That’s obviously TAS … at what altitude?
TAS, yes all of these figures.
Altitude: The Ovation 10-12k ft. The C Model at optimum altitude of about 8000-10’000 ft.
Panthera: As per your screenshot. FL120 for the long range cruise.
210liters are 55 USG of which maybe 54 usable.
1000 NM @ 155 kt would mean 6.5 hrs. Add 45 mins of reserve: 7.25 hours. Would mean they need to achieve an average fuel flow of 7.4 GPH.
I am sceptical: 7.4 GPH with this engine?
As a comparison the Ovation will burn on average a just a tad above 10 gph on a 1000nm stretch flown at 45% best power settings, 155 TAS and 11’500. I’m pretty sure the Pantera range is a no reserve range.
~55USG is not enough for an IO540, for a usable range for European touring, IMHO.
Of course pilots who limit their flights to their bladder endurance will disagree. Forum folklore suggests there are lots of them, but are they really the market for IFR tourers in Europe?
One can make it work, but the operating profile will be very different to what we are used to.
My IO540-C4 (250HP) burns 12GPH for 65% at low level, peak EGT. I normally fly at 11.5GPH which is slightly LOP and I get ~140kt TAS. So if you fly around at say 2000ft, you will get 4.5hrs endurance, at (I am guessing) 180kt TAS. That is a very impressive speed at such a low level but your zero-fuel range is just 800nm. Not bad though for the low level profile, where people are doing mostly short flights.
Higher up, one goes down to 8.0GPH at say FL170. So an IO540 can run on that fuel flow, at peak EGT. But that is FL170. How often do you fly at FL170? Only if you have to to remain VMC on top, and it’s oxygen for everybody.
More typically, in reasonable wx, say FL100-120 for reasonable Eurocontrol routings, one is burning ~10.5 GPH for peak EGT. If one was burning 7.4GPH, the engine would be barely running and at best would be very rough.
So, no, 7.4GPH is not viable. It is probably about right for FL220, but then you will need best-power (130F ROP) which would be ~9GPH 
Add 45 mins of reserve: 7.25 hours.
I wonder how many marketing people use that. At one end you have the “zero fuel” range – which I rather like because in Europe the reserve needed varies hugely according to where you are going (in Greece for example you have a choice of Corfu, Sitia, Iraklion, Samos and …? And Italy is not much better). At the other end you have the NBAA calculation ostensibly used for light jets. In between you have the “FAA legal” one of destination, then alternate (how far away is the alternate??? – not specified ) and then 45 mins, which is IMHO nowhere near enough for most cases.
Well if in the general population people with “small bladders” are the majority, it stands to reason that they’re likely to be in majority in the IFR population too :) plus this is supposed to be a hobby – something we enjoy – i’m not quite sure how many people regardless of bladder size enjoy being strapped in relative discomfort for more than five hours… Sure, there are gaping holes in the avgas distribution system, but it’s easier to fix that and tanker fuel by land rather than designing a flying tanker…
it’s easier to fix that and tanker fuel by land rather than designing a flying tanker…
How would you do that?
Pre-positioning avgas in drums is a massively expensive exercise.
OTOH if the Panthera achieves a “sales brochure” 1000nm+ zero-fuel range somehow (even at a much lower speed than its headline figures) that will be OK. The Cirruses have sold very well in Europe. And the headline range of a TB20 is only 1100nm (not sure how they worked that out).
I didn’t mean pre-positioning. I meant either local authorities realise that they stand to draw more visitors by sponsoring a proper avgas station (not very likely), GA switches to Diesel engines (equally not very likely) – or European GA “touring” and GA in general withers and dies off (quite likely).
I agree.
I have never seen an instance of where an existing airport started carrying avgas because it was “obvious” they will get more visitors.
Airport management doesn’t seem to be motivated by traffic volume – bizzarely.
Peter,
55USG is not enough for an IO540, for a usable range for European touring, IMHO.
For an IO540 not. Not even for a IO390 as it has been planned before. 55 USG would be enough for a Thielert Diesel, but those on the market won’t get them the speed they want. Yet, a 160-170 kt Diesel would have had it’s customers, of that I am sure.
The bladder endurance may be a problem for some, but then if so, then they either should get a bottle (and practice it’s use at home, especcially if there are women involved) or then really go for as fast planes as possible in order to get anywhere within the “normal” bladder Range of about 3-4 hours. If they need a leak more often than that the problem might be better discussed with an urologist…
Speed is the essence when it comes to range unless one can stand the rather small cabins for prolonged periods of time. The faster the better. Als, the faster the airplane, the less is the wind influence.
A 200 kt airplane will fly 1000 NM in 5 hours in still air and in 5:36 with a 20 kts headwind, loosing 36 minutes.
A 180 kt airplane will fly 1000 NM in 5:34 in still air and in 6:15 with a 20 kts headwind, loosing 42 minutes.
A 150 kt airplane will fly 1000 NM in 6.40 in still air and in 7:41 with a 20 kts headwind, loosing 61 minutes.
A 130 kt airplane will fly 1000 NM in 7:42 in still air and in 9:06 with a 20 kts headwind loosing 84 minutes.
So the Panthera…. If it flies at max speed of 193 kts using 65% power which from your table would mean about 14.8 gph, it could realistically fly 560 NM plus 45 mins reserve.
If it reaches 193 kts @ 14.8 GPH and 155 @ 7.5 GPH (calculated at what it needs to do in order to do the 1000 NM @ 155 kts) , we can assume it would use about 10 GPH with 165 kts.
Using 10 GPH, with 54 USG total and 7.5 reserve for 45 minutes remain 46.5 USG then it can realistically do about 750 NM Overhead/Overhead in still air 650 NM with 20 kts head.
If they want it to do 1000 NM with 155 kts, it will be able to do approximately 800 NM with a 20 kt head wind.
So marketing plays number games just like we do here. Now they have to actually do it and show the proof before I believe their claims.
And if they want to sell it with a true range of 1000 NM, they need a lot more fuel capacity.
Tactically that is a very questionable move. You can always up estimates but having to admit you were just bragging will not help with sales.
Which is a pity – the additional investment compared to the total fixed costs is marginal. A self-serve tank with a credit card terminal can’t possibly that expensive (esp. in places like Greece) and at 40 cents / liter margin doesn’t take long to pay for. AOPA would be well advised to lobby small and mid airports for this….
Only hope resides with the manufacturers doing the courageous thing and switching to diesel. After all as a Saudi energy minister was saying in the 80’es “the stone age didn’t end for lack of stone”.
