As an aerospace engineer, I strongly appreciate how informative the video is and how the presenter made it very easy for the average person to understand. Excellent video.
I can’t help but wonder if this video was in response to an email Austin may have received from the Cirrus publicity department after the race video. Cirrus Publicity: “Your last video cast our jet in an unfavorable light.” Austin: “No it didn’t. The laws of aerodynamics did. Allow me to demonstrate.”
You want proof cirrus markets to idiots? SR20/22 frames require a ten year repack on the explosives for the BRS and the neglected access for the early generations. You literally had to cut the empennage open to access the rocket motor for the repack. Now its a delightful composite repair job to put the tail back together. The eclipse completely outperforms the SF50. Problem is cirrus is far better at marketing. Hell the SR22 at best matches the performance my ‘61 S35 gets and that aircraft was designed in the 40’s with slide rules. So much for “the advanced design”.
I went through the same analysis as Austin, and so took delivery of a new Epic E1000 single-engine turboprop last year. Just this week I flew it from St. Louis to the Atlanta area with 6 adults and all of their luggage, doing more than 300 knots at FL330. No way could we have done that in the Cirrus jet. The 4000 fpm initial climb rate and 1200 shp shoving you down the runway during takeoff have to be experienced to be believed. Because we're flying up at 33-34,000 feet much of time, we're often referred to by ATC as an "Epic jet."
Imagine these cirrus jet losers flying to Telluride onto an snowy runway for a family ski trip and suddenly realize buying a jet without thrust reversers is the dumbest fking idea invented by man.
One of the most informative videos I've ever seen on this range of topics. I wish my flight instructor had done an overview like this way back in ground school as it REALLY would have hammered home some of the critical fundamental knowledge regarding the effect of all these variables on flight performance in a really intuitive manner. 👍
As a retired airline pilot with an aeronautical engineering degree I too love efficiency in a design to meet the mission it is designed for. But efficiency isn’t everything. I think Austin is missing the “coolness factor”. The Epic looks like lots of other airplanes and the VisionJet has a unique and attractive look. Plus, jets are cool and procedurally easier to fly than prop planes. Cirrus knew what they were doing when the made a straight wing jet that procedurally flies almost the same as their best selling line of SE piston planes. How many SR20/22 pilots would upgrade to a jet if it didn’t seem like an easy transition? The wider cabin with tons of legroom are also attractive compared to the “tube” layout of “efficient” airplanes. And although debatable safety value based the statistics, the CAPS parachute is often the factor that motivates pilot’s wives to give the go ahead on a Cirrus purchase. If efficiency was everything why would we build light twin engine aircraft? Everything Austin says is true and well presented but I just don’t think efficiency is the whole story. Coolness is a thing in airplanes… ask any Warbird or Pitts pilot. Cross country flying is not the only mission. Sometimes it is a $150 hamburger.
Fair points all around. SR22 pilots looking to upgrade are likely to select the cirrus jet solely based off of their positive relationship with Cirrus. So its literally built like an SR22 with a jet engine attached. Could it be faster? Most definitely but given that most owners barely cross 600NM on most flights the jet fits the profile for most missions
Also consider the SR22 ... Has No Retract.. has no Prop Control ... Fadec controls the mixture... They could make a Single that goes MUCH faster by just getting the Wheels out of the way.... They Don't but why?? Insurance / Training / Maintenance.. either way they sell out even though it could be faster... On the Jet Front they are also making an easy to fly plane with similar items. Watch the Startup that Austin follows vs just turning the Knob and pressing Start on the Vision.. There is also factors "Low/High Idle" on the PT6 and managing that. I don't think Austin can event put his Plane to Full TRQ on the ground.. Then on descent he talks about managing the PROP to be efficient... cool but another thing to manage.. Easy Jet to transition too, Easy to Start, easy to check .. and like you said gets the Family to the 150 dollar burger... Hard to keep the family in the air over 2-3 hours when there is no bathroom.
@@LesOReilly Exactly. Does the Epic 1000 have autoland like the Cirrus? All those fancy avionics add to the cost. Why do people pay more than half a million dollars for a Cessna 172? They aren’t paying for aerodynamics or speed.
@@edwardwright8127 Well the 172 is flight schools.. I mean those things are always sold out and Cessna is not interested in Adding capacity just to lower the price... I know we have seen the 2nd hand market skyrocket where a 172 from 1974 is more than buying a 1980s twin.. or an older Comanche... The fact that it was designed to what the customers WANT and WILL buy is what a business should do. Operating in a vacuum or an echo chamber to build what might be the fastest or most efficient might not be what the buyer wants....
This is not a fair comparison at all. Love the detail on the vision jet and education, but we are forgetting it's purpose. Which was to be incredibly comfortable for passengers, extremely safe and easy to fly for an inexperienced pilot. I've sat in the Epic, and have flown multiple times in a vision jet. Vision jet has loads more room, the interior is more refined, AC controls for passengers, fold out TV, ridiculous legroom etc. Vision jet has Garmin G3000 w/ safe return, has a parachute, on board radar and has required annual training... Which can be a pain but makes better / safer pilots if we are honest. Vision Jet also has auto throttle and the Epic does not... Doesn't bother me much but to some it's a big deal. Also, you can unload 80 gallons and have plenty of payload to get more people on a 2-3 hr flight anywhere you need just about. Most people don't want to be in a plane for 4-6 hrs without stopping. I know my kids won't last more than 2 hrs... I agree the Epic is faster, probably flies better and has a more reliable engine. I love the Epic's electric tinted windows and you can now get on board radar for 75k... But most people want to go somewhere 2-3 hours away by plane in style and comfort. While being safe! My friend regularly gets 330 knots out of his Vision G2+ and he has never burned 125 gph climbing... I think something was up with that plane in the video. I am currently deciding between the two. Epic definitely deserves it's accolades but the Vision Jet does many things very well. After all, it outsells everything close to it's price point for a reason. Lets not forget that currently a vision get is much cheaper than an Epic. These prices are not accurate in the video. I can get a new Vision Jet for 3.2-3.4MM. Epic with radar is 4.5-4.6MM. Roughly a 1.2MM difference. I could buy a beach house with the difference... Or 4 Porsches... Or 2 really nice RV's.... But, Holy crap it might be worth it for that climb rate in the Epic. Either way you go there needs to be a true comparison of the facts... I want the performance of the Epic and luxury and safety of the Vision jet... Flying in a Vision Jet again this week... Epic sales rep is coming to see me again at end of the month... Still haven't decided. Decisions decisions...
Yes, those are valid points. With the Vision Jet there is just a throttle lever, no prop feather nor mixture levers to think about, and the turbofan has mild engine torque characteristics compared to the Evolution's turboprop. It's basically easier with the engine management part of operation than a Cessna 172 is. At least for new flight simmers who believe the Cessna 172 too antiquated and slow, the Vision Jet is probably the best aircraft included with X-Plane 12 for getting the hang of flying and navigating with glass cockpits, imo.
So you can fill it up with passengers, fly 200 miles, land, refuel, rinse and repeat. By the time you fly your passengers 1000 miles, the Greyhound bus arrives at the same time you do.
Not sure which vision jet you’re referring to that has more space than anything. Have you ever sat in the two rear backseats? The cirrus exec actually admitted they’re useless. If you’re a 3 foot tall six-year-old, you can sit back there. I was so disappointed. The vision jet is a four person airplane. Period. (Not 4 passenger, 4 PERSON including pilot.) Maybe if you want a jet with a parachute (?)
If I had had such a fantastically clear-thinking and explanatory teacher in mathematics and physics, I would have become an engineer instead of a librarian!Thanks for the great explanations. Even I understood everything and that means something!
