Indeed Florian. In (or is that on?) Absurdistan, you can have the SF be a complete commercial flop AND it still clog the airways. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Actually, people who REALLY are lacking intelligence are the ones comparing a 75 years old piston twin to a brand new jet.

Park that SF50 next to the Howard 500 and we'll have a contest of which gets the gold standard of cool.

you've convinced me. Will they be taking deposits are the howard booth at oshkosh this year? I assume the cirrus booth will be deserted as people wait to talk to a howard rep ?

Nice illustration which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why don't you compare SF50 to a Concorde instead? It's 70th technology, and look how much faster it goes.

Jason,

Do you avoid DPs and STARs VFR when it makes sense?

Oh no now you've gone a done it. A 300 knot jet flying VFR - minding his own business with a blocked tail number.... Pro pilots and wannabees will be protesting in agony over this no doubt.

Helping push this thread to 200 pages...

Peace,
Don

This makes perfect sense to me and may add "speed" to the SF50.

Oh no now you've gone a done it. A 300 knot jet flying VFR - minding his own business with a blocked tail number.... Pro pilots and wannabees will be protesting in agony over this no doubt.

Helping push this thread to 200 pages...

Peace,
Don

Piping in with what I hope is helpful. Airliners generally speaking are climbing to altitude out of busy airspace at 1800-2,500'/minute doing ~200-250-KIAS down low getting faster as altitude increases. Obviously all numbers above and below are on approximate and don't take into account GW, temp's etc. Please be forgiving of my "facts".

Climb rates:
Speeds: 250 ias. to 10,000 ft.
Speeds: Mach .50-.60 from 10,000 ft. to 16,000 ft.
Speeds: Mach .60-.79 from 18,000 ft. to 31,000 ft.
Speeds: Mach .80 above 31,000 ft. 91% N1

So while I love my TBM and it's climb rate it's speed in the climb doesn't compare to the above. When I'm in congested airspace they keep me low for 50-100nm to keep my sorry/slow/a$$ out of the way of the airliners that would chew me up and spit me out. [Heck Aubie will probably chew my tail feathers off in that 70 yr old twin. You guys know Aubie is a twin, right?] I don't have to like it but I'd rather have ATC watching out for me and burn a little more fuel down low for a while than go VFR to 17.5. But that's just me.

The SF will also "be in the way" for the same reason most of us are, i.e. including many Slowtations and particularly the Cessna Mustang. No offense to any of the above as I'd like to fly them all. Including the SF. I hope it is a resounding success. Spells an economy that is grooving again. That's what I hope for when I look at the kids and grand kids. Opportunity to succeed.

Now if my wife wins the Powerball maybe the Citation X we'd buy could stay out of the way sufficiently to climb in NY, DC or LAX airspace. Someone else will have to chime in here.

Oh no now you've gone a done it. A 300 knot jet flying VFR - minding his own business with a blocked tail number.... Pro pilots and wannabees will be protesting in agony over this no doubt.

Helping push this thread to 200 pages...

Peace,
Don

I live under and fly in and out of ATL class B almost every single day of my life. I've never, ever, ever had an issue with any of what you wrote.

"in the way"? Why do you feel they own the sky? I'm a taxpayer too. They can go around me. Not my problem.

On what, 200 gph of 115/145?

Vfr Pickups in a 91 Jet operation are common. Properly executed VFR flight with TCAS is not tremendously different than IFR.

On what, 200 gph of 115/145?