Why Light Jets Aren't As Efficient - The Truth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- The Vision Jet is a great option for short-distance flights, I have a personal issue with it being called a jet haha, for me it’s a normal plane with a jet engine (I don’t know if that makes sense, but you get what I mean). Both the HondaJet and the Phenom 100 have engines that give them more power, ensuring a faster trip to their final destination. The Eclipse 500 is the best bet for the money. It’s a complete in every sense. It flies high, fast and a bit far. It won’t carry as much as a Phenom 100 or the HondaJet, but it will surely carry enough to leave nothing behind.
_________________________________________________
To contact me directly: Dashboardglobal@techie.com
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.
“A normal plane with a jet engine” is LITERALLY the definition of a Jet! LOL!
Not really, "jets" should fly fast, high, and long... The Vision doesn't do that... It has the character of a high performance piston single that someone taped a jet engine onto... it even looks like that... :). I think that is what he meant...
@@PRH123 but wouldn't the video contradict your point because the vision jet is quite literally a "jet" that doesn't do those things
@@ferragamodes6769 hmm, in my opinion no…. because the vision is comparatively slow, and climbs slowly…. and has a very small cabin… high cost per seat / km / hour compared to PT6 singles…
@@PRH123 you're comparing a toyota with a mercedes, you dont spent north of 3 million and worry about cost per mile
@@JOhnDoe-nl4wj lol people who bought this actually cares about cost to operate
For a amateur private pilot Cirrus is very nice single engine airplane easy to handle, for recreational flying, mainly my wife and I, occasionaly 2 friends. Longest trip for me would be from KTW in Poland to Spain ALC, about 1100 nm. I would like the Epic 1000 for it's performance but it is a million more in cost. A used Phenom 100 with a bathroom in back would be great but I would need to learn a bigger more complex aircraft.
That’s the thing isn’t it? The Vision is made to fly it. Other jets are made to be flown around IN. The lack of a bathroom is a BIG hint. Great fun. Great views. But not the plane to take a rock band on tour.
What do you do for a living? Business owner?
@@DonnieDarko727, flight sim addict! There are planes you fly in to get places quickly, and there are planes you fly for fun. The lack of a toilet is a big hint as to what kind of a plane the Vision is.
A plane made for the multimillionaire who flys and wants to learn to fly a jet. A plane the pilot buys.
Whereas the Honda Jet is a plane a multimillionaire might buy for someone to fly them places in their own private jet. It is exponentially more difficult to be certified to fly it and in some places, a copilot is required.
In a sim, both planes are remarkably similar down to the software and touchscreens in the cockpit so they are similarly difficult to fly, but the Vision is just a bit easier to get that pilot’s license, it only needs one pilot, and it shares a lot in common with general aviation prop planes made for the owner to fly it themself. And the name, Vision is because of the amazing views the pilot gets out the front. Something lacking in most business jets. The Vision is just made from the ground up to entertain the pilot as much if not more than it entertains the passengers. It is a plane built to fly for the love of flying. It is far less of a work plane than these other jets, and more of a fun, take the friends golfing plane.
@@DonnieDarko727 Retired business owner, construction/hospitality industry, spent half my life in USA. The more I look at the Cirrus jet the more i like it for the pleasure of flying, and on a long distance trip just employ a strategy of landing and going again.
@@mikolaygrudzien8764 thank you for the response
Great video! As a professional pilot I flew 500 hours. As a full time pilot. 450 hours is A LOT of flying for one owner to do themselves.
I own a Diamond 42 and it's a great aircraft. I'm currently working on a transition over to the VJ. The primary driving factor is safety. I've never been much of a fan of Cirrus but when I comes to having my family on board I'd much rather have a BRS and autoland feature.
Since when is the Cirrus a safe jet? There are much more situations in which a parachute would not help you than situations in which it would. The most crucial moments of flight - takeoff and landing - are safe only with a second engine. And overall, a second engine trumps a dozen parachutes.
As for auto-landing, are you sure that this system works in real situations, random places and altitudes, in bad weather and wind, and not just in promo videos? And even in promotional videos the touchdown is mostly done manually.
