Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Pipistrel Panthera (combined thread)

He just says that this interesting efficiency has already been seen in the past.
But twin hasn’t been known for efficiency, and we need these new design to have these twin in the field of efficient single. But as well as for the DA42, it has a price, of a ridiculous payload and fuel range… (almost same for DA42). I had a mission from Cannes to Minorca in a CD135 based DA42, and sup fuel is not great…

LFMD, France

Mooney_Driver wrote:

what has IAS got to do with this? A J will do 160KTAS, an F 150 KTAS with that fuel flow roughly. My C will do 150 KTAS run out full out.

IAS vs FF is roughly invariant by altitude fro non-turbo up to 8000ft and 75% power, makes things easier to compare obviously feels slow on paper

TAS you need to tell which altitude you are at….turbo-Mooney will do +200TAS at 36L/h but FL250

Last Edited by Ibra at 21 Jan 09:44
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

They could set up an authorised dealer in the US where the customer could participate in the required 51%, perhaps.

Is it possible to have such a facility outside the US?

I think the key issue there would be the FAA DAR who issues the C of A, and his geographic operating limitations. The kit supplier can be anywhere because it is not part of the ‘airworthiness’ situation under FAA E-AB. The builder is the manufacturer, the kit supplier is just a supplier of uncertified parts to the builder. The only approval FAA issues in relation to kits is in relation to their compliance with the 51% rule to which the builder must comply to remain the legal manufacturer.

I’m guessing Pipistrel would have no any interest regardless, even if occurred to them – they are a European production aircraft manufacturer, not part of the FAA E-AB scene, and then sell only a few planes in the US.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 21 Jan 14:43

This is from the last US AOPA magazine test flight report; not sure if it illuminates the Exp situation

It does almost do 200kt TAS, no altitude given, but only at 16 USG/hr, so this is probably ~85% power.

They commented on the complex gear doors – 11 of them – which seal off the bottom really well.

At 11.5 USG/hr, which is what I fly at when low level, it does 183kt TAS, 8500ft, which is impressive and is about 25kt faster than the TB20! That’s a huge achievement.

They have an interesting “construction” under the cowling, to funnel the cooling air accurately to the six cylinders. This also avoids the troublesome silicone/fabric baffle seals

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The cooling setup is fairly common on homebuilts, and aluminum plenums are used on some production planes. A search on Lycoming cooling plenum will show lots of examples. The downside is the need to remove the plenum to access top spark plugs etc.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 13 Feb 16:26



So if certification is still years away, how can they be deliveringn these factiory-built aircraft to customers in the US shortly?

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

I thought it was sold as an experimental, for now.

EBST, Belgium

Ibra wrote:

turbo-Mooney will do +200TAS at 36L/h but FL250

I tend to not believe this. From all that I’ve read from Mooney Forums, you have to go wayyy rich to go even near that speed marks and not burn up the engine, and that means wayyyy more fuel burn. I’ve read about to double that fuel burn and more! to reach that speed. But I don’t have own experience.

From my own aircraft I may pass over some own experience in summer, but from my experience up to FL140 there is already much less cooling efficiency, and thus you need more fuel to cool the engine, or fly slower. So it seems absolutely viable to me.

Peter wrote:

It does almost do 200kt TAS, no altitude given, but only at 16 USG/hr, so this is probably ~85% power.

In the same light as my other comment, would be very interesting if this is a power estimation, or if this is real experience and “flyable”. As the Turbos of these engines typically have a critical altitude at about FL200, this will be the level for that speed.

If this was in fact a flyable condition, meaning you can in fact fly at this fuel flow and keep the engine cool, it’s a real good achievement. If not, if this was only an estimation, it would be interestingly bad, given the good aerodynamics of the Panthera.

Because from book values I could do 200kt TAS at FL200 at about 14 USG/hr with my Turbo Comanche (given max. continuous Cruise Speed 203KTAS @ 75%), which is a 50 years old aircraft (from an 80 years old design) not anyhow close to the aerodynamics of the Panthera. However, I fear that this will not work due to lack of cooling, so that it’ll be closer to 22Gal, from all that I know, in order to have sufficient cooling in that altitude. Would be interesting, how the comparative values are for the Panthera.

Peter wrote:

At 11.5 USG/hr, which is what I fly at when low level, it does 183kt TAS, 8500ft

I can do and have already flown 175KTAS at 13.5 USG/hr in that altitude. And any C-Comanche without Turbo should do that, too. Again, not such a big step, given the aesthetically good aerodynamics of the Panthera. It sums up to about 20% increase in efficiency over the Comanche at that given speed, which is quite a bit (but then, on the other hand, you have the payload and six seats of the Comanche). Would be very interesting to compare fuel flow at 150KTAS at or below FL100, that’s where the Comanche has one of it’s sweet spots, because you can go LOP and still have a cool engine.

Another interesting topic will be ice handling. The high quality laminar foil wing might not handle ice very well – but TKS will solve that.

Well enough said. It really looks exciting, to me it looks way better than the Cirrus.

Last Edited by UdoR at 21 Apr 09:57
Germany

airways wrote:


I thought it was sold as an experimental, for now.

As per my posts 15 and 18, this is not supported by FAA regs for a factory built aircraft in this category.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 21 Apr 13:53

So if certification is still years away, how can they be deliveringn these factiory-built aircraft to customers in the US shortly?

I assume by following the same process that ended up with a CASA Experimental Exhibition certificate for VH-BEL.

FAR 21.191b does not exclude 100% factory builds – otherwise a large number of European (factory) produced gliders would never get an EE certificate in the US.

T28
Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top