Cirrus Jet vs Diamond D-Jet


#1

These two airplanes appear to be the most logical step up from a piston single. Which one do you like more; the d-jet or the cirrus jet?


#2

I think you should add a few entry-level VLJs like the PiperJet, the Eclipse Concept Jet, and the Epic Victory jet, to name a few.
All of these entry-level single engine jets are somewhat in a new class of their own, the Personal Light Jet, or PLJ.

interesting article regarding this very topic


#3

The ECJ hasn’t been annouced yet (it is reseach now). I take the Cirrus jet over the D-Jet. But I think i would rather have a TBM or Pilatus when comparing a PLJ to a turboprop. The turboprops are more efficent.


#4

I agree, I would take a TBM over either of these other planes. Block to block time is about the same, very safe and effective piston pilot transition program, lower operating costs and well proven airframe and powerplant design.


#5

Not to mention the PC12 is about twice as large as the D-jet, The-Jet, PiperJet, or any other PLJ.
Granted, it’s about 4 times more expensive. (I can’t imagine how these jets are being made so inexpensively. I don’t think the PC12 is overpriced, it’s just that the other aircraft are so underpriced.)


#6

The explanation is simple, they are being priced to where the manufacturers hope they will be able to make a profit through high volumes. Personally, I think they are completely unrealistic. In the mean time, shareholders are subsidizing every purchase - ain’t capitalism grand.


#7

[quote=“CAFlier”]

The Eclipse 500 was supposed to be only $850,000 but it’s now about $1.5 million.

I agree with both of you.


#8

Its simple. The turboprop engines are a lot more then the jet engines.

The turboprops are more efficent.

Wrong. The Cirrus Jet and D-Jet will cost less to operate then a turboprop. The single engine jets will burn 35-55 GPH while the turboprops will burn 50-70 GPH.The twin engine VLJS will burn 80-100 GPH. So the-jet and the d-jet will be the most affordable after the piston singles in fuel burn.

[list=]You cant go wrong with these jets[/list]
1 million less then turboprops
cheaper to run
easier the other VLJS

the only bad is that the single engine jets aern’t as large as the other turboprops. But they are personal jets, not transport jets.

Oh. My pick: the-jet (Cirrus)
Why Cirrus:
Having sat in the mockup at the cirrus convention, it is wider and more spacious then a D-Jet. And if it is wider then a D-jet, it is wider then a king air and mustang (as d-jet claims theirs is wider). It is the most versatile, a true 7 seat plane (not a 5 seat plane with a 8inch wide seat). The Cirrus Jet cockpit seats slide back to the door making the plane easy to get into. The legroom is amazing.
The only things I like on the D-jet is that it will be to market first and it is a little more luxurious.


#9

I think they expect to sell alot of these little jets. If they don’t sell a bunch, they’ll fail.


#10

[quote=“cirrus000”]

I highly doubt the Cirrus Jet will burn less fuel then a turboprop.

If Cirrus has the best PLJ, why didn’t they bring the mockup to Oshkosh. They don’t gain any orders by bringing that little 1/5 size model to Oshkosh.


#11

Why are the VLJs so cheap (cheap in comparison to other jets and most new turbo prop)? I attend Monmouth College in Illinois where Red Poling, one of the entrepreneurs and private owners of Eclipse is an alumnus. In Business class we scrutinized the business venture of Eclipse. The company is a new breed in itself…minus the whole VLJ class, as the parts are all manufactured and shipped from various locations around the world. Production costs are extremely low because each part is produced in the location which can make it at the lowest bid.

Now my opinion, which may raise controversy, like every other instrument rated private pilot the idea of flying a jet, let alone a personal jet is pretty exhilarating. In all practicality the turbo props appear more efficient. The Eclipse Concept Jet has a mere 739lbs useful load after full fuel where as the Pilatus PC-12 can carry a whooping 1776lbs after full fuel. Just my opinion, but this VLJ class seems more for show than practicality. Although even though the D-Jet has a mere 600 lbs useful load (after full fuel) it is $1.2 compared to the Pilatus $2.8 sticker.


#12

Having read the business plans for a few of these companies, I would make a few comments. The first is that their analysis shows that the majority of trips for their target market is within 500 miles. So the lower fuel load will allow more passengers/luggage. Secondly, the major components like engines and avionics come from the same few manufacturers for everyone, so there are no significant cost differences in the most expensive parts. Thirdly, the volume assumptions that lead to their cost projections are wildly optimistic, in my view. As we’ve already seen with the significant increase in Eclipse prices (and I expect that they will increase further), the initial estimates were way off. If Cessna, who has more experience in building small jets than anyone in the world, can’t sell a twin engine VLJ-like plane (Mustang) for under $2 MM, I am skeptical that anyone else can do a whole lot better.


#13

I think they expect to sell alot of these little jets. If they don’t sell a bunch, they’ll fail.

Oh boy, they will…


#14

I just wanted to weigh in on a couple of items. First, why is a PC-12 in the mix? Seems like an entirely different class of aircraft. Now for which I would choose. I would go with the D-Jet. Excellent interior, already flying and on the road to cerification and plenty of baggage space. But, if you occasionally need to carry more passengers, that could tip the scales to Cirrus. I talked to one of their designers and they are only advertising 100 lbs per each of the two back seats. The middle seat slides back and forth. Also, the Cirrus does not have a flat floor, so I could see people tripping. Both doors are great but may not make it to production. Anyway, enjoy the topic.