Flaris LAR01 High Performance Personal Jet

Why does this design looks familiar to me ?



WW II fighter plane Heinkel He-162 Salamander

I wonder how they managed to make it fly faster and further than a Cirrus Vision for significantly less cost... using the same power plant.

This little plywood fighter came far to late. At this state of the war it was totally useless. They had no more pilots and no resources. In the late sixties, we had an old WW II pilot in our glider club, who had flown this plane and the Me-163 as a young officer. He liked both planes from the pilots point of view but as warplanes they had very limited effect.

I do not believe those predicted performance data either. I would estimate 360 Kts and 1.000 to 1.100 NM range. And by looking at this entrance door(s) (opening and locking mechanism and the size of that doors), I do not believe, any certifying authority will clear that plane for a 6.5+ PSI (40.000 ft +) cabin pressure differential. This light aircraft will be limited for sure to 25.0oo or max. 30.000 ft. And without RVSM clearance it will be restricted to FL 250 anyhow.

If they are able to raise enough funds for the developement, they should be more than happy to reach my estimates or we will see some redesign on the cabin an the rear fuselage. This fragile tail will not survive the flutter tests at 0.7 Mach. Single engine light personal jets are a very special market segment. Several companies have failed on that segment before (i.e. Diamond Aircraft, Piper, etc.) And with the Cirrus Jet already on the market (with a Chinese parent company with deep pockets), it is even harder to survive in this field.

These little single engine personal jets are in the market segment of the TBM 910 / 940 and Piper M 500 / 600. These Turboprop aircraft are on eye level as far as performance is concerned. IMHO, a single PT-6 engine is much more trustworthy than a single Williams FJ-33. The FJ-44 full FADEC engines of my CJ-2+ are pretty reliable but I had some trouble with them. I was always happy to have two of them on board.

Mounting a Jet Engine on top of the fuselage may safe the engine from FOD and water ingestion when operating on a flooded runway but when encountering higher AoA (slow speed approaches or pilot errors during maneuvering), the intake can get blanked out by the fuselage. When advancing power i.e. in a go around, a compressor stall and / or flame out is likely to occur.

I have flown the prototype of the Diamond Jet, as I knew Mr. Dries, the original owner of Diamond Aircraft personally. This Jet was aimed at a more realistic lower speed range of 250 to 280 Kts and a cruising altitude of FL 250, to stay away from bureaucratic problems and much higher developement costs. The developement was stopped, as this misfit had no change against those fast single engine Turboprops. At high speed and high altitudes, You will be stopped by developement and production costs and at lower speeds and cruising altitudes by those existing beefy Turboprops. The jack of all trades just do not exists.

We have a saying in Europe: I You want to make a little fortune in the aviation industry, just spend a big one !

Just my 2 (Euro) Cents

A little additional thought to my last post.

At least in my neck of the woods (EASA regime), the authorities are very reluctant to allow PPL "Tigers", even if endowed with a Complex High Performance Aircraft Endorsement, to fly around single pilot IFR with little jets at speeds in the range of 400 Kts and altitudes of around 40.000 ft. And I do not believe, the FAA has a different approach to this matter.

Jet engines and average PPL pilots are just not playing in the same league.