The Cirrus Jet doesn't have any of the advantages of a jet. No speed, no climb rate, no safe and comfort altitude free from turbulence, icing, thunderstorms etc., no safety of two engines. Marketing only. And it would be not so ridiculous if its price was adequate. But for the price of this "under-jet", you can buy a real jet and still have money left to cover the difference in operating cost for several years or even more.
The Cirrus jet is a vivid example of marketing that turns reality inside out - turns an unsafe under-jet into a safe jet - and it works. Sadly.
@@Vladdy89 if youre comparing new vs used you have to compare a used vision jet as well. a single engine requires less training for the pilot, and a turbine is already an order of magnitude more reliable than the piston engines people are upgrading from. I'm sure a vision jet is safer than Diamond DA 62, which is probably the safest piston airplane on the planet.
@@Vladdy89 lets go this way shall we, new sr22 vs da42 as theyre priced pretty similarly. statistically twin engine aircraft arent safer, the second engine is as much a danger in critical phases of flight than it is a safety valve, the average multi engine pilot doesnt train enough nor flies enough to be ready to handle an engine failure in these scenarios. the parachute needs just under 1k feet to deploy safely. not only that jet engines when maintained are often more reliable than their piston counter parts. the vision jet under cuts the TBM 960 in price and is just over the M-600 SLS from piper. these are the airplanes its competing with not M2 citations. now i would probably buy either over the vision jet solely for the extra useful load and to me the TBM wins in every category (but also costs over 1.5m more USD. but remember a turbo prop is a turbine with a prop on in, your reliability will be pretty equal. the parachute ultimately is a safety device that in most situations will be useable. the idea that twin engines are safer than singles has been disproven and reflected in statistics backed up by the insurance companies. and thats when comparing a twin to a single piston.
Interesting to hear. I speculated that the success of SR22 is because of the chute more than anything else, despite the extreme overpricing. So you choosing arguable the worst jet because of the parachute makes sense. But it reiterates how badly we need better options.
@@DanFrederiksen
Just to clarify the SR22 is a piston aircraft and competes with the bonanza, which it in many ways out performs. The vision is the jet. But a lot of its selling points are A it's a jet and the nice to have items for your passengers
It all depends on your missions. Where I live most legs are short, runways are adequate for most VLJs but the Vision Jet fits into more of them than most of its competition. There is little point, on most journeys, to go any higher than FL310 and it is nice to be able to operate at about the same circuit speeds as most of what is around you. Of course, in a larger country, the bigger aircraft makes more sense, it is just horses for courses, but where I live, you would be far more likely to use a Vision Jet regularly than you might a Phenom or other similar aircraft, just because it is less hassle for what is to be achieved.
Shorter runways are a big factor! All the time you gained by a speedy plane is lost when you have to land 60Mi further from where you want to go because the landing strip is to short.
That said, the bathroom in the Honda jet is important too, as you don't want a code brown situation and be forced to do an unscheduled landing on some small field to get rid of some liquid.....
Hai perfettamente ragione. Però è un problema facilmente risolvibile mettendo un wc chimico del tipo usato sui camper all'interno del vano bagagli. Non sarà il massimo della vita ma servirà allo scopo 😅
But keep in mind, somerhing what wasn't said here, Vision Jet is twoseater with full fuel, at best. And it's abysmal climb rate is nothing to be desired. Think high and hot...
At 10:40 for the Mustang, 340 kt is high speed cruise. It is not capable of anything close to 420 kt. I suspect you were thinking about the Hondajet at FL 330. I fly an Eclipse and you numbers are correct but to hit the high speed cruise numbers the temps must be below ISA. Nice video.
Crazy the "weakness" example in this video is a sales hit...and still without a lavatory....and in spite of its reasonably slow performance aspects, it still is selling in a field of better, though used examples. Great video! Thank you!
Can’t believe this take. The cirrus jet isn’t even competing with the Honda jet as it costs 3-4 times as much.
The vision vaguely competes with the eclipse jet, but you’d have to be out of your mind to buy one now that’s it’s been orphaned. It’s legendary for having problems with avionics, tires, and general upkeep.
In reality cirrus vision jet is competing with the TBM and Pilatus turboprops, where it fares really quite well for the price.
