Well, there is only one “economy cruise”, once high enough for WOT (wide open throttle): peak EGT, or LOP. Peak EGT is the fastest, going LOP just makes you fly slower and any MPG gain comes from flying slower 
You can get a small 2nd order effect with a low RPM, say 2200, used together with LOP.
If you want max power (max speed), then again, once high enough for WOT, it is simply max RPM and something like 100-150F ROP.
In between the above two positions, there are various ideas like the Carson speed.
A fixed gear Columbia reaches these speeds with this fuel flow, doesn’t it ?
I think the Panthera is a good example how such developments turn out. They, as any project, follow the same kind of pattern as most projects. Hype, Enthusiasm, Disillusionment (changing the IO390 for the IO540 e.t.c), selling the failures as success (well, it did not make the figures but we actually are still building it and are not bancrupt) to another market entry which is not much different than any other.
I am not gonna even mention that there are planes with better performance with similar engine power… But I guess the Panthera has the shute, so maybe it will be the first real competitor for Cirrus in years.
Maybe posted earlier, sorry for that in that case (moderator please delete if so!), but…..some pretty aggressive flying going on here…
Something looks off here
Peter wrote:
Still, 14kt speed difference is a HUGE efficiency gain, at those speeds.
But it is not relevant for sales. Experience shows that the bulk of the market never goes for the very fastest aircraft in its class, IF it comes with too many compromises on other sides. And to me, the seating and the visibility straight ahead simply seem too sportscar-like for this product to capture a significant part of the market.
but the side and downward visibility is spectacular !!boscomantico wrote:
visibility straight ahead simply seem too sportscar-like for this product to capture a significant part of the market.
Snoopy wrote:
Something looks off here
What do you mean?
The 15 deg ND?
The 2.6 Gload?
The inaccurate wind measurement in t he abnormal manoeuvre?
The high descent rate?
All rather normal when you are flying abnormal attitudes…or am I missing something?
FWIW I say hats off to Pipistrel for venturing one of the very few high-performing and potentially accessible piston aircraft in the certified world in the last three decades.
Inarguably beautiful
Despite the numbers question marks, very efficient and performing
NA engine: simple to maintain
Structural maintainability by design
Practical load carrying and travelling abilities
Retractable LDG: as sexy as it gets, aircraft were meant to fly without undue earth-bound protuberances: no liability-driven shyness
Fwd vis not ideal? What’s that got to do with sales.There are rudder pedals for that if you need them.
The community criticised Cirrus for putting all the bets on the parachute and this aircraft clearly solves that.
Expected support and practicalities would worry me more and this is the front Pipistrel should fight strongly. The sports-car concept may give second thoughts to family-minded buyers, but a Cirrus is not so different in that respect: buy a Cessna 210 if a family SUV is what you are after.
Sure, there will be teething issues with the airplane and the road to a TC is being lengthier and more difficult than they ever planned, but in my view Pipistrel deserve all our support for their courage.
Luck favors the bold.
Antonio wrote:
All rather normal when you are flying abnormal attitudes…or am I missing something?
To me the AI is „stuck“ or lagging and isn’t displaying correctly compared to outside picture.
