Pipistrel Panthera - The perfect airplane?

[flyingcheesehead]

Looking at this airplane at Oshkosh again this year, I just can't help but think... What's the catch?

Aside from it being owned by Textron, who is not known for being particularly successful with piston GA in the last 20 years, it seems like this is as close to the perfect airplane as one can get.

It has more ramp appeal than any other new airplane IMO. Very sleek and sexy. It also appears to have a view of the outside that is maybe almost as good as the DA40, which is so good it doesn't even feel like you're flying in an airplane.

It's even faster and more efficient than my Mooney. 180+ knots on 11.5 gph. And it has a nice wide cabin too - 52" at the shoulder, I measured it myself. (Yes, I carry a small tape measure in my pocket pretty much all the time.) And a HUGE back seat. And direct entry to 3 of the 4 seats, with a similar setup to the DA40 with a back door on one side.

Modern avionics, but it's all the retrofit stuff (G3X, GFC500, etc) instead of the "Integrated" stuff, so you can upgrade it in the future without factory approval.

It's got a chute. It's got 1100 pounds of useful load. It's not certified yet, but they said they expect that to be done in a year and the certified version to cost $800,000 euro so it's cheaper than a Cirrus and will outrun it on less fuel with a bigger cabin.

In a world where the laws of physics apply to everyone, and every airplane design seems to have compromises... I just can't find any on this thing. Has Pipistrel finally invented the perfect airplane?

 

[NordicDave]

Last time we saw miracle specs like this was the Raptor Aircraft.

Raptor Aircraft Raptor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Katamarino]

The difference is that the Panthera is real and multiple airframes have now been flying for multiple years.

 

[Dana]

Only to those willing and able to spend close to a million dollars for an airplane.

 

[Jim K]

It's pretty awesome, no doubt. The question is if textron has the will to push it through certification and actually build it. The cessna 400 was also a modern, efficient airplane...

How does it compare to the DA50? I haven't looked seriously at these planes because I'm not in the market, but it seems that would be the closest competitor.

 

[donjohnston]

$800k for a single engine experimental???

And direct entry to 3 of the 4 seats

After you climb up on the wing. That's not my definition of "direct entry".

And I have a difficult time taking aircraft specs seriously when advertise altitudes as "FL80" for 8,000'.

 

[Pugs]

Ohh flight level 80

 

[Witmo]

$800k for a single engine experimental???


After you climb up on the wing. That's not my definition of "direct entry".

And I have a difficult time taking aircraft specs seriously when advertise altitudes as "FL80" for 8,000'.

You do realize the transition level in Europe is as low as 3000 feet so anything above is a FL.

 

[cowtowner]

I tried to buy one a couple of years ago before textron bought them. If they haven’t changed their staff overseeing it, it will never get built.

 

[asicer]

Modern avionics, but it's all the retrofit stuff (G3X, GFC500, etc) instead of the "Integrated" stuff, so you can upgrade it in the future without factory approval.

Not quite.

It's not certified yet, but they said they expect that to be done in a year

I believe they've been saying that for quite some time now.

 

[kyleb]

Looking at this airplane at Oshkosh again this year, I just can't help but think... What's the catch?

1) You can't buy one.
2) It has retracts.
3) It would be interesting to sit in it and check the over the nose/forward visibility.
4) Do the back seats work for real people? Has anyone climbed in the back of one?

The first two are real. The second two are TBD as far as I know.

 

[SebIp]

It was never a issue of the annoyance of existing GA airframe existing cause of some unmovable law of physics.

Most of the issues with GA is that we mostly can only afford old planes.

So what’s the catch? For most people the price.

 

[MountainDude]

It's pretty awesome, no doubt. The question is if textron has the will to push it through certification and actually build it. The cessna 400 was also a modern, efficient airplane...

How does it compare to the DA50? I haven't looked seriously at these planes because I'm not in the market, but it seems that would be the closest competitor.

DA50 does not have a BRS (the chute), which makes it non-competitive, just like Cessna TT.

 

[Tusayan]

It would be interesting to sit in it and check the over the nose/forward visibility.

Been there done that and it has little. It’s a bit ridiculous if you like to see where you’re going, but like the Ryan NYP it’s part of the compromise to reach the performance goal. The plane as originally envisioned was a way to get high performance with a small engine that could burn auto fuel in Europe. That’s gone by the wayside and the plane ended up being a technology demonstrator.

In the real world market for $1M planes, which is mostly in the US, buyers want utility not max efficiency.

 

[Clip4]

The t-tail design of this airplane is not likely to provide the controllability most pilots are accustomed. The plane looks like a nightmare waiting to happen in ice as displayed.

1193 useful load less 530# full full = 663#. Minus #55 for a known ice package for this plane, which is required unless you only want to fly IFR in summer, = 608#. Then subtract for some other customer options.

