Cirrus Jet

There seems to have been a lot of discussion around 2003 about a potential single engine jet development by cirrus, however these have all died down … infact so has news from cirrus altogether, with recent examination of the website no press-releases etc since January. Whats going on? as a current cessna 172 owner I would make the swap to a single engine cirrus jet at the drop of a hat, has anyone heard anymore news from the cirrus development front about this project and when can we see some publication.

In reply to:


There seems to have been a lot of discussion around 2003 about a potential single engine jet development by cirrus, however these have all died down … infact so has news from cirrus altogether, with recent examination of the website no press-releases etc since January. Whats going on? as a current cessna 172 owner I would make the swap to a single engine cirrus jet at the drop of a hat, has anyone heard anymore news from the cirrus development front about this project and when can we see some publication.


Yes, but all such discussion occurs on the “members” side of this forum.
BTW. Did you say that you would give up your Cessna 172 in favor of a jet? Had you perhaps, considered something in between?

add to that Aero-news.net’s claim that " an amazing announcement will be coming from Cirrus that will amaze the industry again" a month or so ago.

Wonder what is happening if anything…

The company has had a full year and another quarter of positive earnings and cash flow…

Crescent Capital must be getting itchy.

I read about a Cirrus VLJ in the AOPA magazine. They said that they would come out with it.

This would be an ambitious upgrade and unless your day gig is flying jets I would say insurance and training requirements would be, well, enormous in every regard. On the members side there have been MANY at length threads about what’s coming next but it’s all conjecture with very few facts. The best thing I have found was an interview of Alan a year or two ago that was published somewhere on-line, maybe AOPA or AVWEB or ? Anyway, the question asked was if Cirrus would next make something bigger or smaller. Alan stated that there really wasn’t any room to go down in size/cost (i.e. less than a Cirrus SRV) so it was pretty clear they were going to make something bigger/better. Since it came from Alan it’s the only thing I have heard/read that is more than good ol fun Internet gossip at this point. I have been hoping for 6 seats with a Chute which I could use alot more than a jet. Of course, on the members side everyone wants something slightly different. Some want pressurized, some want multi-engine, some want retractable gear, some want 6 seats, some want a jet, some want some or all of the above. For operating cost and insurance and training requirements etc. my personal preference would be 6 seats fixed gear pressurized single engine with improved speed/range over a SR22 and it would have a chute, equipped with the same Avidyne system going into the Eclipse jet, namely two PFDs with large screen MFD in the center. Price it well under a $1m so it fits nicely between a SR22 GTS and VLJs.

Cirrus gets grant

NEWS TRIBUNE
98 words
18 June 2005
Duluth News-Tribune
English
© Copyright 2005, Duluth News-Tribune. All Rights Reserved.

The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development has awarded Cirrus Design Corp. in Duluth almost $90,000 in environmental cleanup funds.

The money will go toward investigating 3.9 acres of land at the Duluth International Airport. The U.S. Air Force used the two sites from 1952 to 1977.

Officials of the airplane manufacturing company hope to build a 50,000 square-foot hangar in one area and a 98,000 square-foot expansion to their production facility in the other.

Both projects could lead to an additional 220 jobs.

bet it is FADEC

I’ve never heard how the brothers K went from the VK30 retractable pusher kit to the SR line. Did they feel the design failed? Was is uncertifiable? What if it was beefed up to six seats, pressurized and given a chute, turboprop or jet engine? Recycling what they learned from that design may give them a head start.

In reply to:


I’ve never heard how the brothers K went from the VK30 retractable pusher kit to the SR line. Did they feel the design failed? Was is uncertifiable? What if it was beefed up to six seats, pressurized and given a chute, turboprop or jet engine? Recycling what they learned from that design may give them a head start.


Tim,
The answer to your first two questions is no. Dale and Alan had a vision to change general aviation as we knew it, and they did. A retractable-gear pusher, as neat as the VK30 was, wouldn’t have fit the bill for deep market penetration. The SR20 was a far better airplane to reach the GA masses with a message of safety and affordability. There was a great marketing campaign back then called “Hangar X.” For the longest time, you would see ads in magazines like Flying, AOPA Pilot and others that would show a veiled aircraft sticking out from a hangar. This generated an amazing amount of anticipation among the GA community as to how Cirrus’ new aircraft would be configured. In the end, it was conventional, which was a great choice.
People in general like to look at exotic looking airplanes, but are much less accepting of them initially. Just look at the Starship and Avanti turboprop programs. After a multi-year production line shutdown, Piaggio is finally beginning to gain some market share with a revamped company, but we all know where the Starship has ended up. Granted, there are other factors involved with these turbopropsÂ’ tumultuous production run, but configuration canÂ’t be discounted.
In the early 1990s, Cirrus designed and delivered the ST50 (picture below) for Israviation. In a precarious political environment of the time, this aircraft program ended up being cancelled (not unlike many military aircraft programs), but remains a testament to the companies innovation. Cirrus has such a talented design team these days, that I don’t think anything needs to be recycled, but I would imagine that a single-engine jet-powered Cirrus would take some styling cues from its heritage. Then again, Cirrus is full of surprises. [:)]

In reply to:


I’ve never heard how the brothers K went from the VK30 retractable pusher kit to the SR line. Did they feel the design failed? Was is uncertifiable?


There was/are some severe problems with such a pusher configuration:

  1. The long, heavy drive shaft subject to vibration and torsional problems
  2. A propeller subject to vibration and loss of efficiency problems, since as it rotates it encounters ‘dirty’ air off of the airframe, wings, tail, etc.
  3. Tail or prop strikes from over rotation
  4. Too different and controversial to be easily marketed/accepted.

I am impressed with the K. brothers’s practicality/restraint for:
. Changing to the conventional SR ‘tractor’ configuration
. Making the G2 improvements in manufacturability/maintainability
. Avoiding pre-maturely introducing new models

In reply to:


In the early 1990s, Cirrus designed and delivered the ST50 (picture below) for Israviation.


I seem to remember that Cirrus eventually purchased all of the rights to the ST50 design, and still owns them.

Jim Knollenberg SR20 1281 N814

What a great platform for a single engine jet the ST50 look like. Just imagine it without the prop and a couple of inlet ducts

In reply to:


I seem to remember that Cirrus eventually purchased all of the rights to the ST50 design, and still owns them.


Jim,

I’m pretty sure that is correct.

My question concerning this article is why would they need another 150,000 feet of manufacturing space and 220 new employees? They have had a healthy 3 month backlog since I ordered my plane in July of 2004. There has to be something else that they are ramping up for.

The VK-50 would look nice minus the turboprop. I bet they could lose a few of the awkward tail fins with a jet!

Yeah, just imagine!

In reply to:


Yeah, just imagine!


That’s EXACLTY the configuration I had in mind.

If jet engines are more reliable than piston engines, why do all the VLJs being developed have 2 engines?

The new Diamond Jet is a single engine

In reply to:


If jet engines are more reliable than piston engines, why do all the VLJs being developed have 2 engines?


Certification issues vis a vis system redundancy for flight above FL250 are difficult if not impossible to achieve with a singe engine anything.

As jet engine powered aircraft become more efficient with altitude, operations above FL290 really start saving money.

To name but a few…

In reply to:


bet it is FADEC


I bet ur right. They have been testing the FADEC for quite some time, and huge article in FLYING this month on it.