Of course they had to let go of that 200KTAS @10gal/hr propaganda
This BS is still placed at the top of the page:
210l fuel capacity is quite poor, should be 300l at least for a good touring aircraft. It seems to be a nature of law that in the aviation industry, you start by making completely unfounded claims about your miracle machine and then either go bust or deliver something that doesn’t go beyond what’s already there.
It doesn’t actually say what flow rate the 198 TAS is achieved at
The FL250 ceiling is very good though! That has never been achieved before (in GA) without turbocharging.
I agree the tanks are too small. I would never trade down from my TB20’s 1300nm range. It’s so useful so often. But an SR22 is similar to the above, AFAIK, and people are happy with that.
“193 KTAS, 65% of 260 HP, FL120 sounds a bit high. Surely some of the Mooney pilots can chime in”
The Ovation does 185 at FL120 on 70% of 280HP. Having said that it’s a good 200kgs heavier.
What is the actual flow rate?
One could guess from the “65%” (about 12 USG/hr) but not reliably.
14.5 at best power.
Nobody flies at best power (130F ROP) unless the airport is about to close 
On the trip to Lucca I tried it at FL140. It yielded TAS=149kt at 11.4 USG/hr which was 15% extra fuel burn for the extra 6.7% TAS. It’s similar at lower levels. Here is another chart
65% (170HP) at 2200rpm is 12.3 GPH. That sounds about right for peak EGT. I normally fly at 11.5 GPH which is slightly LOP and get 138kt IAS.
Well that’s the setting that gives the closest comparable speed (the Ovation flies 50ROP btw). 50LOP is 12.7 on less speed.
the Ovation flies 50ROP btw
That is just wrong no matter how you look at it.
You waste about 5% fuel, working on the top of the power curve so you are getting very little extra power, but you are generating max CHT
BTW I am not sure that best power is 80F ROP as shown above. At high altitude it definitely is about 130F ROP.
If they achieve 193TAS at say 12k feet, on 12.7 GPH, that is absolutely outstanding.
I didn’t say it’s right or wrong – it’s just what the documentation says.
Peter,
it may be wrong for other airframes but that is what Mooney has determined for the Ovation.
The original Ovation will fly around 185 kts @ 14.5-15 GPH, Mooney actually claimed 190 kts during testing. With Economy Power it will do around 175 kts @ 12.7 GPH and with that and standard tanks achieve a range of about 1600 NM. With the optional long range tanks it can do up to 2400 NM. The interesting bit is that the Ovation can actually achieve its max range at pretty close to top speed, not some much lower speed like some other planes.
The Panthera, if it really does these numbers, gets outstanding kt/horsepower, however with a massive endurance penalty with the fuel quantity they can carry. Note: The 1000 NM with 4 people is reached @ 155 kt TAS, so massively throttled back. It will be really interesting to see what it can really do once it is in the hands of actual customers.
That kind of makes me thing of my C Model Mooney has a power setting like that in the book, I never tried it, where you could in theory get some 800 NM out of it but @ about 100 kts TAS and 6 GPH as opposed to the High speed cruise of 150 kt@ 10.1 GPH where it will do 600 NM or 65% cruise of 140 kt @ 8.7 GPH where you can achieve 660 NM. Not many people I know will buy a fast airplane if you have to give 40 or so knots away to achieve the range. So what will the Panthera do at, say, 180 kts, which would be a good compromise between it’s top speed and the eco cruise speed of 155 kts? They may well have to think hard about long range tanks pretty soon, only then they will achive more range but probably as a two seater.