I fly a Cirrus SR22 and have about 6 hours in a Vision Jet, the thing that's complicated in aviation is that not every plane has the same mission. You have to balance cost, speed, range, comfort, maint etc. The Vision Jet is currently 3.5 million and with that bubble gut look it has, results in an extremely roomy cabin. The epic and many of the turbo props in that range are cramped. To compare the Vison Jet to basically any other light jet isn't fair because they all start at about double the price. So for personal/business use the Vision Jet fits the job for me. Also having that parachute as a last option is great for me with my family on board. I know everyone is Chuck Yeager but some times you are out of options. There was a crash near by me 2 weeks ago, Engine failure at night in imc at 200ovc. That pilot would have survived in a Cirrus....
I’ve never come across this channel before and I have to admit, I had very low expectations of your content. How wrong I was! Truly an excellent lesson made extremely easy to understand.
This video also shows what a difficult design problem the PC-24 was for Pilatus. They basically were trying to make a higher, faster, PC-12 without losing the things that make that plane so good and so versatile vs a typical light-medium jet . Understanding this stuff really makes the fact that Pilatus managed to succeeded as well as they did very impressive.
For me, the CJ4 and Phenom 300 are both dead. If you want the most space and capability, PC-24 is the way to go. You want speed and range? SJ30 flies circles around them (even if they're pretty rare, production has barely started). I see no reason to pick Cessna or Embraer nowadays.
@@wojciechmuras553 That's true in theory based off of a spec sheet. But in real world use after sales service availability is much more important than relatively small differences in performance. Syberjet says they only have two locations in the U.S on their website. Pilatus, Embraer, and Cessna/Textron all have many more throughout the country with Textron leading the way. I guarantee Textron also as the best parts availability too.
@@josh885 That is very much true. However, it is a problem for the management company, not the owner. I personally like everything new and shiny, but I can understand why some might want to hold off and stick to tried and tested solutions until SyberJet can prove themselves.
@@wojciechmuras553 - I was at NBAA BACE (although they didn’t call it that back then) when the SJ-30 was originally rolled out - back in about 1995 give or take. I have as much faith in a Jim Bede design as I do the SJ-30 at this point. Something about a fool and their money… Beyond that, to say “that’s the management company’s problem” is the height of naïveté - it’s ultimately the owner’s problem when they can’t use their aircraft because there is not tech support for it. There’s a reason certain brands are known for good dispatch reliability and others are not.
Beautifully presented, Austin! BTW, my Velocity XL-5 RG with 375HP and 1900lb empty weight could get to 10,000 ft in just a little over three minutes and cruise all day at 200 kts while sipping 14 gph. 127 gph fuel burn would make me nauseous while looking at the miserable climb rate.
I've been looking into XL5 and Glassair 3 kits. How was the build process on the XL5 and how much did you end up spending over the kit price for engine/engine fixtures?
But my truth is different: I was recently on the NBAA fair and Cirrus did not really stick out among the Gulfstream‘s, the Vision Jet had no range - jada jada. But honestly, which private pilot of family member spends more than 4h in one leg in a small aircraft. Then the SF-50 really stuck out on a smaller U.S. Exhibition in Scottsdale and the director let me fly it to Henderson, Las Vegas. This is what I learned: The Cirrus Jet is a roomy stretch limo like a Tesla X. I hand flew it all the way and it was so simple to fly with the G3000 glass cockpit. It felt like sitting in a 360 iMax theater, totally quiet coasting with 311kt on 22‘000ft looking down along the glittering colorado river as the sun set. The flight went under my skin and I got a bit big fan of the Cirrus Jet, despite the physical limits this video presents. But if you like payload, get a Pilatus PC-12 and put your motorcycle through the cargo door, absolutely great too. But if you just want to coast along, the Cirrus is it: Stunning.
As an enroute ATC, the cirrus jets are awful to work with. Trying to sequence jets to TEB becomes 100% more difficult when you have an SF50 leading the pack, barely able to get out of his own way.
Comparing the vision jet to the t-38 is hilarious! Cirrus designed it on purpose to be slower so it was as easy as possible for cirrus piston pilots to transition to single pilot jet operations where a type rating is required.
Wow. You were always the "X-Plane Guy" Who appreciates life a lot and takes it perhaps a little easy. Well, I had so many "aHA" moments in this video, and I was overly attentive at it, engaging in your tremendous enthusiasm! Thank you very much, the conciseness yet informational focus of this video was an absolute bringer for me. I wish my flight instructor had the same skillset of presenting!
I enjoyed your video. I watched one recently comparing a TBM 900 series with a Cirrus. The Cirrus was slower to accelerate on the runway but was close to or better in many other categories. For similar performance, longer range, better climb and most of all, LOWER OPERATING COST, I would go with the turboprop. Seats you cant use just take up space. As far as reducing frontal area, I have never seen a business jet with tandem seating all down the aircraft. it would be more efficient but I dont think the customers and passengers would enjoy it much.:)
I'll be honest, this is not at all what I was expecting. However, I think this was a lot more interesting. I always find the science behind aerodynamics really fascinating so I'm happy I stumbled across this. Great video! Thank you for the explanation
I will add some practical examples. Firstly, the rules, the FAA requires single engine planes to stall at speeds not higher than about 65 mph (i'm talking power off), this is why planes have flaps on their wings, the fowler flaps on my Cardinal make the wing about 25% larger in area and change the angle of attack, resulting stall speed of about 55 mph, but this also reflects relatively fat wings with no sweep angle, none. A lot of pilots think their plane could go faster with stronger engines, this really only works if the original engines were too small to begin with. Original Cardinals had only 150 hp, come the B model that had 180 hp and they reached the sweet spot. What more power will do is allow a higher rate of climb and angle of climb, that's really nice when you have a short runway with a forest of trees at the end of it. It also shortens the ground roll on takeoff making a short runway sound better. Where you do get more speed with HP is altitude, piston engines rather quickly loose power with altitude while the true airspeed increases about 2% for each 1000' beneath your wings. The practical example is the Cardinal's engine produces only 75% of power at 10,000' but this means an A Cardinal is making about 112 hp there while the B Cardinal is making 135 HP up there. The problem with propeller planes (and helicopters) is the airflow over the prop tips. At 2500 rpms the tips are going 854 feet per second, add the forward speed of the plane at 120 mph or 180 fps your tips are going 1034 fps, darn close to sonic speed. If you are willing to settle for speeds between 350 mph and 400 turboprops are the answer, they can take off from shorter runways and land on same, on the right plane jets can be significantly faster but this won't show much on flights of say 400 miles or less. During the flight climb and descent below 12000' planes are limited to a max speed of 250 knots and the prop might outclimb the jet. Another thing to mention is that most airliners use 'fan-jet' engines with a really big fan in front, these are called 'high bypass ratio' engines that allow most of the air from the first stage (the big fan in front) to bypass the rest of the engine, essentially being a big propeller, but these might be too big around to put on smaller private jets.
I owned a 1973 Cessna Cardinal (177B) for about 15 years. Great airplane. Looking back in retrospect, I wish Cessna would have worked the bugs out of the original Cardinal before bringing it to market. The original Cardinal had problems which were fixed in the 177B model. The Cardinal got a bad reputation because of the original model....
Thank you for taking your time to explain this....I have been flying the vision jet in x-plane 11 for a little while now and concur with your analysis...Thumbs Up!
So, would the SF50 be a better aircraft as a pusher turboprop? If you put in the Epic 1200 shp PT6 & prop aft of the v tail, would it give it a more useful load?
Great video. Informational. I share this with my new pilots getting in to the PC12 to discuss fuel flow aerodynamics etc. Not too technical but enough foundation to open discussion on new topics. I appreciate the work
interesting video. I wonder how the flaris will do if they can get them in production. also makes the avanti evo stand out since you can top out at 400knots.
3:20 minimal frontal area + a long fuselage is one of the things that reduce drag. Have to keep that in mind. The VisionJet has a large frontal area and a short fuselage. It's already at a disadvantage for wind drag efficiency compared to many other airplanes. Consider the frontal cross section of a 737, far more cross section than a VisionJet, but the fuselage of the 737 is longer relative to the cross section of the plane. The same with the T-38 Talon small cross section combined with a long fuselage.
