over aluminum, but I am giving my experiance with both materials as an aircraft manager, pilot and mechanic.
 
"The owner flown accident rate is far below 135 and 91k".

Are you sure about that? I'm thinking the exact opposite.
 
dans2992 said:
"The owner flown accident rate is far below 135 and 91k".

Are you sure about that? I'm thinking the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

In the Phenom series, absolutely! I can't account for all small jets, but I have a whole folder of 135/91k Phenoms that professional pilots have crashed. The only fatal Phenom crash in the US was an owner flown accident in DC, but the professional flyers have totaled a fair amount of airframes.
 
Cavorter said:
I've heard the same from friends who moved to a Meridian from the piston PA46.
Click to expand...

I heard the same from a guy at OSH about his Garrett powered IV-P vs a Piston IV-P.

If this is true, including scheduled overhaul at TBO, the only other concern could be insurance costs. I imagine the higher hull value on a turbine would drive those up.

Also, there is the issue of financial risk if you have unexpected maintenance. For example, if you pick up FOD with only a few hours on your new turbine, you are out what, $150k? If you, say, throw a rod or have your cam start spalling in a piston, you're looking at what, maybe $20k?
 
A fod ingestion is an accident, and insurance covers it. A tossed rod will cost you probably closer to 50k and is not covered, so you pay.

We had a bird ingestion event last November, 300k in engine damage and rental. We paid exactly nothing out of pocket. Our insurance company and engine program (jssi) covered eveything.

I have never had a customer buy more than some filters and an ignitor plug or two for a turbine. The recips? Big bore turbo engines need constant maintenance and get maybe 600 hours between major maintenance events (one plane has had an overhaul, then 2 cylinders, and I just finished replacing a cracked crank case). Sure the first overhaul was barely covered by warranty, but what about the rest of this aircrafts life? A single engine turbine will have similar maintenance costs over a 200hr/yr x 10yr life, with little to no down time as there are not constant oil changes, annual repairs and major repairs before TBO. Turbine major maintenance usually comes with a rental engine so the aircraft keeps flying while its engine is in the shop.

Fixed cost maintenance programs cost roughly $110/hr for turbines and that included scheduled overhaul, unscheduled maintenance(other than accident) as well as covering items during an accident in conjunction with the hull insurance carrier.
 
Last edited:
Rockymountain said:
...but for anyone wondering if flying above 95% of the weather at over 300 mph, in pressurized comfort in a modern glass cockpit aircraft is awesome? I can assure you it is way more awesome than you think.
Click to expand...

Having only gotten to experience that type of flying over the last eighteen months (thankfully on someone else's dime!), I have to concur. Go anywhere, anytime...weather is only a minor inconvenience if ever a factor at all.

I often daydream of having my own personal version...which is not likely but never say never!
 
n20junkie said:
In the Phenom series, absolutely! I can't account for all small jets, but I have a whole folder of 135/91k Phenoms that professional pilots have crashed. The only fatal Phenom crash in the US was an owner flown accident in DC, but the professional flyers have totaled a fair amount of airframes.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's interesting. Any idea why this is?

I assume the insurance companies still charge _more_ for owner flown vs. pro-flown though...?
 
I think it takes more ability to fly a heavy single or twin piston than it does to fly a light turboprop or jet. In either case you need to be flying 150 hours+ per year and going to sim school to really be proficient with the plane and in the IFR system.

The Conquest has a similar envelope to the SF50 and I don't think going from the SR22 to the jet is going to be that big a deal for most guys. They do have to keep type current which will be a benefit.
 
I would rather have the second PFD, and I do use it every flight. I fly some from the right seat, when I am with another pilot, and for particularly challenging missions I like to fly either with or as the second pilot. I can fly the opposite PFD, and do train for it every 6 months, but it is not nearly as easy as one would think, especially in a plane over 4 feet wide. I also compare PFD1 to PFD2, (airspeeds, attitude, altitude, and heading) every time before entering IMC. PFD 1 and 2 and in my plane as well as the Backups use separate ADC, ADHRS and Pitot static systems. I want to know that everyone is in agreement before I trust myself with just one set of instruments. Still a nice plane, but the single PFD is a substantial compromise in my opinion in a flight level plane that will spend significant time in IMC, and often will be flown with 2 pilots, the second which will be unfairly handicapped.
 
Rockymountain said:
I would rather have the second PFD, and I do use it every flight. I fly some from the right seat, when I am with another pilot, and for particularly challenging missions I like to fly either with or as the second pilot. I can fly the opposite PFD, and do train for it every 6 months, but it is not nearly as easy as one would think, especially in a plane over 4 feet wide. I also compare PFD1 to PFD2, (airspeeds, attitude, altitude, and heading) every time before entering IMC. PFD 1 and 2 and in my plane as well as the Backups use separate ADC, ADHRS and Pitot static systems. I want to know that everyone is in agreement before I trust myself with just one set of instruments. Still a nice plane, but the single PFD is a substantial compromise in my opinion in a flight level plane that will spend significant time in IMC, and often will be flown with 2 pilots, the second which will be unfairly handicapped.
Click to expand...

Yes. I mean they do require time flying with a "supervising" pilot who might need to take over or assist from the right seat. That could prove difficult without a basic set of instrumentation over there.
 
dans2992 said:
Yes. I mean they do require time flying with a "supervising" pilot who might need to take over or assist from the right seat. That could prove difficult without a basic set of instrumentation over there.
Click to expand...

