Also, there is a marked difference between reading someone’s informed opinion (even if it might differ from your own), and just getting rehashed marketing blurb with nice pictures. E.g. there is no car magazine left on Germany that isn’t full of the latter – which makes it pointless to read them. If I want manufacturer’s numbers I just go and look at their website, thank you very much…
Maybe I’m just too colored by my profession (marketing) to see any honesty anywhere. 
I read the full article and it seemed a fairly straightforward piece. Positive but they didn’t ask any critical questions, i.e. standard aviation magazine kind of stuff.
A monthly mag which tears everything apart will last exactly 1 month…
Agree. Like it or not, for critical reviews and uncomfortable truths, (non-advert) internet forums have taken that place.
Not always reliably, however. There seems to be an amazing number of people on the internet who completely make stuff up.
A while ago I had a reason to investigate some claims which were quite important because they related to something I was doing on my plane. They were posted by a then well known aviation journalist. I even spoke to his avionics shop about these jobs, which they denied ever doing. I eventually concluded that he completely made it all up. Yet it was quite specific stuff… bizzare motivation! One could understand somebody lying about having an IR or an ATPL (I’ve met some of both) because that gives you street cred while being relatively unverifiable…
A monthly mag which tears everything apart will last exactly 1 month…
Agree. That was my point too. I know it’s all BS and niceties, but what is the option? The truth is such a subjective parameter…
PS. Thx for the docs Peter.
Came to think of the film “Shattered Glass”, featuring the story of journalist Stephen Glass who spent three years making up most of his “stories” in a newspaper… :)
Ok, I managed to read the first 2.5 pages before giving it up.
Surely aviation journalism isn’t always this bland or useless?
Surely aviation journalism isn’t always this bland or useless?
Hopefully.
Ok, I managed to read the first 2.5 pages before giving it up.
I read it all. Still I know nothing useful about this aeroplane.
Wide, well lit cabin, good seats
Seats are adjustable fore-aft only. Even a Cessna 152 has seats that can be adjusted up and down as well as for the seat back angle.
Top of instrument panel lines up with horizon at cruise
And how is that going to work for pilots of different size if the seats cannot be adjusted for height?
177kt TAS at 75% power, FL075
Which means full throttle at this altitude with 2700 RPM. Basically, he maintained the takeoff power setting and looked what speed he got at this altitude. No mention about the fuel flow and no mention of the values for a reasonable cruise power setting.
195-200kt TAS expected with 260 HP IO540
Again, flat out I suppose.
Very stable, good for IFR
Almost no mention in the article about the IFR capabilites and avionics fit, which for me would be the most important prerequisite for “good IFR”. Nothing at all about the systems. How are gear, flaps and trims operated – electric? hydraulic? mechanical? Who knows. Any backup systems? (Apart from the standby instruments that are mentioned in an image caption). Does it have rudder and/or aileron trim?
35kt gain by retracting gear & flaps
Again: Who cares. A 1965 Piper Arrow will probably give similar figure if only someone would care to try.
380kg payload on IO540 version, with full fuel
Who can know that, there is not even a prototype built with this engine.
What next…you having a bad day ? 
The guy who wrote the test is called Christian Briand, who amongst other things:
“….spent 19 years as an EADS Socata test pilot (7 years as chief test pilot) – during which he logged more than 19,000 flight hours, over 6,000 of which were logged on test flights…”Perhaps you could drop him a line, tell him what a disgrace his article was, and offer an explanation of how it should be done
Those are all valid points by what’s next… The “why you should buy this aircraft” section is still a big blank.
