Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Pipistrel Panthera (combined thread)

In fact, flying across borders in europe is not that difficult within ECAC.
US homebuilds can travel to foreign countries too, they just require a bit more prep. But US pilots in general seldom leave their country, experimental or not.
Exemple here

LFOU, France

Sure; one can get the permits before flying. And sometimes you don’t need them e.g. UK-France.

But imagine the sort of trip one might want to do with this plane. UK to Croatia would be a nice one. You have to sort out permits from Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia. Some of these may not need one. Practically, almost nobody will bother; they just fly That’s OK provided nothing goes badly wrong and you don’t p1ss off somebody “big”.

The other big one is IFR. I used to do trips like that VFR but it is a considerable hassle, and most people spending bigger part of 1M will probably have an IR, or be working towards one. On the UK LAA system it is possible to get IFR approved (though I am told that process has ground to a halt, due to lack of resources) but even when you have that, every country you overfly has to issue you with a permit for IFR in a homebuilt. Good luck with that… I know a guy who used to have an RV which he got IFR approved and he embarked on getting the IFR permits but he has sold up and got out of flying and I don’t know how far he got.

One issue Pipistrel will have is setting up the “51% owner built” system. They will need a US facility supporting this. Few Americans will want to travel to Europe and hang out here for some weeks. Of course the 51% is a joke on any nontrivial plane, like it was a joke on the Evolution or the Epic, but it is a charade which one has to go through.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Jujupilote wrote:

US homebuilds can travel to foreign countries too, they just require a bit more prep. But US pilots in general seldom leave their country, experimental or not.

Flying an amateur built aircraft to Canada requires only notification, that was covered under treaty some years ago. Mexico is theoretically more complicated but in practice their laws are not enforced and US E-AB fly there without any additional process. I’m not sure about Bahamas. All of the above is a daily occurrence.

The first homebuilt to circumnavigate the world was Don Taylor’s T-18, N455DT in 1976.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 09 Sep 14:21

I wish Pipistrel well, but the biggest hurdle they will have to clear in the US is the insurance situation. Requirements have recently tightened significantly and getting this type – RG and unknown, from an underwriters POV – insured will be a major issue.

As for the range. While more is always a good thing, I don’t think that’s a huge issue in the US. Most people don’t like to fly more than about 2 – 3 hours in any SEP and there is no shortage of refueling (both airplane and crew) options here, except some very remote locations.

Antonio wrote:

As to the “massive range issue” let’s face it: not all of us fly six hour trips happily like @Peter likes to do (yes I do too).

Well, looking at flight test reports and other such things, the 500 NM distance appears to be one which many expect of a plane like that. That is 500 NM from departure to destination, plus the capability for alternate and final reserve.

The Panthera has a fuel capacity of 55 US gallons. I have not been able to find if this is usable or not, normally I’d expect about 2 USG to be unusable. Remain 53 USG
Taking a final reserve of 45 minutes and taxi fuel which results in about 10 USG. Remain 43 USG.
Climb would do away with another 3 USG maybe on top of the level distance, remain 40 USG.

looking at the figures of 13 GPH and 183 kts, the whole endurance would be around 550 NM, including diversion, and a total flight time of 3 hours. .

So that would be a 500 NM trip plus a 50 NM diversion. That may well work for central Europe but it will be very critical for anything beyond that, e.g. Southern Europe or let alone trips to Italy or Greece where you want to avoid fuelling or where no fuel is available. For a trainer or puddle jumper such as C172’s which have similar ranges, that is fine, for a travel machine, it is imho totally inadequate. The market does also show this: Most travellers have ranges between 700 and 900 NM, many have more. I guess the tank was originally made for the IO390, which has a much lower fuel consumption, hence the fantasy figures of 1000 NM range with 55 USG, but now there is a totally different beast up front. Which to me means they need to work on this for the certified version or they will deliver arguments for the competition.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

AVWeb/Consumer Magazine video on the Panthera:

https://www.avweb.com/multimedia/flight-trial-pipistrels-sleek-panthera

Or if they re-arrange the site again:

EHLE, Netherlands

Mooney_Driver wrote:

The Panthera has a fuel capacity of 55 US gallons. I have not been able to find if this is usable or not, normally I’d expect about 2 USG to be unusable. Remain 53 USG
Taking a final reserve of 45 minutes and taxi fuel which results in about 10 USG. Remain 43 USG.
Climb would do away with another 3 USG maybe on top of the level distance, remain 40 USG.

looking at the figures of 13 GPH and 183 kts, the whole endurance would be around 550 NM, including diversion, and a total flight time of 3 hours. .

- in the video they stated that 90 gallon tanks are an option -

Not onaidanf123 wrote:

- in the video they stated that 90 gallon tanks are an option -

Not only that, that option comes with a 100lbs increase in MTOW, so earlier complaints about range seem unfounded. Probably no STOl aircraft at 3000lbs gross, but makes very long trips with two male plus two female adults and some luggage possible.

Antonio
LESB, Spain

When they’ve built one aircraft with 90 USG fuel capacity and when they’ve certified that aircraft at the necessary gross weight, is when you can order one, pay for it and fly it. As it is it’s an interesting prototype, in work.

The advantage of high fuel capacity is that you can go somewhere a long way away… and back, returning without refueling, possibly picking up passengers while you’re there. Not every place you’d want to go has fuel.

I like the control stick where it is and flight controls that apparently make the thing pleasant to fly. That comment in the video surprised me given the high aspect ratio wing, and many planes like this are boring as bat shit, or so it seems to me. I’m still trying to get my head around a modern plane in which you can’t see where you’re going in several phases of flight. It seems to me that will eventually need a solution, it’d be a no go for me. OK if it were a Pitts, not for this.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 26 Sep 01:57

achimha wrote:

In 2019, you can buy a 2 year old Panthera for 300k€.
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top