Agree with you totally, this guy has some kind of bone to pick with CIRRUS. The only thing that all these planes have in common is the word jet, and then he tries to tells us that the CIRRUS isn’t really a jet. In other words, he’s full of Doodoo.
The Eclipse 500 was amazing. I whish there was more of a market for it. And I would have included the Premier business jet in there as well.
id rather have the distance that the climb rate. Thats like accelerating at a green light to get a faster start yet you still have 1,000 miles to go. Thank you for the video. Need to look for top ten planes with the best NMI
The Vision Jet has always seemed to be for people who just must have / want to have a jet. A turboprop single of which there are many on the market outperforms it in every way.
yup … especially with payload and SFC …
yup TBM 960 smokes the vision jet
@@slpater1Oh Heck Nah Vision Jet Is Literally Good
Also, the Cirrus is single engine. This limits A LOT what you can and can't do in IFR departures.
If you're not looking for anything modern, the cheapest private jet, with excellent performance and speed, is the Learjet 24/24D; can be purchased for less than $200,000.
Yeah good luck getting a Mustang to fly faster than 350kts, the Phenom 100 DOES have a lavatory. Yes the TBM 960 and Eclipse 1000 are faster than the Vision Jet. However hot section inspection and overhaul of their engines could make them much costlier to maintain. Not to mention both cost how much more than the Visionjet? And which do you think would be EASIEST to pilot? Me personally if im going turboprop i'd go with PC12. The Hondajet took all the things that held the Phenom back and expanded on them then added them to a forward thinking efficient design. Brilliant airplane especially now that its getting autothrottle too (Just like the Visionjet, TBM 960 and I believe the E1000 has!) The best light jet of the bunch doesnt exist in my opinion. PREMIER 1 with a prodigy/G3000/G5000 and autothrottle. Add a lavatory with a flushing toilet and external servicing like the Phenom 300 now thats a plane we would all love! Since it doesnt exist my vote for best light jet goes to the Hondajet.
One more thing the Visionjet does exactly what its marketed to do. Cirrus wanted a plane a cirrus Sr20/22 driver with no turbine time could jump in and fly with no problems. Add the parachute and safe land feature along with the FJ33 which is a scaled down version of the venerable FJ44....come on put some Respek on the Vision Jets name LOL
The Piaggio P180 is as fast or faster than all four planes presented in this video. The P180 flight ceiling is 410FL, carries 8 passengers with easy and comfort, same or more range than these 4 aircrafts, and better fuel efficiency in terms of per passenger per mile. It has a full lav that is externally serviced. The P180 is superior in every way.
Agreed. It’s an excellent design that’s faster than most light jets, and all turboprops. The king air can’t hold a candle to it except for the 350i which has more range and payload, but the typical operator would be better off with the Avanti. The only problem is slow maintenance support. And expensive, somewhat offsetting it’s fuel efficiency. Supposedly with the Avanti EVO, Piaggio has tried to improve these issues, but I don’t know if it’s worked or not.
@@ryanzucker8345 ::: P180 costs less than Phenom 300, but match the 300’s performance except ceiling: Phenom’s 450 FL v P180’s 410FL.
The phenom 300 is definitely faster than the Avanti, but not by much. In real world ops though, typical cruise speeds for the Avanti are 360-380 knots in the mid 30s. Most times your power settings are limited by ITT and you’ll max that before you can get to full power, but at that altitude the fuel economy is real
But it's much bigger, and MUCH more expensive than the others. And it requires a two-man crew, for all practical purposes. Not competitors.
Your All Wrong Am InThe Only One Who Agrees VISION JET IS THE BEST AND SAFE JET
The SF50 is such a neat little jet regardless. I've only ever seen one of them unfortunately.
I’ve seen a couple over the years myself. Mostly hondajets though
Title has nothing to do with the video. But interesting to learn a little about so many jets.
VLJ aka Very Light Jet isn’t Light Jet. Apples to oranges comparison. Cirrus & Eclipse are in a completely different category of jet than the Hondajet & Phenom.
The Eclipse being defunct, likely has few parts and spotty service at best. I remember flying one at KABQ before Eclipse bit the dust. It was fun but full of little issues. For this reason I would strike it from the list.
Can you do a similar comparison of 11 seat 9 passenger planes?