The door gull wing door design doesn’t look quality. The gear door to surface clearance is a plus. Maneuverabilty during taxi is a big question.

 

[kyleb]

The t-tail design of this airplane is not likely to provide the controllability most pilots are accustomed. The plane looks like a nightmare waiting to happen in ice as displayed.

1193 useful load less 530# full full = 663#. Minus #55 for a known ice package for this plane, which is required unless you only want to fly IFR in summer, = 608#. Then subtract for some other customer options.

The door gull wing door design doesn’t look quality. The gear door to surface clearance is a plus. Maneuverabilty during taxi is a big question.

530 pounds of full fuel. Who’s gonna need that on a family trip? Nobody. Figure 4.5 hours x 12 gph x 6 lbs/gal = 325 lbs. Use the other 200 pounds for people and stuff and still enjoy 700 NM legs.

 

[Racerx]

The useful load argument doesn't hold water for me. A late model Saratoga has a useful load of around 1100 pounds. And a full fuel payload of 513 lbs....for 6 seats.

 

[Cluemeister]

At the time I looked, no a/c or TKS. Is that coming on the certified version?

 

[Jim K]

DA50 does not have a BRS (the chute), which makes it non-competitive, just like Cessna TT.

Google turns up several articles saying a chute is optional on the da50, but I can't find it on diamond's site.

 

[kaiser]

I want to say Paul Bertorelli did a test flight video some where on the you tubes... it looked pretty neato.

 

[Racerx]

I want to say Paul Bertorelli did a test flight video some where on the you tubes... it looked pretty neato.

He's got a couple on the Panthera. The first from 2011!

This one's more recent.

 

[FORANE]

Eh, I'd get a IVPT and use acquisition the cost savings to pay for fuel.
Guess I'm not the target buyer.

 

[donjohnston]

You do realize the transition level in Europe is as low as 3000 feet so anything above is a FL.

You do realize this was in Oshkosh… in Wisconsin… is the US, right? And they’re owned by Textron.

 

[cowtowner]

The back seat is HUGE. As big as my F150

 

[Clip4]

530 pounds of full fuel. Who’s gonna need that on a family trip? Nobody. Figure 4.5 hours x 12 gph x 6 lbs/gal = 325 lbs. Use the other 200 pounds for people and stuff and still enjoy 700 NM legs.

How many new airplanes do you think are being sold today to pilots with families?

Piper is bringing the Saratoga back to market because the market wants a plane that can carry an adults.

 

[Racerx]

Piper is bringing the Saratoga back to market

I must've missed that press release...

 

[Witmo]

You do realize this was in Oshkosh… in Wisconsin… is the US, right? And they’re owned by Textron.

I'm certain one of their salesmen would gladly convert FL to feet for you. Textron does business around the world. If it's too confusing for you, stick to Piper or Cessna.

 

[FlyDozer]

I just bought a Panthera (experimental) and have already had a demo flight. The only thing that keeps it from being perfect is the lack of an air conditioner, but the good news is that I will be able to install it myself.
In my opinion, today, the plane has no competitors because all other planes are almost double the price. It’s really well-built, better than the SR22, whose interior starts to fall apart after just 200 hours (I’ve flown six different SR22-20). Additionally, the Panthera can fit in a standard T-hangar, unlike the DA-50 and SR22!!! Here in Florida, the waiting list even for a regular T-hangar is about four years. There is no way you can get a hangar for DA50 or SR22 sooner than 5 years.
The Panthera’s 1100 lbs. payload capacity is more than enough. It has a fuel consumption of 9-11 GPH, compared to the SR22’s 15-18 GPH. While I’m not focusing on fuel cost, I do care about fuel weight. The Panthera requires 1.6 times less fuel weight to travel 1000 miles, saving you 230 lbs. of fuel weight compared to the Cirrus. That’s significant!

 

[Clip4]

I must've missed that press release...

Because it hasn’t been made yet, trust my inside intel.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

@FlyDozer does that mean you will have to build it or was it built by someone else? Would love to hear more about it.

 

[donjohnston]

I'm certain one of their salesmen would gladly convert FL to feet for you.

Would you show me where I indicated the inability to convert FL to feet.

Textron does business around the world. If it's too confusing for you, stick to Piper or Cessna.

Found the guy who didn't know that Cessna is owned by Textron.

 

[Tusayan]

I just bought a Panthera (experimental) and have already had a demo flight.

Interesting. What are your FAA operating limitations? Is it in Experimental Exhibition or a different Experimental category? It’s amazing to me that FAA is apparently allowing multiple examples of a Textron built four seat IFR touring aircraft to be sold to end users without certification.

 

[Skylark23]

Because it hasn’t been made yet, trust my inside intel.