The Cirrus jet is about comfort, safety, and flight experience. If we don't consider any of those factors, sure let's design all jets like needles with sweep wings. It all comes down to what is more important to the owner. There is a reason why the cirrus jet sells so well... You can be a master in aerodynamics, physics, and math but there is no way you can enter comfort, safety, and flight experience into formulas as they are a matter of personal perception.
You are seriously comparing a Cirrus jet with a T-38 (or any military jet fighter/trainer?). This is apples and oranges on so many levels that I don't know where to start. Your aerodynamics is not questioned, but you would have been better served to compare the Cirrus first single engine & pilot jet with similar vehicles. The Cirrus IS a comparatively low-performing platform, but it is the platform from which (I suspect) future competitive efforts will begin. By the way, the US military will likely NEVER ask Cirrus advise building next generation fighters, but they DO use Cirrus aircraft to train next generation fighter pilots! I am not a Cirrus employer or owner, but dude, give credit where due!
I think their design decision was based purely on ease of flight and safety. Those fat, straight wings make for low VREF speeds, which make for an easy plane to land. Maybe Cirrus could build a performance version with dynamically swept wings and maybe slightly slimmer airfoils.
@@Mikinct They tried 20 years ago and ultimately failed. Developing a VLJ is super expensive and very difficult so the fact that Cirrus did it at all is very impressive.
Glad I found this video. I hadn't previously tried the Xplane Evolution, and now it's my favorite. The only advantage the SF50 has over the Evolution is that it's easier to taxi.
I have flown both the Epic E1000 and the CirrusJet extensively in XP11 and XP12. The Epic is an absolute beast. I've flown them both round the world. It was much easier in the E1000. You need to get up to altitude as fast as possible in the CirrusJet. The only thing to recommend it is that you don't have to manage the prop speed, and more modern control systems will remove that need too. But that con comes with the pro of having Beta, the E1000 can really stop fast on short field landings. That leaves what? Not having a prop in front of you?
Excellent analysis, Next one with the Piaggio Avanti!. Also, how the Celera Increases the Frontal area and still be efficient? Because the small and thin wings? Or the high alttitude flight envelope?
I suspect the Cirrus SF50 was designed for Cirrus owners to trade up. That said, most single propeller plane pilots, would not be ready to upgrade to a Citation Mustang or Phenom 100. The SF50 is essentially the jet equivalent of the SR22. Cirrus wanted good low speed handling and comfort for new jet pilots. Top speed and ceilings were of secondary concerns. The SF50 may not be a very good jet, but it performs way better and has more room and comfort than the top SR22 model.
But was the CirrusJet designed for full jet performance? Or was it designed to get Cirrus' piston customers into a plane they could call a jet, could tell people they owned a jet, could buy for a reeeelatively cheap price, and is low enough on performance that a lawyer with a PPL can land it at a smallish municipal airport and play pretend topgun? If it was the latter, nailed it.
This is a solid presentation and very informative. The problem is he is discussing the resulting products in the air race and not the design-intent for these aircrafts. The Cirrus Jet was not build for speed and still cruises at 315 KTAS at times. It was also made as a transition turbine class plane for Cirrus pilots wishing to fly higher and faster with similar landing speeds, controls and wingspan. Wingspan of a Cirrus Jet was specified at around 38 ft so it would fit inside of a conventional T hangar. The width of the cabin was intended for spaciousness and comfort when flying long distances, not speed, and to provide a means to demonstrate the panoramic view from the windshield. The Cirrus Jet is restricted to 0.53 MACH or 250 KIAS, which is also the speed limit for all aircrafts before 10,000 MSL. I am not discrediting any part of the aerospace engineering data. Just mentioning the design-intent of a product matters in comparisons.
5 місяців тому
Welcome to competitive Product Managers vs. Engineers sports :-). The advantages are true and well laid out here but the primary intent of a company is to sell more products, better specs are just one of the influencing factors but they don't make a market alone. Sales figures look like it was a successful move by cirrus to offer a product that people find cool, is nice to be in and does 80% of the typical jobs whilst not standing head-to-head against so many other too similar products that are more established and would just eat away the demand. Creating a new niche of demand like Cirrus did is sometimes better than incrementally competing in existing segments. It's a higher bet but if buyers like it you're in a great spot.
the cirrus jet is a joy to fly. no big engine and/or propeller right in front of your face. easy to land. easy to see out of. if i want to enjoy my flight and experience the best views and enjoyment, i use the Cirrus jet in my x-plane missions. In real life, would i be bothered about spending a few extra hundred dollars on fuel every flight? not really.
The flights on a specific mission, the fuel costs are not a big deal for private owners, 1400-2000 bucks for a 4 hour flight to an island beats commercial and customs with everyone else. The sting of that cost is gone if your hauling 2 or 3 friends in the back, they are going to cover the fun at the destination tab for you. The training costs and currency of 600/hr in fuel for pattern work stings for the jet is but a C182 is getting closer to 250/hr and every light twin is 400/hr. What makes the new jet and turboprops is the time to overhaul beyond what a pilot owner would need in 30 years. All the powerplant bills beyond inspection a choice to be made when the aircraft is sold in 15+ years. Not touching the Power plant companies with piston powered problems is an insanely better service and support experience. All the cost equations favor single engine turboprops like Epic. Mission favors the turboprops. Climb out of ice favors the Epic. The only new twins that are attractive in this market segment are Jet fuel burners, fly a larger single turboprop, insurance per dollar in flight is cheapest. The twins in the NA would rather haul a life raft on a few missions over water without glide options, than haul a second engine for all missions. Turbine and Turboprop failure rates if care for are worth the investment over an old piston Twin, and Jet Fuel is everywhere in the world.
We got a Citation X in there... Mach 0.90+ Look at and now you see the design: Small frontal area for the size... thin, swept wing.. huge engines, 2 of them.. all the ingredients to go fast.
@@austinmeyer Ye.. forgot about that one 😄 but still it has some faulty systems, looking forward for some fixs, and then we could call it a great default plane
Amazing video. Can you do more of those on various aviation topics and plane comparison? What would be for you the best small jet that can land on short airfield, allowing decent payload with good range and speed to be used as a small cargo jet for express delivery? Epic E-1000 in the video looks really great on all the performance stats, any alternatives in your view? thanks again!
I was already a big fan of Xplane for practicing my schooling at home. But all these new informational videos are just so well done I can learn hands off as well.
Your X-Plane Software has been my favorite for many many many years. Your honest and NO BS take on things is so welcome in our society that spreads woke Lies as truth and tries to Cancel honest people who speak the TRUTH. Excellent Video Sir!
AMEN to that. Jeez. You have no idea how much I agree with that. Society has lost the ability to COMMUNICATE truth for fear of getting cancelled by basement-dwelling liberals that ACTUALLY just want to lash out at others, and use media-enforced political correctness as their cover for stepping on whoever they don't agree with. Luckily, for this presentation, I had this little thing on my side called.... MATH. The woke can't DENY math.. they can only AVOID MENTIONING IT.
Not going to lie - when I clicked on this video I thought I might spend 2-3 minutes watching it…. Well here I am typing this at 23 minutes. What a great explanation! Another great comparison is something like the piaggio avanti vs citation jets in the same size category. It kills all of them in pretty much the same ways you described here in this comparison. Poor vision jet doesn’t stand a chance unless somebody just cares about wanting to be able to say “I own a jet” or “I fly a jet” 😊
BRS system are available for most planes now but Diamond DA planes are designed to be stronger in lower speed impacts, like low and slow stalls where a brs system is useless.
The way i always envisioned thrust degredation on an airplane engine. Your exhaust/propwas goes out at a certain speed, relative to the plane. That speed changes with power settings. The closer your plane gets to matching that speed in the opposing direction, the less effective that exhaust/propwash will be.