I love the DA-62 for twin needs if you can take the slower speeds.
Thing is, although cheaper and better performing, a lot of these are really not personal owner pilot aircraft. The wing on the Syberjet especially would send an insurance underwriter to the hospital at the thought of a joe schlub personal user flying it.
Most of these are professional crew operated small business jets like the old Citation 500s and the BeechJet. Speedy Air taxis not personal runabouts.
The Cirrus jet just emphasizes you CANT make a personal jet powered casual aircraft.
But their time is over due to restrictions in Europe
Where is the comparison of Cost Per Mile for turboprops and for piston aircraft like the DA62?
I'll have to keep my sights on 103 compliance. The biggest luxury would be a a 4 stroke engine.
Nahh look at electric. Best bang for the buck endurance wise. 5gal only gets you so far, but battery capacity is still technically unlimited.
Forgetting money for a moment, definitely the PC-24. Huge, grass field capable, with great range and decent cruise speed - simply the best single-pilot plane out there.
But it comes at a cost, 10 million is no pocket money even in jet terms, and it's a thirsty one at ~170 GPH. Plus the maintenance costs are on the higher side due to extreme complexity... Definitely not an entry-level aircraft!
Fact is, the M600 has practically the same price and performance as the Vision Jet, but is WAY more efficient, has easier pilot quals and club style cabin seating. If a jet cannot cruise at or above 40,000’ it has not been targeting the right specs. The closer to 51,000’ the better; though that means bigger and more expensive engines and usually less fuel onboard, but that’s where jets need to be.
Bottom line. If ur not wealthy your not getting one
Note: the Phenom 100 does have a lav.
anything has a lav if you really put your mind to it...
Anyone still using Eclipse 500 as the comparison is clearly just comparing planes in paper - NOT the reality of owning and flying them. Sorry, your analysis doesn’t hold.
If i would have the money i would buy the vision jet. It has a parachute, can be parked in a smaller hangar on the local glider airfield and takeoff and land there and is easy to use. Its made to be flown by the owner and to take family or friends to the skies.
To skies yes, to some destination NO.
@@naughtyUphillboy why not to the destination?
@@K0nst4nt1n96 If you put enough payload, you don't have enough range !
@@naughtyUphillboy ah ok. Most flights would be held short by some peoples bladder anyways i suppose.
The new price for a Cessna 172 is now north of $500K, planes are just expensive anyway you cut it. Also, most flights in private aircraft are short hops.
Toys for the rich. Just like horses.
@@DonnieDarko727 Used they are less pricey but still pricey none the same. Light Piston single engine planes have doubled in price over the Last year or so. These are the most affordable. Jets are another Ball game all together.
@@davidcollier3604 I agree I have been looking. Makes more sense to rent a jet or a plane than own imo for recreational use. Or, start a club.
@@DonnieDarko727 Exactly. There are a lot of fixed costs with owning a plane, the purchase price is just the opening ante, Insurance, Hangar rent, the annual inspection, charts and data bases, etc. These can run $15-20K a year depending on the plane and type of flying you do. Best thing about a Club/Partnership is these fixed costs get split "N" ways.
Remember in 2005ish all the industry magazines were saying "the skies will be clogged with vlj's"! 1 in 20 companies actually certified a jet.
And it took 2 companies to manage it with the eclipse!
I'd definitely want the Syberjet if I were in the market. It has the best stats overall and costs $7.5M, but what's a few million when you're in a hurry. 😆
I consider this article to be nonsense. The author has never understood the goal of the designers of the aircraft, the target group and wants to inflate himself. If you switch from a Beech Kingair, a Pilatus PC 12 or any older twin-engine like the Cessna 421, you would understand. Yes the limitations are the payload and, compared to a PC 12, the range, for example.
