What’s wrong with harrass ’n here ? 
Michael wrote:
On the other hand, I suspect that any ONE of those attributes IS attainable, maybe even two, just NOT ALL four at the same time …
According to http://www.panthera-aircraft.com/technical-data
three of them are attainable, however severely sacrificing speed (200→155KTAS).
The realistic scenario (IO-390 @ 65% , 173KTAS@[email protected]) results in perhaps 800NM range.
395kg full fuel load will realistically become 380?, still OK for 4people on board. (no FIKI, air conditioning?)
IO-540 variant not so good … but the only one to be certified :-(
They got shafted with the MOGAS certification of the engine :-(
Forward visibility seems to be terrible.
Icing sensitivity probably quite bad …
I hope this birds turns out to be great and people will buy it in great numbers … this is how modern aircraft should look like …
“Fly 4 people
for 1000NM
cruising at 200 KTS
with 10 gallons per hour. Finally”
Of course it is not possible to achieve all of those.
For example none of the “200kt TAS” SEPs will achieve anywhere near their sales brochure range while doing 200kt because they need to be flying some 150F ROP to get that which is about 20% more fuel than peak EGT or LOP.
I think the Panthera can do 1000nm easily. An with a 250HP IO540 it should do 200kt TAS too. At 10GPH, maybe 170-180kt TAS (FL100).
I have sat inside it. It has a much smaller cockpit volume than e.g. my TB20 and even that can do 155kt TAS (at 10.5GPH, ~FL100).
You can always make a plane go fast by making it displace a small amount of air. But the Panthera is also much more aerodynamic than most.
What concerns me is that it will never get certified – like so many others. Pipistrel’s core business is the range of lightweight aircraft and they need to keep that selling. I think the Panthera is a bit of a flight of fancy for them. I would not have thought that 3 years ago, but they have made no visible progress with it. They need to forget the uncertified versions (nobody pays that much money for uncertified planes) and go for performance. Look at Cirrus – they even advertise the SR22 as “lead generator” which some Europeans may find distasteful, but they have been very successful selling a plane which burns a lot of avgas to go fast.
Of course it is not possible to achieve all of those.
Especially with enough wing that it can also climb quickly. One published Pipistrel flight test bordered on saying the climb rate and angle were unacceptable, 600 fpm or something at well over 100 kts, with non-challenging density altitude and load. Another test then says climb out was 1000 fpm. It’d be interesting to talk with somebody who has actually flown the plane. 250 HP will help regardless, even if it decreases payload.
esteban wrote:
According to http://www.panthera-aircraft.com/technical-data
three of them are attainable, however severely sacrificing speed (200→155KTAS).
Do you really BELIEVE this Marketing BS ?
Once again, no 3 (let alone 4) of the attributes will be attained at the same time !
Balls to the wall @ lightest weight conceivable, it MIGHT do 200K TAS with 250HP, but seriously doubt it with 210Hp;
The advertised empty Vs MTOW weights are fantasy at best and real-world equipped planes WILL weigh-in significantly higher;
Sure you can lean it out and go high to bring the fuel burn down to @ 10Gal/H but as stated the TAS might be 155KTAS but not any where near MTOW …
Sure you can lean it out and go high to bring the fuel burn down to @ 10Gal/H but as stated the TAS might be 155KTAS but not any where near MTOW …
I probably have a photo showing 155 TAS at 10 GPH or similar, and that is with a plane which has probably 2x the cockpit volume and contains 53% of the pop rivets made in France since 1982
Peter wrote:
I probably have a photo showing 155 TAS at 10 GPH or similar, and that is with a plane which has probably 2x the cockpit volume and contains 53% of the pop rivets made in France since 1982
Are you claiming this is a standard datapoint for a TB20 or was it a result of some abnormal circumstances….like descending against a strong mountain wave updraft?!
Michael wrote:
it MIGHT do 200K TAS with 250HP, but seriously doubt it with 210Hp;
Michael, with all due respect, would you mind actually checking the stats before giving opinion? They state max speed as 187kts for the 210bhp version and 205 for the 260bhp version.
I agree that the stated ambitions for the plane when the project was started are unlikely to be met, but are the stats that unrealistic? It is not THAT far from the numbers for a 1977 Mooney and I understand that the Virus does deliver 140kts on 100bhp in the real world. Sure they state 147, but if you knock 15kts off the Panthera numbers, it is still pretty impressive.
mmgreve wrote:
Michael, with all due respect, would you mind actually checking the stats before giving opinion? They state max speed as 187kts for the 210bhp version and 205 for the 260bhp version.
I am talking about those marketing figures. BS, for a fully certified aircraft @ 75%.
mmgreve wrote:
but if you knock 15kts off the Panthera numbers, it is still pretty impressive.
’Bout the same as a Lancair Columbia 300 with the gear down
But that’s not the point – the OP said THREE of the advertised specs, at the same time.
The cruise speed is only one.
Are you claiming this is a standard datapoint for a TB20 or was it a result of some abnormal circumstances….like descending against a strong mountain wave updraft?!
Normal, FL100 or so. I posted the pics here a number of times. I can’t look for them now because I have way over 100GB of photos, unclassified except by date. IAS would be about 140.
My point is that the Panthera should improve on that a lot. If you sit in it, you can see how much less cockpit volume it has, and that is the #1 factor.
