The FAA also said the SF50 can't do part 135 IFR.

Could you provide the reference to the above, many thanks.

It is in section 12 of the document that Mike refers to in the post, FSIMS:

OPERATIONAL SUITABILITY

The SF50 is suitable for operations under part 91. Operations under part 135 are limited
to visual flight rules (VFR) and non-passenger carrying instrument flight rules (IFR). The
FSB determined operational compliance by conducting an evaluation of aircraft serial
number 0005 that concluded on 11/17/2016. The SF50 aircraft evaluated did not
demonstrate compliance with § 135.163(f). Therefore, the SF50 is not suitable for
Single-Engine Instrument Flight Rules (SEIFR) Passenger-Carrying operations under
part 135. The list of operating rules evaluated is on file at the Kansas City AEG.

Yes, I do, if not more work for the SF50.

(f) For a single-engine aircraft:

(1) Two independent electrical power generating sources each of which is able to supply all probable combinations of continuous inflight electrical loads for required instruments and equipment; or

(2) In addition to the primary electrical power generating source, a standby battery or an alternate source of electric power that is capable of supplying 150% of the electrical loads of all required instruments and equipment necessary for safe emergency operation of the aircraft for at least one hour;

So does it not have a generator and alternator? How big of a battery do they need for 150% of the load? If that's all that is holding back 135 IFR ops, and 135 ops are a likely customer (are they?) this does not seem like a big hurdle.

Chip-

In considering the steam gauge era, what about all that glass going dark? Let's say in perfect VFR with a perfectly running engine. How many opining to this thread are good to go with landing by the seat of your pants? In an SF sim session in I'd want to give this kind of training a go.

(f) For a single-engine aircraft:

(1) Two independent electrical power generating sources each of which is able to supply all probable combinations of continuous inflight electrical loads for required instruments and equipment; or

(2) In addition to the primary electrical power generating source, a standby battery or an alternate source of electric power that is capable of supplying 150% of the electrical loads of all required instruments and equipment necessary for safe emergency operation of the aircraft for at least one hour;

So does it not have a generator and alternator? How big of a battery do they need for 150% of the load? If that's all that is holding back 135 IFR ops, and 135 ops are a likely customer (are they?) this does not seem like a big hurdle.

Chip-

And none of that has to do with one or two engines...

Mike C.

If the engine doesn't have two electrical generators, I would be amazed. How did an airplane so dependent on electrical power, even for engine control, get by with just one generator in the safety analysis?

The FJ33-5A has an accessory drive pad other than the starter generator. A small second generator could be fitted there. This second pad is used for, typically, a hydraulic pump on aircraft that have hydraulic actuators.

Cirrus has yet to expose the system designs, even to customers in waiting.

Mike C.

both (1) & (2) are required.

Not sure on the electrical system of the SF50, but in the G3000 equipped M600, there is a generator and alternator each capable of providing the power for day/night/IFR/IMC operations without a load shed procedure. Each of the 3 screens has full reversionary mode and can function as a combined PFD and limited MFD.

There are 4 electrical busses, separated from each other, each capable of powering a satisfactory array of Glass Nav and Com with limited weather if one two or 3 of the other busses go out.

There is an emergency Bus that is quiet and sitting in the background that can be activated if the 3 main redundant busses go out.

If you lost both the generator and alternator, the main battery can power the glass, nav com and deice for at least 30 minutes.

If all that goes black, there is an Aspen Evo glass display that is shielded from the main ship and has its own at least 30 min power supply but can parasite off the ships power if functioning saving its own battery.

If you are worried about all that going black, you are suffering some severe paranoia. Yeah, people have been hit by lightning on blue sky days, but there are bigger things to worry about.

This is about the SF50, sure it does not have all of the redundancy of the M600, but will certainly be well thought out. My understanding is one of the touch screen controllers has back up instrument capability.

If the engine doesn't have two electrical generators, I would be amazed. How did an airplane so dependent on electrical power, even for engine control, get by with just one generator in the safety analysis?

The FJ33-5A has an accessory drive pad other than the starter generator. A small second generator could be fitted there. This second pad is used for, typically, a hydraulic pump on aircraft that have hydraulic actuators.

Cirrus has yet to expose the system designs, even to customers in waiting.

Mike C.

I have watched this thread with interest and frustration. Here is why it is frustrating for me...

1. NO one knows exactly how this will play out. Evangelizing over and over on mute points does not make "it so".

2. Cirrus is not a traditional player, more of a "disruptor". Same with the SF50. It will not appeal to "logical and traditional" aviators. They have proven this with the SR22, expanding the market to people who want fast personal transport.

As case in point I know a guy who has a position on a SF50. Current SR22 owner. The SF50 seems to fit him perfectly, while a TBM or Mustang does not. Hard to quantify that, but I bet there are others who know similar individuals.

As long as we are speculating, do you think the future holds some kind of electric trainer and then something like a SF50 as the first "high performance" plane? Bypassing pistons all together?

It seems to me the the Eclipse Canada is a good example of how a low cost light jet turns out with two engines instead of one. This is what I see (Eclipse vs. SF50):

Cruise speed: 373 @ 430 vs. 300 @ 280
NBAA IFR range: 1400 vs. 1000 nm
Ceiling: FL 430 vs. 280
Cruise Fuel Flow: 60 vs. 69 gph
Full fuel payload: 614 vs. 400 lbs (?)
Takeoff distance: 2,400 vs. 3,200
Landing distance: 2,880 vs. unknown (1,600 foot ground roll)
Initial climb rate: 3,300 vs. unknown

Not sure how many of those specs are marketing claims versus reality (for both companies).

My opinion as a design engineer is that Cirrus painted themselves into a corner early in the process and have ended up with a severely underpowered aircraft. Nothing wrong with the concept of a single-engine jet in theory, but they need a bigger engine. Cruise speeds are anemic and it flies too low. That doesn't mean it won't be a success.

Nathan

I started flying 10 years ago and 4000 hours. I've never really flown a steam gauge airplane. Never had all panels go dark either. I've never had 1 panel go dark.

Newer planes have backups for the backups even if the plane has only 1 engine.

Part 135 compliance on the SF50 will be a software update down the line. If you can fly single pilot IFR part 135 in a Mooney Bravo with a extra battery, you can eventually do so in a SF50.