That's where the market for this aircraft is. The aircraft didn't get the Collier Trophy for nothing. With the G2+ version, which is currently being shipped, all its points of criticism are obsolete. I agree with the author on one point. And Cirrus has responded to this and the currently delivered aircraft have a more powerful engine, which has significantly improved the take-off conditions in hot weather, shorter runways performance and peak altitude. The author does not go into much detail about the features of the machine compared to the machines it is supposed to replace. It has the Garmin 3000 with some additions, the SAFE Return Autoland System which I have appreciated since we had an accident in Europe in September with a Citation in which the pilot failed and the plane crashed near Liepaja in Latvia. The French and German air forces accompanied this plane until it crashed due to lack of fuel and could do nothing. It also has the parachute for the whole aircraft, which we know from the Cirrus SR 20/22. www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/september/15/cirrus-vision-jet-parachute-logs-first-save
Some people talk about the lack of a toilet . O.k., that's an argument. The comparison with the Honda Jet is not correct and unfair. This is built for a different target group. This applies to the replacement of Cessna Citation I/SP and similar aircraft.
You need to do better research. Eclipse Aerospace continued production until 2017. Granted it was low rate production.
You got the engine wrong on the Eclipse as well. It’s a PW-610F.
you miss the flaris lar01 jet! it will be a gamer changer. currently going through certification
Epic E1000 any day and every day over most all light jets (for efficiency). If you have to have two engines then your choices get more limited. ;-)
Vision is WAY BETTER for short flights, each airplane is designed for an specific operation
If youre doing short flights then get a turboprop.
@@SpiraSpiraSpira cirrus vision jet is popular also for their parachutes and auto land system. Their safety is unmatched so far in the light jet market.
good points
Sorry to burst your bubble but Eclipse and Phenom do not share engine and the PW167 does not exist. Eclipse uses PW610 while Phenom uses PW617. Same series but the 17 has about double thrust :)
please give more recognition to the HondaJet in new videos
at 450hrs means youre giving the jet to the charter, I'd say 100-150hr should be the real comparison and how that compares to just chartering.
cirus has always been the apple of aircraft, bought by doctors and others who dont know much about aircraft and buy based on advertising and looks
And a parachute for when you get in over your head.
well done
Years ago I saw pre production photos from a Cirrus rep. I asked if the V tail made it a Son of A Beech. He did not find my remark humorous.
Cause It's Very Disrespectful
I think vision jet is the only one with a parachute and auto-land and fly able by a single relatively inexperienced flight
Yup. He is comparing a Ferrari to a bunch of limos.
@@toribarron5700 Let’s not get nuts here, it’s a Bentley Continental to a Limousine. Ferrari is being far too generous to the pokey little piggy Cirrus jet.
@@mzaite, that’s fair. It isn’t fast for a jet. But I think you get my point that if it were a car, it would be the one you want to drive rather than be driven in. Quick to learn. Only needs one pilot. Views for days. Easy (relatively) to learn and be certified to fly.
@@toribarron5700 But at the same time it just seems like a lot of money for the design and capabilities to tell you No so often. But I don't live in that kind of money world, so it's basically all Moon Numbers to me.
I still aspire to live in the two passengers and 300 NM legs, or one passenger and 400 NM legs world. Of the Volkswagon Beetle equivalent airplanes.
While meanwhile only looking like the Part 103 Pow-pow-powerwheels Barbie Jeep of planes ever being realistically purchasable.
Can't fly high either
One advantage of the cirrus is that you don't need a multi-engine rating .
The Cirrus jet is slower than the others because it wasn't designed to be fast. It was designed to be relatively inexpensive, operate on shorter runways, have low(er) operating costs, and a fairly uncomplicated transition for Cirrus pilots.
Bottom line: anyone buying a jet at 3.5 million are not worried about efficiency. The Cirrus is a flex.
Charter companies have to worry about this.
@@vitordelima Charter companies buy phenoms and Beeches.
@@mzaite The original single turbofan airplanes that never got certified were meant to cost much less to fly so charter companies could lower their hourly rate, but this airplane failed to achieve this.
@@vitordelima I think the problem is "JET" and "Certified Cheaply" may be mutually exclusive terms.
@@mzaite If you compare this with any turboprop or fast piston airplane it looks like so.
I'm old school I need a propeler and a moustache..
"Hourly costs are the worst way to measure the true operating cost of an airplane, because the slower it flies, the longer you stay in the air, and the more hours you have to pay for".
Huuummm.... that is why it is called "hourly cost".
So if it takes (hypothetically) the HondaJet 3 hours to get to your destination at $100.00/hour and 4 hours for VisionJet at $75.00 / hour, one can see that for the same cost, the HondaJet can get you there one hour faster.
