Well, let's start with the statement about dual engines for pressurization and other regulations.
Over the past decade the FAA has been migrating from a prescription model of how things are done to a result model. A few examples about the change in mentality:

• Cirrus chute ELOS
• Icon A5 ELOS/Waiver for weight
• Part 23 rewrite

As a result I would expect Cirrus to be able to qualify for multiple ELOS which allow the plane to surpass the hard 25K and 30K regulatory limits.
For example, the dual pressurization requirement is really intended to allow the pilot/co-pilot sufficient time to descend and deal with a loss of pressure. A double hall could provide enough of a slow loss in pressure to give the pilot time to don a mask, in addition an automated descent system can ensure the plane gets to a breathable altitude.

Tim

Certification is not a set of hard and fast rules at least not for those of us who have lived with them and work with them on a daily basis. Like any govm't regulation, interpretation is key. An ELOS, Policy, Position Paper are all methods to bring a product to market and be certified.

If aviation certification were iron clad there would be no such thing as aviation product liability as certification would simply be the ability to meet a government mandated specification. That concept failed the in the US Circuit court system - i.e. because it is certified it is meeting a govm't spec - the judges said nah that isn't how it is.

Like I have said before - you don't need two engines to reach the pressurization requirement
just a bit of huttz pa and a good plan.

Congrats to Cirrus on the first single engine jet, the orders from what I hear as a system supplier @ NBAA are overwhelming and are well deserved.

If I'm Cirrus engineering ten years ago I am definitely going to design the airplane (out of carbon fiber) to be pressurized to up to 8 psi or whatever the FL410 differential is UNLESS the additional weight is an non-starter. Why not...certify the airplane then start working with regulators to lift some arbitrary ceiling through equivalent safety or regulation change rather than a complete redesign.

According to what little is out there, they claim an 8,000' cabin at FL280, so for now, the differential does not appear to engender FL410 but I have no idea if "tightening" the outflow valve could easily expand the envelope.

Might not need two engines but your need a design with a higher PSI differential!

I see Jake beat me to it.

[quote="Gerhard Strobl"so that projected pretty wide spread from 25 - 50 units next year in deliveries..? what that means?…either they still are checking how fast they can ramp up production without compromising build quality in the beginning, or the first 50 serial numbers have had some cancellations ( maybe due to last years development and certification delays) and they could not yet convince buyers who have options for a later delivery to accept their airplanes sooner..[/quote]

Could it be the FAA is so unpredictable in achieving the certification they played it cautious with resources till the paperwork was signed? Cirrus is the market leader and i bet they are aware of this unknown. They have a loyal customer base, good manufacturing process and know how to make money.

Im not a Cirrus fan and never been in one but its hard to to deny their success to date.


Andrew

This is great news as the price of newish legacy turboprops and old small citations will start to drop rapidly. This plane is going to completely upend the market.

I am at 200hrs in the MU2 and can say that 300kts changes the game. I feel airline fast on all but the worst headwind days. This jet will accomplish a huge slug of missions and look cool doing it. Exciting stuff.

I think anything that gets more people flying and more jet A flowing at FBOs is a net positive for GA. Good work Cirrus!

Three guys/gals purchase a SF50 and a G3 Cirrus. You are in at approximately $600k a share and have capability to do whatever you want, whenever you want. I think the all in costs per partner would be less than owning a vintage King Air by yourself. Agreed?

Likely yes. Especially on an operational basis.
If my memory is correct, AOPA published some Conklin and Decker numbers over the summer. The all in costs for the SF50 was around $550 and the KA200 was $1200

Tim

Likely yes. Especially on an operational basis.
If my memory is correct, AOPA published some Conklin and Decker numbers over the summer. The all in costs for the SF50 was around $550 and the KA200 was $1200

Tim

Wow, $550 per hour is only a little more than a pa46t. Delivery positions on controller for roughly 1.4m + CPI. I think there will be a whole lot of Cirrus jets flying around soon.

lol, well. We need someone who actually has the subscription to tell us what the numbers mean.

Tim

AOPA article comparing Variable costs across various turbines. Cirrus shown at $595/hr, with cruise at 300kt; my math gets me a variable cost of $1.98/nm. Interesting to compare SF50 to some other alternatives:

Model $ /Hr Cruise $/nm
Cirrus SF50 - 595 300kts $ 1.98
Piper Meridian - 506.25 267kts $ 1.90
Eclipse - 740.75 371kts $ 2.00
Cessna Mustang 838.87 340kts $ 2.47

Used Meridian and Eclipse are available for around or less than Cirrus; Mustang appears to be in the next higher tier of pricing. I think SF50 is going to compete well.

Oh the heresy !

Oh the heresy !

Certified was my understanding from the article.

Tim