Great & informative video. Presented in a much clearer and concise way than when I initially trained. I’m not so lucky to personally own a jet but do own a 310 as well as a T210. The jets I fly will always be owned by others. With that said, as a plane owner and consumer I geek out on performance and planes. Cirrus is the most overhyped, overpriced plane in history. Marketing genius. Instead of telling people the parachute was a addition due to its poor stall characteristics we’ll market it as a “safety” feature. Not surprising that the jet is overhyped as well. The Epic is truly epic. That is favourite plane for personal GA purposes…Awesome bird. Thanks again for the awesome breakdown.
frontal area drag (form drag) is different than induced drag. type of laminar wing type is dependent on what airspeed expectations should be met. a conventional wing (compared to laminar) will have huge drag issues at speed but have better low speed lift performance. a laminar wing (compared to conventional) will have poor low speed lift performance but better high speed performance.
Very informative and an eye opener. I was hoping to hear more about the Lancair Evolution in the comparison since obviously you are an enthusiast with the Evolution. I think this would be of added interest since it will be produced in the Czech Republic with an eye on the USA market. Thanks again for a solid video!
The Cirrus jet is so slow I never even use it in msfs 2020 or X Plane 12! Outstanding explanations and breakdown of the laws of physics for us!!! Thank God the world wasnt waiting on me to invent a wheel or fire or anything important 😅
What a great informative video - wow impressive info - never did like the Cirrus for the lack of speed, now i know why. Thought the Eclipse was twice the plane. Now I know why.
A big factor that is overlooked is insurance! Vision jet requires FAA certification and you have to keep your type rating current with check rides. It is an easier plane to fly than a TBM and the insurance coverage can be less than half the cost of a TBM for the same pilot hours. TBM's are more complicated to fly-especially on landing. Vision jet is meant for a seamless transition from an SR22 for owner operators. TBM's are more geared towards professional pilots.
ah X-Plane, from the underdog of flight simulators to worldwide certified by aviation agencies (ANAC-BRAZIL, FAA, EASA etc) for actual simulator training on aviation facilities and seen as "it´s the place where you will train IFR before going to the real plane" you Sir deserve an award.
Can confirm this man knows what he talks about. Currently flying a Cirrus Vision Jet G2 in MSFS 2024 and the plane had a hard time climbing. Also, i wasn't sure why it didn't want to go any faster than M .487 at 20.000ft, until he said they top at around .5. It does fly incredibly comfortable and stable though, makes me want to own one in real life. Maybe when they've improved the design and increased the engines' inlet.
I love airplanes, and I love flying in them. Due to being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better in language and arts over math, I never took up flying. Cost also made it prohibitive. This video was something that I could totally understand! I am super stoked that Austin is such an excellent teacher on aerodynamics and flight. I also feel that the Epic, and others in that category have a much better shaped fuselage, too. Slightly longer and more tapered to the rear give the air more time to stay attached and be managed and not come tumbling off the rear creating even more drag. Like those hyper fuel efficient concept cars or the long-tail race cats of the past that had long tails.
Non-swept wing jets can certainly outrun the SF50’s 0.53 Mach MMO. The Phenom 100 has a 0.70 MMO and will regularly cruise at 0.68 (depending on conditions). There’s more to it than simply a straight wing. The airfoil itself likely wasn’t designed for higher speeds.
We have straight wing jets that easily do .7 mach...this thing is slow because that is the way Cirrus designed it...They had to design it to meet a price point and have a specific operating cost...it really gets crushed from both sides of the market...I don't really see a use case for it, but the iPhone/Tesla crowd seems to love their product line...
Damn there goes my dream of owning a vision jet lol, but im glad. I do wish more planes get parachutes and autoland features though. I've seen hundreds of people die on youtube because they don't have those features. Unconciousness, mid-air collisions, fuel problems over sea, etc.
Doesn’t seem like a fair comparison. The Vision jet is about $3.2mm and the epic is more like $4.7mm. For an additional $1.5mm it SHOULD be faster and have more range. I’d be interested in seeing the vision jet compared to a turboprop at the same price point.
Wow I had no idea the CFM 56 actually increased in thrust as it gets closer to the speed of sound. Could a high bypass engine in theory break the sound barrier then?
IIIIIiiii... don't know. In theory, I think the answer may theoretically be YES? But it is all about the inlet. The inlet would need to slow that air.. and the exhaust.. oh boy... the exhaust would have to be supersonic as well! And that is no easy trick for a hi-bypass engine, which likes air to move through it kind of slow... sooooo... I'm... not sure.
You're 100% right but that hasn't changed the fact that it is the best-selling jet in general aviation for 5 consecutive years.Bottom line there are far too many pros that out way the extra speed.Bottom line the operating cost of the e1000 is $150 more and the aircraft costs at least a million dollars more than the Vision jet ,also the vision jet is by far the best looking,most comfortable jet on the tarmac in and out no holds barred.
As an aerospace engineer, I strongly appreciate how informative the video is and how the presenter made it very easy for the average person to understand.
Excellent video.
are you interested in working on a new aeroplane? or anyone else reading this comment? what role could you excell in in making a new plane?
Agreed, this presentation was really well done.
but he is comparing a fighter jet to a passenger jet. Apples to oranges.
The Skunk-Works of Flight Sim
I'm autistic and I've never seen a person explain so clearly. I wish every teacher was like you
Yah, funny story: I had to re-shoot this video about TEN TIMES to get it perfect! NOT KIDDING!
I can’t help but wonder if this video was in response to an email Austin may have received from the Cirrus publicity department after the race video. Cirrus Publicity: “Your last video cast our jet in an unfavorable light.” Austin: “No it didn’t. The laws of aerodynamics did. Allow me to demonstrate.”
Or from his own marketing department. “Austin, do you realize we feature that airplane in all of our advertising?”
Everyone knows the Cirrus jet is slow. Don't need to worry about defending that to Cirrus.
"its not my fault you designed an airplane to be slow😂"
The worst possible airframe with the worst possible powerplant with the worst possible flight characteristics, I give to you the cirrus jet 😅
You want proof cirrus markets to idiots? SR20/22 frames require a ten year repack on the explosives for the BRS and the neglected access for the early generations. You literally had to cut the empennage open to access the rocket motor for the repack. Now its a delightful composite repair job to put the tail back together. The eclipse completely outperforms the SF50. Problem is cirrus is far better at marketing. Hell the SR22 at best matches the performance my ‘61 S35 gets and that aircraft was designed in the 40’s with slide rules. So much for “the advanced design”.
I went through the same analysis as Austin, and so took delivery of a new Epic E1000 single-engine turboprop last year. Just this week I flew it from St. Louis to the Atlanta area with 6 adults and all of their luggage, doing more than 300 knots at FL330. No way could we have done that in the Cirrus jet. The 4000 fpm initial climb rate and 1200 shp shoving you down the runway during takeoff have to be experienced to be believed. Because we're flying up at 33-34,000 feet much of time, we're often referred to by ATC as an "Epic jet."
Imagine these cirrus jet losers flying to Telluride onto an snowy runway for a family ski trip and suddenly realize buying a jet without thrust reversers is the dumbest fking idea invented by man.
Does the Epic have RVSM approval?
@@almerindaromeira8352 Yes, that allows the E1000 to fly up to FL340 (which is also above the Cirrus jet FL310 max altitude)
Great stuff!
Color me jealous!!!