How is that the worst way? It seems cost per mile is the worst way because you are not taking into account how long it takes to get to that same 1,000 miles and that savings in time may be the reason to spend more on an airplane.
Also, it blows my mind that people want to compare VisionJet: A brand new $3 million dollar plane against $5 million dollar planes. How much savings one must get in "cost per mile" to make up for the interest, insurance, maintenance and hanger cost (2 engines and bigger planes), opportunity cost lost on a $2 million dollar difference?
And the Eclipse 500 is not even in production anymore!
Yes, it does not climb as fast, it does not fly as high, it does not go as fast, because that was NOT WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO.
For $2 million dollars less you can land and takeoff in almost half of the runway, fly above most of the weather and get to your destination pretty quick.
Sure the $5 million turboprops will outperform the VisionJet! Geez! Give me $2 million dollars and I will build you a whole house for you!
The ease of transitioning from one complex single engine aircraft to a single engine jet aircraft is a large part of the attraction.
You want more payload capability, higher cruise velocities, faster cruise speeds? Go complain to the FAA. They are the ones that set up the reliability and redundant system requirements for operations at the higher altitudes and faster cruise speeds. Those regulations turned off manufacturers trying to make higher performance single engine single pilot jet aircraft. It's not that difficult to imagine a modernized non-afterburning GE F404 powering a nice sized personal single jet engines aircraft with the payload, cruise velocities, cruise altitudes, and ranges you see as admirable.
Wheres the citation m2?
Ciruss Vision Jet has a Parachute in case of worse case scenario....It saves Lives
Eclipse 500 seems like a great option until used Hondas come down in price. That said, I’ll always prefer an experimental. 716x is of high interest to me.
Until you need factory support and the factory ain't there!
Regarding the SJ30, doesn't a plane that can carry 4 passengers for 6 hours need a restroom?
With that wing being flown by a casual, it will crash before that ever becomes an issue.
Callooh Callay! I'll reach $9,000,000 at the exact same time SyberJet has an SJ30i available!
You got prices wrong ( probably on purpose) Vision Jet is 2 million and Honda Jet is 8 million so you can get 4 Vision jets for 1 Honda jet !
Range IS NOT an objective to VLJ, buy a different category
Exactly, single pilot no Lav, That sucker isn’t going past 600 NM between stops.
Seems those jets don’t have a large bypass ratio. Engines look like those built in the 60’s from the outside.
Hi.
I subscribed to your channel several months ago but today is the very first time I write something on the comment section and it is a question: as far as I know, usually the landing distance is shorter than the TO distance, so at min. 6:53 you say the landing distance of the Phenom 100 is almost 900 FT longer than the TO distance; is this accurate?
If you read this comment (and be so kind to reply to it) I´ll be very thankful.
Greetings from NE Patagonia, Argentina, (a dream place).
I highly appreciate you for pointing that out… that’s an error on my end… I made a dying Minute decision to include the phenom 100 instead and I didn’t switch everything else properly… thanks Walter
@@Dwaynesaviation Ok, mystery solved. Thanks for answering. Cheers!
@@Dwaynesaviation I'd have to say I disagree. With only 50 hours in the Cirrus I can say it's easily the least intimidating personal small jet for a private owner. It just struck me that it was so much like the Beechcraft Denali yet for half the cost. Both using Garmin 3000 and FADEC. I found the Cirrus very responsive yet smooth to fly with a quiet cabin and cockpit. However the interior design and ergo of the Cirrus is way ahead of a Denali. In this last month 3 people have bought a Cirrus based on my advice. IMHO it's an absolute bargain! Cheers. Subscribed!
@@Dwaynesaviation Second mistake is Phenom 100 has a potty. Another comment: no one is flying 450h/year beside in charter. Typical hours for this type of jets is 150 to max 200h/year. Than all the cost will be different as financing cost as yearly maintenance cost have a higher weight. Fourth remark: About 10-20% of all Honda Jets are grounded as no spare parts and also hard to find a maintenance shop. Fifth remark: Premier 1A is out of production for 10 years , spare parts difficult and burns a lot a fuel. Six remark: SJ30 only 10 jets and no production since 2010
There are a TON of statistical errors in this video. So many, it's not worth mentioning all of them. However, the conclusion is correct- the Vision Jet is a poor choice for someone who wants to buy a light jet. It is one of the reasons it has the highest used jet count on the various aircraft dealer websites.