I asked them at Oshkosh about a return of the 6 and they pointed to the Malibu derivates sitting there as the 6 place options they are pushing.

 

[Racerx]

Because it hasn’t been made yet, trust my inside intel.

Interesting. Would have thought Osh Kosh would have been a nice place to make that announcement. I thought they were done with anything retract after killing the Arrow a few years ago and then the Seneca.

 

[Racerx]

I asked them at Oshkosh about a return of the 6 and they pointed to the Malibu derivates sitting there as the 6 place options they are pushing.

They took seats out of the Archer. They should take the middle row out of the pa32 with how putrid the useful load became and add a BRS.

The pa46 is such a massive step up with what the average annual and insurance run its really not a logical step.

 

[Tusayan]

The same thing appears to be happening with at least one other European manufacturer. It appears to be a developing "grey market" for Euro-certified airplanes.

The Pantera isn’t certified in any country.

By my observation, putting a non-US certified factory built aircraft on N-register requires that it fit into a specific authorized Experimental category, i.e. warbird, aerobatic, competition glider or one of a kind for exhibition to the public. Application to do the same with a non-certified aircraft that would compete with FAA standard category aircraft is firmly refused, or severe operating limitations are imposed. For example try to import to N-register a four seat Robin from France (never FAA certified) and see what operating limitations are imposed to prevent you bypassing FAA certification. Another example is the AN2 saga, FAA made darn sure that they would be useless if imported. And so I wonder what angle Textron/Pipistrel is using, or used, to import a few factory built Panteras and sell them to customers who intend to use them like standard category aircraft.

 

[donjohnston]

I just bought a Panthera (experimental) and have already had a demo flight.

Please elaborate. Where did you get this demo flight? As for the purchase, is it a kit? How much was it? Has it been delivered?

 

[DJTorrente]

The same thing appears to be happening with at least one other European manufacturer. It appears to be a developing "grey market" for Euro-certified airplanes.

Or a tacet acknowledgement that certification practices are a huge obstacle to progress in aviation far beyond their contribution to safety.

 

[Clip4]

I asked them at Oshkosh about a return of the 6 and they pointed to the Malibu derivates sitting there as the 6 place options they are pushing.

Interesting. Would have thought Osh Kosh would have been a nice place to make that announcement. I thought they were done with anything retract after killing the Arrow a few years ago and then the Seneca.

They had 3 to announce. They have done 1. Patience weed hopper.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Only to those willing and able to spend close to a million dollars for an airplane.

It's significantly cheaper than the comparable SR22 and DA50.

How does it compare to the DA50? I haven't looked seriously at these planes because I'm not in the market, but it seems that would be the closest competitor.

The DA50 is disappointingly slow.

$800k for a single engine experimental???

800 Euro/$840K for the certified version. I didn't ask about experimental.

After you climb up on the wing. That's not my definition of "direct entry".

As in, you don't have to slide across seats or crawl over a folded one. Door, Seat.

And I have a difficult time taking aircraft specs seriously when advertise altitudes as "FL80" for 8,000'.

Pipistrel is in Europe, where the transition altitude is far lower than it is here.

1) You can't buy one.

Well, there is that... But that isn't a limitation of physics.

2) It has retracts.

That's a good thing in my book. No sense having a bunch of extra drag to slow you down and require more fuel for the trip which means less useful load and slows you down even more.

3) It would be interesting to sit in it and check the over the nose/forward visibility.

I didn't sit in it this year, but I did last year... And I don't remember, so at least it wasn't offensively bad. I think it's better than it looks like it would be from outside.

4) Do the back seats work for real people? Has anyone climbed in the back of one?

The back seat is HUGE. Would definitely work for "real people".

In the real world market for $1M planes, which is mostly in the US, buyers want utility not max efficiency.

Efficiency is a component of utility.

For example, I can load myself and my wife and bags for the two of us and make it just about anywhere east of the Rockies from Wisconsin nonstop.

Or, I can leave a bunch of fuel behind and still take 4 adults plus bags 500+nm in 3 hours with an hour reserve. If my plane wasn't so efficient, the range would suffer, the speed of the whole trip would suffer, and the utility of the airplane would be less.

1193 useful load less 530# full full = 663#. Minus #55 for a known ice package for this plane, which is required unless you only want to fly IFR in summer, = 608#.

Oh please. I fly year round IFR and it's not that hard to avoid ice. Spring and fall are the worst, but I've only canceled $100 burger type fun flights because of ice. On a trip, a bit of time and route flexibility goes a long way.

Also, full fuel isn't a requirement on planes this efficient. My plane is slightly less efficient, and I only fill it up when I need to. I have a lot of flexibility to either take more stuff or more people.

You do realize this was in Oshkosh… in Wisconsin… is the US, right? And they’re owned by Textron.

Why are you so offended by this? Who cares?