One of the most informative videos I've ever seen on this range of topics. I wish my flight instructor had done an overview like this way back in ground school as it REALLY would have hammered home some of the critical fundamental knowledge regarding the effect of all these variables on flight performance in a really intuitive manner. 👍
As a retired airline pilot with an aeronautical engineering degree I too love efficiency in a design to meet the mission it is designed for. But efficiency isn’t everything. I think Austin is missing the “coolness factor”. The Epic looks like lots of other airplanes and the VisionJet has a unique and attractive look. Plus, jets are cool and procedurally easier to fly than prop planes. Cirrus knew what they were doing when the made a straight wing jet that procedurally flies almost the same as their best selling line of SE piston planes. How many SR20/22 pilots would upgrade to a jet if it didn’t seem like an easy transition? The wider cabin with tons of legroom are also attractive compared to the “tube” layout of “efficient” airplanes. And although debatable safety value based the statistics, the CAPS parachute is often the factor that motivates pilot’s wives to give the go ahead on a Cirrus purchase. If efficiency was everything why would we build light twin engine aircraft? Everything Austin says is true and well presented but I just don’t think efficiency is the whole story. Coolness is a thing in airplanes… ask any Warbird or Pitts pilot. Cross country flying is not the only mission. Sometimes it is a $150 hamburger.
And as for sale price, that depends more on the avionics than the powerplant these days.
Fair points all around. SR22 pilots looking to upgrade are likely to select the cirrus jet solely based off of their positive relationship with Cirrus. So its literally built like an SR22 with a jet engine attached. Could it be faster? Most definitely but given that most owners barely cross 600NM on most flights the jet fits the profile for most missions
Also consider the SR22 ... Has No Retract.. has no Prop Control ... Fadec controls the mixture... They could make a Single that goes MUCH faster by just getting the Wheels out of the way.... They Don't but why?? Insurance / Training / Maintenance.. either way they sell out even though it could be faster...
On the Jet Front they are also making an easy to fly plane with similar items. Watch the Startup that Austin follows vs just turning the Knob and pressing Start on the Vision.. There is also factors "Low/High Idle" on the PT6 and managing that. I don't think Austin can event put his Plane to Full TRQ on the ground.. Then on descent he talks about managing the PROP to be efficient... cool but another thing to manage..
Easy Jet to transition too, Easy to Start, easy to check .. and like you said gets the Family to the 150 dollar burger... Hard to keep the family in the air over 2-3 hours when there is no bathroom.
@@LesOReilly Exactly. Does the Epic 1000 have autoland like the Cirrus? All those fancy avionics add to the cost. Why do people pay more than half a million dollars for a Cessna 172? They aren’t paying for aerodynamics or speed.
@@edwardwright8127 Well the 172 is flight schools.. I mean those things are always sold out and Cessna is not interested in Adding capacity just to lower the price...
I know we have seen the 2nd hand market skyrocket where a 172 from 1974 is more than buying a 1980s twin.. or an older Comanche...
The fact that it was designed to what the customers WANT and WILL buy is what a business should do. Operating in a vacuum or an echo chamber to build what might be the fastest or most efficient might not be what the buyer wants....
This is not a fair comparison at all. Love the detail on the vision jet and education, but we are forgetting it's purpose. Which was to be incredibly comfortable for passengers, extremely safe and easy to fly for an inexperienced pilot.
I've sat in the Epic, and have flown multiple times in a vision jet. Vision jet has loads more room, the interior is more refined, AC controls for passengers, fold out TV, ridiculous legroom etc.
Vision jet has Garmin G3000 w/ safe return, has a parachute, on board radar and has required annual training... Which can be a pain but makes better / safer pilots if we are honest. Vision Jet also has auto throttle and the Epic does not... Doesn't bother me much but to some it's a big deal.
Also, you can unload 80 gallons and have plenty of payload to get more people on a 2-3 hr flight anywhere you need just about. Most people don't want to be in a plane for 4-6 hrs without stopping. I know my kids won't last more than 2 hrs...
I agree the Epic is faster, probably flies better and has a more reliable engine. I love the Epic's electric tinted windows and you can now get on board radar for 75k...
But most people want to go somewhere 2-3 hours away by plane in style and comfort. While being safe!
My friend regularly gets 330 knots out of his Vision G2+ and he has never burned 125 gph climbing... I think something was up with that plane in the video.
I am currently deciding between the two. Epic definitely deserves it's accolades but the Vision Jet does many things very well. After all, it outsells everything close to it's price point for a reason. Lets not forget that currently a vision get is much cheaper than an Epic.
These prices are not accurate in the video. I can get a new Vision Jet for 3.2-3.4MM. Epic with radar is 4.5-4.6MM. Roughly a 1.2MM difference. I could buy a beach house with the difference... Or 4 Porsches... Or 2 really nice RV's.... But, Holy crap it might be worth it for that climb rate in the Epic.
Either way you go there needs to be a true comparison of the facts... I want the performance of the Epic and luxury and safety of the Vision jet...
Flying in a Vision Jet again this week... Epic sales rep is coming to see me again at end of the month... Still haven't decided. Decisions decisions...
Add a second cup of coffee, remove 25 gallons.
Yes, those are valid points. With the Vision Jet there is just a throttle lever, no prop feather nor mixture levers to think about, and the turbofan has mild engine torque characteristics compared to the Evolution's turboprop. It's basically easier with the engine management part of operation than a Cessna 172 is. At least for new flight simmers who believe the Cessna 172 too antiquated and slow, the Vision Jet is probably the best aircraft included with X-Plane 12 for getting the hang of flying and navigating with glass cockpits, imo.
So you can fill it up with passengers, fly 200 miles, land, refuel, rinse and repeat. By the time you fly your passengers 1000 miles, the Greyhound bus arrives at the same time you do.
Not sure which vision jet you’re referring to that has more space than anything. Have you ever sat in the two rear backseats? The cirrus exec actually admitted they’re useless. If you’re a 3 foot tall six-year-old, you can sit back there. I was so disappointed. The vision jet is a four person airplane. Period.
(Not 4 passenger, 4 PERSON including pilot.)
Maybe if you want a jet with a parachute (?)
If I had had such a fantastically clear-thinking and explanatory teacher in mathematics and physics, I would have become an engineer instead of a librarian!Thanks for the great explanations. Even I understood everything and that means something!
I fly a Cirrus SR22 and have about 6 hours in a Vision Jet, the thing that's complicated in aviation is that not every plane has the same mission. You have to balance cost, speed, range, comfort, maint etc. The Vision Jet is currently 3.5 million and with that bubble gut look it has, results in an extremely roomy cabin. The epic and many of the turbo props in that range are cramped. To compare the Vison Jet to basically any other light jet isn't fair because they all start at about double the price. So for personal/business use the Vision Jet fits the job for me. Also having that parachute as a last option is great for me with my family on board. I know everyone is Chuck Yeager but some times you are out of options. There was a crash near by me 2 weeks ago, Engine failure at night in imc at 200ovc. That pilot would have survived in a Cirrus....
Eh, I have a little time in the Epic E1000... NOT cramped!
Fly commercial then, it has a much better safety record. If that still scares you, don't fly at all.
@@armyranger9346 Ridiculous, the search for more security can perfectly be combined with the desire to pilot your own plane.
@@armyranger9346 If a cell parachute and an autoland system can help reassure your passengers, it is not useless...
Why not fly a TBM900 which is about 30-40 knots faster?
I’ve never come across this channel before and I have to admit, I had very low expectations of your content. How wrong I was! Truly an excellent lesson made extremely easy to understand.
This video also shows what a difficult design problem the PC-24 was for Pilatus. They basically were trying to make a higher, faster, PC-12 without losing the things that make that plane so good and so versatile vs a typical light-medium jet . Understanding this stuff really makes the fact that Pilatus managed to succeeded as well as they did very impressive.
The PC-24 can land and take off where other light jets can't.The total package for a single jet flyer.............
For me, the CJ4 and Phenom 300 are both dead. If you want the most space and capability, PC-24 is the way to go. You want speed and range? SJ30 flies circles around them (even if they're pretty rare, production has barely started).
I see no reason to pick Cessna or Embraer nowadays.
@@wojciechmuras553 That's true in theory based off of a spec sheet. But in real world use after sales service availability is much more important than relatively small differences in performance. Syberjet says they only have two locations in the U.S on their website. Pilatus, Embraer, and Cessna/Textron all have many more throughout the country with Textron leading the way. I guarantee Textron also as the best parts availability too.