6:20 that's a specific takeoff distance
I pick the Syberjet SJ30.
You truly are a cirus hater😅...why not talk about all the advanced features vision offers😂...thats because none of the other aircraft have a chute or single button auto land...
I presume you had some valuable information but you started like a kindergarten teacher teaching a doctorate course. I'll find someone who speaks normally, thank you.
Turboprops are noisy in the cockpit.
Id rather operate a pc12 than a vision
I’d take a used Caravan with a new G1000 dash. If I can’t go that high or that fast, may as well bring everyone with me.
That would be the dream for many pilots, but it is a lot of money and a lot more airplane than most people need.
Dude, you have a bone to pick with CIRRUS, obviously
I'm so on board with Stratos, although we know thier economic struggles. The Beechcraft is almost superior to the cirrus.
Forgot to include the Citation M2 Gen2
There is literally no logical reason to buy a cirrus jet if you actually cross shop the market lol
This video seems personal
Not sure why the bashing of the Vision Jet?
a sales pitch I'm guessing.
But that never works - bashing the competition just puts a stain on your product.
Honda and Phenon does not operate in most small airports close to resorts in Brazil for exemple, they need way too much runaway
I worked on the eclipse 500 back in 2004-2008. That thing was trash.
Yea it was a shitshow in its first release.
If you are talking about as a jet for hire with two pilots, a cirrus is not a good jet. If you are talking about an owner operator solo pilot who wants the safety of CAPS, auto-land and still needs to land to pee, then the Cirrus becomes desirable.
Why am I watching this video? I can't even afford a used Kitfox on Barnstormers.
Motivation so that you can in the future.
When one of these is contacted by ATC, that see's its a jet,, and your asked to speed up,, but can't,😮
Just tell them ''unable'' and make it their problem!
40,000ft is key to save gas on flights. Lets be honest they don't make a plane that is good on gas, Speed is not the answer, we need fleets of Slow moving airships to save the environment and to revolutionize transportation. If we had a thousands airships in the sky you would start to see amazing innovation. Boats use sails right? There is no reason a airship cannot adopt a sail system when at higher altitudes. They don't exist because the technology was abandoned for inefficient Airplanes. Airplanes will never be the answer for affordable and environmentally friendly flight.
Slowing down is the key to success.
The Vision jet looks too much like a Nerf football.
That does not account for many factors including over all cost considering you can buy two SF50's and operate them for many years for the cost of a single Honda jet.
Very misleading video. They haven't even made the Eclipse for years... Must be new to aviation.
vision jet is stupid its not that fast or fly that far and its interior is just as cramp as high end turbo prop.
Cirrus is best simply because of safety features
Whomever did the breakdown at 7:40, could pay more attention editing…
I know, waagh. But still, want people to watch your channel?
Maybe you shoulkd have included miles per gallon for fuel consumption for the same reason as operating costs. LOL
Which one has a parachute lol.
eclips 500 is the best
Landing/Takeoff distance is so important if you're not strictly traveling between where the larger airports are. The Stratos is advertising a landing distance of 2,240 feet giving it another huge leg up.
Phenom 100 has a lav
Cool plane. Too me it's like an overpriced GA aircraft with a small turbine engine. Nice interior. That being said it's all outside my price range
Honda jet
With a price and the traveling distance this airplanes have to have bathroom in it.
Anywhere’s a bathroom if you need it bad enough!
VLJs are simply no match for turboprops in just about every performance parameter. People buy VLJs just for “ramp appeal” and cachet.
IDK, I see most Cirrus pilots as just jackasses.
what turboprop does mach 0.7 at FL410 in quiet?
It can fly nonstop from LA to NY nonstop.
Same numbers, , or not significative diferences, no bathroom, bad...
normal plane with a propulsion device...... turboprop, turbojet, or bypass turbofan 😁🛩😁
Where does one Pee? man, i gotta go, I gotta go! for that reason Im out! lol
They are still aviation fuel/gas guzzling aircrafts.