It is just harder, especially in IMC. When your head is turned, in turbulence especially, you are just not used to the inputs to your middle ear. Can be surprisingly disorienting and fatiguing as everything requires so much more concentration. If you turn the MFD into a PFD, again you lose some of that situational awareness that you are accustomed to with the moving map alongside the PFD, weather etc although split screens of the G3000 do allow some degree of customization. Just easier to have 2 PFD's. Cirrus thinks outside the box, but not a fan of this decision.
 
The avionics are really cool. It gives Cirrus pilots familiarity but with added features.

vision2_zpsa18nsavk.jpg


vision_zpsmy4zcy1p.jpg
 
Rockymountain said:
I would rather have the second PFD, and I do use it every flight. I fly some from the right seat, when I am with another pilot, and for particularly challenging missions I like to fly either with or as the second pilot. I can fly the opposite PFD, and do train for it every 6 months, but it is not nearly as easy as one would think, especially in a plane over 4 feet wide. I also compare PFD1 to PFD2, (airspeeds, attitude, altitude, and heading) every time before entering IMC. PFD 1 and 2 and in my plane as well as the Backups use separate ADC, ADHRS and Pitot static systems. I want to know that everyone is in agreement before I trust myself with just one set of instruments. Still a nice plane, but the single PFD is a substantial compromise in my opinion in a flight level plane that will spend significant time in IMC, and often will be flown with 2 pilots, the second which will be unfairly handicapped.
Click to expand...


While I understand this, we also are taught to trust our equipment. The g-1000, 3000 have comparators operating all the time and will announce a miscomp of any axis.
 
dans2992 said:
Wow, that's interesting. Any idea why this is?

I assume the insurance companies still charge _more_ for owner flown vs. pro-flown though...?
Click to expand...

Honestly owner flown flights probably account for 10 percent or less of small jet flights, and every flight has the risk of a bad outcome.

Of the 135/91k accidents, many of them seem to be on legs where there were no passengers (reposition) or while conducting non-imc landings. I believe that many professionals are so used to flying regimented flights, thst when theynhave the freedom to relax a bit, they get into situations they are not used too. Overuns from improper descents and airspeed control are the result.

One accident was the first landing by a new PIC. We are trained to go full brake pedal deflection on landing and let the brake by wire logic work out braking forces. Well no kne really did this, but no one seemed to catch on at the sim center. This unlucky PIC went full brake on his first landing ever in the real plane (at night none the less) and the plane started to S turn on the runway. His attempts to correct were improperly timed and made things worse until the jet exited the runway and stuffed the main gear through both wings. A owner/operator would never have been given initial flight instruction under these conditions, but time constraints and pressures from the "company" had these guys doing the wrong thing to "get the training in" on a reposition flight.
 
n20junkie said:
While I understand this, we also are taught to trust our equipment. The g-1000, 3000 have comparators operating all the time and will announce a miscomp of any axis.
Click to expand...

That is true. Pretty nice feature. I have only had miscompares a handful of times, usually involves some nasty weather. Get enough tail swinging and turbulence and those ADHRS can start arguing with each other. When that happens in some airframes you will get an AP disconnect. The AP kindly announces it is giving up and your airplane ;-)
 
n20junkie said:
In the Phenom series, absolutely! I can't account for all small jets, but I have a whole folder of 135/91k Phenoms that professional pilots have crashed. The only fatal Phenom crash in the US was an owner flown accident in DC, but the professional flyers have totaled a fair amount of airframes.
Click to expand...

So, you're comparing a few privately owned jets that fly a very small number of hours to a large fleet of jets that fly all the time. Of course the ones that fly all the time are going to crash more.

I bet if you divide it out by 100,000 hours of operation, the professionally flown jets are significantly safer...
 
What I said is exactly what you said, if your read my previous posts first sentence slowley. I never compared accident rates, just commented that pro pilots have waded up more light jets than owners by a large margin (in a fleet that has a mix of both pilots flying the same aircraft).
 
n20junkie said:
What I said is exactly what you said, if your read my previous posts first sentence slowley. I never compared accident rates, just commented that pro pilots have waded up more light jets than owners by a large margin (in a fleet that has a mix of both pilots flying the same aircraft).
Click to expand...

So you just like throwing out useless statistics to make professional pilots look bad?
 
I could also say that ATPs have crashed more jets than student pilots have. :)
 
wayne said:
I've lost vacuum in IMC in single engine plane with the family onboard. Ignored the AI and HSI and used the TC and GPS. Turned down ATC's offer of a small airport just off to my right and motored on a little more to an airport I knew had good approaches, longer runway and maintenance shops. One level of redundancy and training is the best way to handle issues, not more equipment ad nauseum. One back-up is fine. After that you're in deep trouble and it's unlikely more money and weight for 3rd or 4th redundant equipment is going to save your butt.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the primary fails, there is a back-up. If the back-up fails, the guy/gal in the left seat has to use his/her flying skills. That's two levels of back-up, in my book.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
So you just like throwing out useless statistics to make professional pilots look bad?
Click to expand...

If I wanted to do that I would be making myself look bad as well because I fly and manage phenoms professionally as well as contract 135/91k.....

Its apparent that my point of conversation was lost on you. I will just leave my statements as they are, further back and forth will just take this thread further away from the OP topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top