@@josh885 That is very much true. However, it is a problem for the management company, not the owner. I personally like everything new and shiny, but I can understand why some might want to hold off and stick to tried and tested solutions until SyberJet can prove themselves.
@@wojciechmuras553 - I was at NBAA BACE (although they didn’t call it that back then) when the SJ-30 was originally rolled out - back in about 1995 give or take. I have as much faith in a Jim Bede design as I do the SJ-30 at this point. Something about a fool and their money…
Beyond that, to say “that’s the management company’s problem” is the height of naïveté - it’s ultimately the owner’s problem when they can’t use their aircraft because there is not tech support for it. There’s a reason certain brands are known for good dispatch reliability and others are not.
Beautifully presented, Austin! BTW, my Velocity XL-5 RG with 375HP and 1900lb empty weight could get to 10,000 ft in just a little over three minutes and cruise all day at 200 kts while sipping 14 gph. 127 gph fuel burn would make me nauseous while looking at the miserable climb rate.
I've been looking into XL5 and Glassair 3 kits. How was the build process on the XL5 and how much did you end up spending over the kit price for engine/engine fixtures?
But my truth is different: I was recently on the NBAA fair and Cirrus did not really stick out among the Gulfstream‘s, the Vision Jet had no range - jada jada. But honestly, which private pilot of family member spends more than 4h in one leg in a small aircraft. Then the SF-50 really stuck out on a smaller U.S. Exhibition in Scottsdale and the director let me fly it to Henderson, Las Vegas. This is what I learned: The Cirrus Jet is a roomy stretch limo like a Tesla X. I hand flew it all the way and it was so simple to fly with the G3000 glass cockpit. It felt like sitting in a 360 iMax theater, totally quiet coasting with 311kt on 22‘000ft looking down along the glittering colorado river as the sun set. The flight went under my skin and I got a bit big fan of the Cirrus Jet, despite the physical limits this video presents. But if you like payload, get a Pilatus PC-12 and put your motorcycle through the cargo door, absolutely great too. But if you just want to coast along, the Cirrus is it: Stunning.
As an enroute ATC, the cirrus jets are awful to work with. Trying to sequence jets to TEB becomes 100% more difficult when you have an SF50 leading the pack, barely able to get out of his own way.
How do you handle an Epic E1000 if it has roughly the same cruise speed?
Comparing the vision jet to the t-38 is hilarious! Cirrus designed it on purpose to be slower so it was as easy as possible for cirrus piston pilots to transition to single pilot jet operations where a type rating is required.
Lol going the other way
and that great but the end product is a plane that is inefficient in literally every category.
@@Adam-xe5xmIt has incredible cockpit visibility and looks cool as well.
Wow. You were always the "X-Plane Guy" Who appreciates life a lot and takes it perhaps a little easy. Well, I had so many "aHA" moments in this video, and I was overly attentive at it, engaging in your tremendous enthusiasm! Thank you very much, the conciseness yet informational focus of this video was an absolute bringer for me. I wish my flight instructor had the same skillset of presenting!
Got to be one of the best videos I have watched. Super easy to understand. Enough science for the nerds. Enough costs for the accountants. Well done
I enjoyed your video. I watched one recently comparing a TBM 900 series with a Cirrus. The Cirrus was slower to accelerate on the runway but was close to or better in many other categories. For similar performance, longer range, better climb and most of all, LOWER OPERATING COST, I would go with the turboprop. Seats you cant use just take up space. As far as reducing frontal area, I have never seen a business jet with tandem seating all down the aircraft. it would be more efficient but I dont think the customers and passengers would enjoy it much.:)
Thank you Austin and team for the lessons and the wacky air races! Keep them coming!
You summarized in 20 minutes what I learned in 4 years of aeronautical school.
I'll be honest, this is not at all what I was expecting. However, I think this was a lot more interesting. I always find the science behind aerodynamics really fascinating so I'm happy I stumbled across this. Great video! Thank you for the explanation
I will add some practical examples. Firstly, the rules, the FAA requires single engine planes to stall at speeds not higher than about 65 mph (i'm talking power off), this is why planes have flaps on their wings, the fowler flaps on my Cardinal make the wing about 25% larger in area and change the angle of attack, resulting stall speed of about 55 mph, but this also reflects relatively fat wings with no sweep angle, none. A lot of pilots think their plane could go faster with stronger engines, this really only works if the original engines were too small to begin with. Original Cardinals had only 150 hp, come the B model that had 180 hp and they reached the sweet spot. What more power will do is allow a higher rate of climb and angle of climb, that's really nice when you have a short runway with a forest of trees at the end of it. It also shortens the ground roll on takeoff making a short runway sound better. Where you do get more speed with HP is altitude, piston engines rather quickly loose power with altitude while the true airspeed increases about 2% for each 1000' beneath your wings. The practical example is the Cardinal's engine produces only 75% of power at 10,000' but this means an A Cardinal is making about 112 hp there while the B Cardinal is making 135 HP up there. The problem with propeller planes (and helicopters) is the airflow over the prop tips. At 2500 rpms the tips are going 854 feet per second, add the forward speed of the plane at 120 mph or 180 fps your tips are going 1034 fps, darn close to sonic speed. If you are willing to settle for speeds between 350 mph and 400 turboprops are the answer, they can take off from shorter runways and land on same, on the right plane jets can be significantly faster but this won't show much on flights of say 400 miles or less. During the flight climb and descent below 12000' planes are limited to a max speed of 250 knots and the prop might outclimb the jet. Another thing to mention is that most airliners use 'fan-jet' engines with a really big fan in front, these are called 'high bypass ratio' engines that allow most of the air from the first stage (the big fan in front) to bypass the rest of the engine, essentially being a big propeller, but these might be too big around to put on smaller private jets.
I owned a 1973 Cessna Cardinal (177B) for about 15 years. Great airplane. Looking back in retrospect, I wish Cessna would have worked the bugs out of the original Cardinal before bringing it to market. The original Cardinal had problems which were fixed in the 177B model. The Cardinal got a bad reputation because of the original model....
We were going half the speed of *smell!* We got passed by a kite! There was a goose behind us and the pilot was yelling "Go around!"
I bet we beat the paramedics there by a half hour
Bird strike from behind
That made laugh so hard I almost peed. 😂
That was so good, interesting and informative. You are a great presenter, Austin, thank you so much.
Thank you for taking your time to explain this....I have been flying the vision jet in x-plane 11 for a little while now and concur with your analysis...Thumbs Up!
This is one video that needs to be watched start to end without skipping.
I have a Bachelors Degree in this and still learned a few things. Great video. The immutable laws of aerodynamics!
This was an awesome video!! Everything you explained made so much sense!
Could you do more videos like this on aerodynamics?
I am no engineer and even I get this after his explanation. What a great and informative video
So, would the SF50 be a better aircraft as a pusher turboprop? If you put in the Epic 1200 shp PT6 & prop aft of the v tail, would it give it a more useful load?
What a great, thorough video and still easy to follow the more complicated parts, great work Austin and all the team.
OK. You talked me into it. I’ll take an Epic please.
Great video. Informational. I share this with my new pilots getting in to the PC12 to discuss fuel flow aerodynamics etc. Not too technical but enough foundation to open discussion on new topics. I appreciate the work
You can explain it really good, can you please make more videos like this! Thanks Austin
Autoland + CAPS will continue to convince Mom's to let their rich husbands buy "a jet" to fly the family around, regardless of performance.
Plus ESP.
interesting video. I wonder how the flaris will do if they can get them in production.
also makes the avanti evo stand out since you can top out at 400knots.
3:20 minimal frontal area + a long fuselage is one of the things that reduce drag. Have to keep that in mind. The VisionJet has a large frontal area and a short fuselage. It's already at a disadvantage for wind drag efficiency compared to many other airplanes. Consider the frontal cross section of a 737, far more cross section than a VisionJet, but the fuselage of the 737 is longer relative to the cross section of the plane. The same with the T-38 Talon small cross section combined with a long fuselage.
this is such an amazing video. wow. i have no words. the explanation and enthusiasm is incredible
The Cirrus jet is about comfort, safety, and flight experience. If we don't consider any of those factors, sure let's design all jets like needles with sweep wings. It all comes down to what is more important to the owner. There is a reason why the cirrus jet sells so well...
