Mooney_Driver wrote:
At the same, we should not forget that this still is an uncertified airplane on a special permit.
We’ll see if it’s going to change by the end of this year – certification is scheduled for 2022.
@aidanf123, one DEL-120 demo was conducted by a US UAV manufacturer, to demonstrate that its possible to replace the Thielert with an engine design that is US owned/produced. After that the program went in another direction, and the info on the net indicating otherwise is incorrect (as per my post above).
UdoR wrote:
In FL100 I’ve done 175 true at 14 GPH. But that is rich of peak. Should be ~172 at 8000ft.I think a Comanche 260 should be able to provide ~170 true on 11 GPH LOP, if engine cooling is redone to factory new. I typically cruise on 150 true on 9 GPH and keep the temperatures low.
I was a bit surprised at the POH values I found. I wonder if it is the same subtype of airplane. Sometimes there are differences. If you have a PDF POH I’d be happy to get it for my library.
The other bit which makes this whole exercise quite arbitrary is the 8000 ft comparison, based on a single screenshot of the Panthera. I would like much better to be able to do a full comparison using a POH. Each airplane has got it’s best performance on quite different altitudes. Doing comparisons on one particular altitude always produces unsatisfactory results.
Emir wrote:
We’ll see if it’s going to change by the end of this year – certification is scheduled for 2022.
I wish them all the best. In every way possible it is a very interesting airplane.
We simply still know very few real hard data on it. You get snippets of information, like the above sceenshots and on their website but while this is marketing stuff, I still lack the ability to do a full performance evaluation using a POH.
They do claim
198 KTAS (366.7 km/h) at FL 080 for over 1,000 nmi (1,852 km) with a 14.8 gph (56 L/h) fuel burn.
which is considerably higher than the fuel flow indicated in the screenshot of 10.9 GPH! On the other hand, 14.8 GPH sounds a lot more realistic and compares to similar equipped airplanes.
Taking into account the 55 USG fuel capacity, that is a net 3-45 endurance at 14.8 GPH which, with 45 mins endurance would come to 600 NM range, not 1000. At 10.9 GPH obviously it is basically a 4-15 airplane with resreve, which means a VFR range of 800 NM. Still 200 NM short of 1000 NM. So currently the figures just don’t match.
We all know that it is easy to produce screenshots with very favorable figures, e.g. level off from a descent and catch the moment before speed decays and you need to add power in order to keep the speed. Not saying that was the case here, but it’s been known to be done in “bragging right” shots all over the place. Mooneyacs are particularly fond of such stuff. I prefer printed paper, even though a lot of that is also marketing b.s.
If you ever get access to some POH, particularly the performance section, I would be very interested indeed.
Mark Pilkington has just released a video with a US based Panthera:
Seeing it taxi out, I can‘t help but think how ugly this thing is.
Hat… coat…
Seeing it taxi out, I can‘t help but think how ugly this thing is.
The list of ugly things in aviation is long but this plane is definitely not on it. I don’t see anything ugly on it.
The IO540 version is flying around – at LDLO last week