You can be a master in aerodynamics, physics, and math but there is no way you can enter comfort, safety, and flight experience into formulas as they are a matter of personal perception.
The Epic E1000 is sooooo quiet and comfortable and easy to fly it is ridiculous... I have about an hour in that airplane and it is... epic.
@@austinmeyer Austin... Thank you so much for your reply... it is an honor. I absolutely love all you do for aviation... 👍😀
Very clear explanation on jets and physics. I learned so much! Great video 👍
Where you from?
You are seriously comparing a Cirrus jet with a T-38 (or any military jet fighter/trainer?). This is apples and oranges on so many levels that I don't know where to start. Your aerodynamics is not questioned, but you would have been better served to compare the Cirrus first single engine & pilot jet with similar vehicles. The Cirrus IS a comparatively low-performing platform, but it is the platform from which (I suspect) future competitive efforts will begin. By the way, the US military will likely NEVER ask Cirrus advise building next generation fighters, but they DO use Cirrus aircraft to train next generation fighter pilots! I am not a Cirrus employer or owner, but dude, give credit where due!
I think their design decision was based purely on ease of flight and safety. Those fat, straight wings make for low VREF speeds, which make for an easy plane to land. Maybe Cirrus could build a performance version with dynamically swept wings and maybe slightly slimmer airfoils.
Be cool to see if Diamond builds a small private jet
@@Mikinct They tried 20 years ago and ultimately failed. Developing a VLJ is super expensive and very difficult so the fact that Cirrus did it at all is very impressive.
@@Mikinct if they do, it'll be a portly pig.
Land? Cirrus pilots don’t land? They just pull the chute
It is all about speed and efficiency, this jet has none of that.
Glad I found this video. I hadn't previously tried the Xplane Evolution, and now it's my favorite.
The only advantage the SF50 has over the Evolution is that it's easier to taxi.
Holy Smokes! You should get a cape and a crown for this. One of the best most engaging explanations ever. I hear the bell!
Great presentation Austin, thank you!
I thoroughly enjoyed watching this video. You had me waiting to see the evolution comparison though 🤔
Wow this has really changed my mind about getting a jet certification.
I have flown both the Epic E1000 and the CirrusJet extensively in XP11 and XP12. The Epic is an absolute beast. I've flown them both round the world. It was much easier in the E1000. You need to get up to altitude as fast as possible in the CirrusJet. The only thing to recommend it is that you don't have to manage the prop speed, and more modern control systems will remove that need too. But that con comes with the pro of having Beta, the E1000 can really stop fast on short field landings. That leaves what? Not having a prop in front of you?
Finally at the end you got to the point, in technical terms it is cool factor plus some really good sales people.
Had to laugh at the totally genuine frustration felt at 12:09 😂
Thanks for the video, Austin
That was excellent and very informative, if I find 3 or 4 million down the back of the couch I will not be buying a CirrusJet.!
Excellent analysis, Next one with the Piaggio Avanti!. Also, how the Celera Increases the Frontal area and still be efficient? Because the small and thin wings? Or the high alttitude flight envelope?
Alguém poderia por gentileza resumir as declarações do professor para que o Google traduza e eu possa compreender, estou tão curioso 😀🇧🇷
In the sim I noticed weight and balance issues even before start up.
Outstanding! Subscribed!
I love the math, and the way you affirm intuition with it!
Great job!
I suspect the Cirrus SF50 was designed for Cirrus owners to trade up. That said, most single propeller plane pilots, would not be ready to upgrade to a Citation Mustang or Phenom 100. The SF50 is essentially the jet equivalent of the SR22. Cirrus wanted good low speed handling and comfort for new jet pilots. Top speed and ceilings were of secondary concerns. The SF50 may not be a very good jet, but it performs way better and has more room and comfort than the top SR22 model.
But burns an insane amount of fuel in doing so...
Thats why i trust Austin alot more as the guys from MSFS. He know how an Aircraft feels like in real and produce it to Zeros and Ones. :D
And a whole studio doesn't know... Yeah, right
They really don't though! MS is a GAME studio, and the flight model is a better FSX. Still very limited.
But was the CirrusJet designed for full jet performance? Or was it designed to get Cirrus' piston customers into a plane they could call a jet, could tell people they owned a jet, could buy for a reeeelatively cheap price, and is low enough on performance that a lawyer with a PPL can land it at a smallish municipal airport and play pretend topgun? If it was the latter, nailed it.
This is a solid presentation and very informative. The problem is he is discussing the resulting products in the air race and not the design-intent for these aircrafts. The Cirrus Jet was not build for speed and still cruises at 315 KTAS at times. It was also made as a transition turbine class plane for Cirrus pilots wishing to fly higher and faster with similar landing speeds, controls and wingspan. Wingspan of a Cirrus Jet was specified at around 38 ft so it would fit inside of a conventional T hangar. The width of the cabin was intended for spaciousness and comfort when flying long distances, not speed, and to provide a means to demonstrate the panoramic view from the windshield. The Cirrus Jet is restricted to 0.53 MACH or 250 KIAS, which is also the speed limit for all aircrafts before 10,000 MSL. I am not discrediting any part of the aerospace engineering data. Just mentioning the design-intent of a product matters in comparisons.
Welcome to competitive Product Managers vs. Engineers sports :-). The advantages are true and well laid out here but the primary intent of a company is to sell more products, better specs are just one of the influencing factors but they don't make a market alone. Sales figures look like it was a successful move by cirrus to offer a product that people find cool, is nice to be in and does 80% of the typical jobs whilst not standing head-to-head against so many other too similar products that are more established and would just eat away the demand. Creating a new niche of demand like Cirrus did is sometimes better than incrementally competing in existing segments. It's a higher bet but if buyers like it you're in a great spot.
the cirrus jet is a joy to fly. no big engine and/or propeller right in front of your face. easy to land. easy to see out of. if i want to enjoy my flight and experience the best views and enjoyment, i use the Cirrus jet in my x-plane missions. In real life, would i be bothered about spending a few extra hundred dollars on fuel every flight? not really.
The flights on a specific mission, the fuel costs are not a big deal for private owners, 1400-2000 bucks for a 4 hour flight to an island beats commercial and customs with everyone else. The sting of that cost is gone if your hauling 2 or 3 friends in the back, they are going to cover the fun at the destination tab for you.
The training costs and currency of 600/hr in fuel for pattern work stings for the jet is but a C182 is getting closer to 250/hr and every light twin is 400/hr. What makes the new jet and turboprops is the time to overhaul beyond what a pilot owner would need in 30 years. All the powerplant bills beyond inspection a choice to be made when the aircraft is sold in 15+ years. Not touching the Power plant companies with piston powered problems is an insanely better service and support experience. All the cost equations favor single engine turboprops like Epic. Mission favors the turboprops. Climb out of ice favors the Epic. The only new twins that are attractive in this market segment are Jet fuel burners, fly a larger single turboprop, insurance per dollar in flight is cheapest. The twins in the NA would rather haul a life raft on a few missions over water without glide options, than haul a second engine for all missions. Turbine and Turboprop failure rates if care for are worth the investment over an old piston Twin, and Jet Fuel is everywhere in the world.
In conclusion, we need a default "Properly designed biz jet" for XP12.
We got a Citation X in there... Mach 0.90+
Look at and now you see the design: Small frontal area for the size... thin, swept wing.. huge engines, 2 of them.. all the ingredients to go fast.
@@austinmeyer Ye.. forgot about that one 😄 but still it has some faulty systems, looking forward for some fixs, and then we could call it a great default plane
Amazing video. Can you do more of those on various aviation topics and plane comparison? What would be for you the best small jet that can land on short airfield, allowing decent payload with good range and speed to be used as a small cargo jet for express delivery? Epic E-1000 in the video looks really great on all the performance stats, any alternatives in your view? thanks again!
I was already a big fan of Xplane for practicing my schooling at home. But all these new informational videos are just so well done I can learn hands off as well.
Awesome video, thanks Austin!
great assessment and clarity for those thinking about making the jump from prop to jet!
Excellent video! You are a great teacher, presenting complex ideas in a way that anyone can understand. Enjoyed the lecture!
Your X-Plane Software has been my favorite for many many many years. Your honest and NO BS take on things is so welcome in our society that spreads woke Lies as truth and tries to Cancel honest people who speak the TRUTH. Excellent Video Sir!
AMEN to that. Jeez. You have no idea how much I agree with that. Society has lost the ability to COMMUNICATE truth for fear of getting cancelled by basement-dwelling liberals that ACTUALLY just want to lash out at others, and use media-enforced political correctness as their cover for stepping on whoever they don't agree with. Luckily, for this presentation, I had this little thing on my side called.... MATH. The woke can't DENY math.. they can only AVOID MENTIONING IT.
Not going to lie - when I clicked on this video I thought I might spend 2-3 minutes watching it…. Well here I am typing this at 23 minutes. What a great explanation! Another great comparison is something like the piaggio avanti vs citation jets in the same size category. It kills all of them in pretty much the same ways you described here in this comparison. Poor vision jet doesn’t stand a chance unless somebody just cares about wanting to be able to say “I own a jet” or “I fly a jet” 😊
Excellent Presentation!
Wow...excellent analysis and very eye-opening for potential Cirrus Jet customers. Nice job!
BRS system are available for most planes now but Diamond DA planes are designed to be stronger in lower speed impacts, like low and slow stalls where a brs system is useless.
You stall and auger in a jet in the feared turn to final, and no structure will save you.
The way i always envisioned thrust degredation on an airplane engine.
Your exhaust/propwas goes out at a certain speed, relative to the plane. That speed changes with power settings. The closer your plane gets to matching that speed in the opposing direction, the less effective that exhaust/propwash will be.
Great & informative video. Presented in a much clearer and concise way than when I initially trained. I’m not so lucky to personally own a jet but do own a 310 as well as a T210. The jets I fly will always be owned by others. With that said, as a plane owner and consumer I geek out on performance and planes. Cirrus is the most overhyped, overpriced plane in history. Marketing genius. Instead of telling people the parachute was a addition due to its poor stall characteristics we’ll market it as a “safety” feature. Not surprising that the jet is overhyped as well. The Epic is truly epic. That is favourite plane for personal GA purposes…Awesome bird. Thanks again for the awesome breakdown.
frontal area drag (form drag) is different than induced drag. type of laminar wing type is dependent on what airspeed expectations should be met.
a conventional wing (compared to laminar) will have huge drag issues at speed but have better low speed lift performance.
a laminar wing (compared to conventional) will have poor low speed lift performance but better high speed performance.
The lack of ram air effect really is the nail in the coffin
Great analysis. Need more.
great explanation. youre an awesome teacher!!!!!!. i always wondered why i dont see more cirrus jets.
Very informative and an eye opener. I was hoping to hear more about the Lancair Evolution in the comparison since obviously you are an enthusiast with the Evolution. I think this would be of added interest since it will be produced in the Czech Republic with an eye on the USA market. Thanks again for a solid video!
Speaking of efficiency, my Flight Design light sport does 124 knots at 4.4 gallons per hour using car gas.
The Cirrus jet is so slow I never even use it in msfs 2020 or X Plane 12! Outstanding explanations and breakdown of the laws of physics for us!!!
Thank God the world wasnt waiting on me to invent a wheel or fire or anything important 😅
What a great informative video - wow impressive info - never did like the Cirrus for the lack of speed, now i know why. Thought the Eclipse was twice the plane. Now I know why.
A big factor that is overlooked is insurance! Vision jet requires FAA certification and you have to keep your type rating current with check rides. It is an easier plane to fly than a TBM and the insurance coverage can be less than half the cost of a TBM for the same pilot hours. TBM's are more complicated to fly-especially on landing. Vision jet is meant for a seamless transition from an SR22 for owner operators. TBM's are more geared towards professional pilots.
ah X-Plane, from the underdog of flight simulators to worldwide certified by aviation agencies (ANAC-BRAZIL, FAA, EASA etc) for actual simulator training on aviation facilities and seen as "it´s the place where you will train IFR before going to the real plane" you Sir deserve an award.
Can confirm this man knows what he talks about. Currently flying a Cirrus Vision Jet G2 in MSFS 2024 and the plane had a hard time climbing. Also, i wasn't sure why it didn't want to go any faster than M .487 at 20.000ft, until he said they top at around .5. It does fly incredibly comfortable and stable though, makes me want to own one in real life. Maybe when they've improved the design and increased the engines' inlet.
I love my vision jet😊
I love airplanes, and I love flying in them. Due to being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better in language and arts over math, I never took up flying. Cost also made it prohibitive. This video was something that I could totally understand! I am super stoked that Austin is such an excellent teacher on aerodynamics and flight. I also feel that the Epic, and others in that category have a much better shaped fuselage, too. Slightly longer and more tapered to the rear give the air more time to stay attached and be managed and not come tumbling off the rear creating even more drag. Like those hyper fuel efficient concept cars or the long-tail race cats of the past that had long tails.
I had no idea about the ram air effect on jets! Thanks for the explanation :)
Frontal area of the wing of the Starship was a killer for it.
Non-swept wing jets can certainly outrun the SF50’s 0.53 Mach MMO. The Phenom 100 has a 0.70 MMO and will regularly cruise at 0.68 (depending on conditions). There’s more to it than simply a straight wing. The airfoil itself likely wasn’t designed for higher speeds.
That was going to be my comment and question. Citation with the exception of the X all have straight wings, the phenom, etc.,
Hey Austin, Great video. Miss seeing you around!
Austin is a great lecturer. :)
We have straight wing jets that easily do .7 mach...this thing is slow because that is the way Cirrus designed it...They had to design it to meet a price point and have a specific operating cost...it really gets crushed from both sides of the market...I don't really see a use case for it, but the iPhone/Tesla crowd seems to love their product line...
Outstanding comparison!
Damn there goes my dream of owning a vision jet lol, but im glad. I do wish more planes get parachutes and autoland features though. I've seen hundreds of people die on youtube because they don't have those features. Unconciousness, mid-air collisions, fuel problems over sea, etc.
Excellent explanation of the forces at work. Well done!
why not have a thin wing with flaps in stead of a thick wing on the cirrus to make it go faster?
Excellent video. Very informative and excellent conclusion
Doesn’t seem like a fair comparison. The Vision jet is about $3.2mm and the epic is more like $4.7mm. For an additional $1.5mm it SHOULD be faster and have more range. I’d be interested in seeing the vision jet compared to a turboprop at the same price point.
Wow I had no idea the CFM 56 actually increased in thrust as it gets closer to the speed of sound. Could a high bypass engine in theory break the sound barrier then?
IIIIIiiii... don't know. In theory, I think the answer may theoretically be YES? But it is all about the inlet. The inlet would need to slow that air.. and the exhaust.. oh boy... the exhaust would have to be supersonic as well! And that is no easy trick for a hi-bypass engine, which likes air to move through it kind of slow... sooooo... I'm... not sure.
Great breakdown! Also love the mention of the Epic E1000 😎
You're 100% right but that hasn't changed the fact that it is the best-selling jet in general aviation for 5 consecutive years.Bottom line there are far too many pros that out way the extra speed.Bottom line the operating cost of the e1000 is $150 more and the aircraft costs at least a million dollars more than the Vision jet ,also the vision jet is by far the best looking,most comfortable jet on the tarmac in and out no holds barred.