Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Art VanDelay, Mar 27, 2017.
If it makes you feel any better that is the fully loaded price.........
If only my lotto numbers match up one of these days...
Or...you could wait for one of these guys to come out for about half that:
Is that a certified airplane? That thing is sexy
Wonder what the first year real world depreciation is going to be on that. Whew.
The panthera looks 1000% better than a Cirrus...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not yet. They said it should be this year, but who knows. @gsengle just posted the article I was looking at.
The Panthera is Slovenian. $480K for a price tag and it's supposed to be lighter, faster and has a greater range of operation than the Cirrus.
Plus..retractable gear. C'mon Cirrus...a million dollars for a plane and you can't figure out how to make the gear go up?
once certified....the Panthera should be a Cirrus killer. Given the money I'd take a hard look.
She said $933,000! You can save $60K. You're welcome.
Tax is 60K on that purchase where I live. Plus everything else..it's a million dolla plane
I sat in a Panthera at the Aero show in Fredricshaffen two years ago but I don't recall it having any kind of FIKI capability.
It's a beautiful airplane...but a million dollars?! At least give me two engines or maybe a t-prop for that cost, but even a million for that seems nuts. Maybe I'm just a dinosaur.
The Pipistrel Panthera is a vapor plane with just a prototype flying. The certified version is planned to have a Lycoming IO-540V 260hp and a G500 panel with GTN750. No word on critical options such as FIKI. It also has retractable gear which will make it more to insure. The rumored expected price is around $550k which puts it in line with the SR22 (Continental IO-550-N 310 HP) normally aspirated fully loaded.
Pipistrel will need to make a substantial investment in a US based support and import facility (to assemble the final plane out of a shipping container) or buyers will have to pay to have their plane flown from Slovenia/Italy to the USA by a ferry pilot.
Lets see what the sales look like in a year or so compared to other brands!
That's actually money well spent. You figure if it makes it to here from Europe they probably put it all together properly.
First I am hearing about the Panthera, but that's a good looking plane!!
I simply can't justify nearly $1 mil for a single engine piston plane. The Cirrus are very nice, I get it, and I'd be happy to own one if it was given to me or a quarter the price. But if I had that kind of money I'd be looking for either a turboprop or a nice twin for some redundancy and more cabin. You could get a nice Cessna 421 for that price...
I'm not convinced plastic airplanes are going to have the resiliency we've seen from the metal spam can fleet. As much as I applaud the continued production of airplanes to replace the fleet, I'm not sure plastic is gonna do much for us bottom feeders in the future.
On plastic planes.. I agree. It is entirely common today to find airplanes being flown that are 20, 30, 40, 50 years or even older. But somehow I doubt that in the year 2050 the same will be true for plastic planes.
Aren't there also hard fatigue life limits on plastic planes? I have read that the SR22 has something like a 4K hour lifespan, and the SR20 a 12K hour lifespan. That's a lot of hours, but nothing compared to what some Pipers and Skyhawks have seen out there... And 4K seems pretty low to be honest
Initially, I think the Cirrus initially had a 6000 hrs rating. According to their website they say the have now tested the hull to 12000 hrs, and when needed will look at extending that number. I read that the Cessna TTX currently has a 25000 hrs rating. Diamond has not put a number on their airframes.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
The plastic ones will be just fine. Sure, it's a lot more difficult to see damage that has caused delamination and such, but I'm no less likely to buy a 4K hr TTx than a 4K hour Comanche, all else being equal.
If I had a million dollars to spend on an airplane, I think a nice used twin would fill the role better.
As I understand, the fixed gear in the Cirrus is necessary for impact reduction on chute "landings". I wonder how this will work for a retractable.
What a bueatimous aircraft...
The fixed gear on the SRxx series is designed to absorb impact when the chute is used. The SF50 has a standard trailing-link retractable gear and is not designed in the same way. The SRxx series was certified with the CAPS chute. The SF50 was not certified with CAPS though it is still included in the design and production of the plane. The seats are also designed to absorb impact on chute pulls. Possibly the seats in the SF50 are designed to absorb even more than the SRxx series. Until we see an SF50 chute pull it won't be clear how well CAPS works on occupant survival.
Roger that on the gear design. With the performance I get from my 22T, I have no desire for retractable gear.
It is a big chunk of change. But they sell. Every. Freakin. One. And they build lots of them.
That panthera is pretty damn cool. I kinda forgot about them until this thread.
to be fair, the only reason old fiberglass boats go bad is due to the core rotting and not the composite. They also take some serious beatings in the sea.
If I can find a few partners, me too.
Still need lotto
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
That might be true, but not something to worry about. A Cirrus airframe has a life-limit of 12,000 hours without heavy inspections.
So how long is 12,000 hours? It is 120 years if the plane flies an average of 100 hours/year. To put that in context, it was less than 120 years ago that the Wright brothers first flew. And of course most older spamcans fly less than 100 hours per year.
Comparison to Cessna 400 and Diamonds here: http://whycirrus.com/engineering/useful-life-inspections.aspx
If you leave a Cirrus tied down near the ocean, it will become unairworthy a lot sooner. It has happened. But of course that will happen to metal planes, too, and maybe worse because everything on a metal plane can corrode, not just the few metal bits that show on a Cirrus.
I bet Cirri fly way more than 100 hours per year on average.
If anyone drops $1mil on a plane, surely they expect $1mil worth of utility from it.
At 100 hours per year, $1mil buys years and years worth of jet charter travel...
Excellent analysis and points made by NoHeat. Corrosion is what kills most GA engines because they are not flown enough especially engines sitting in high humidity areas like the East coast of the USA.
For a million, I think a used Meridian or Evolution would be my choice.
I bet you're wrong. Scrolling through the ads on Controller shows most have flown 150-200 hours per year on average.
It's going to be 600 before you get into one.
A base model SR22, which is better equipped than 95% of legacy single engine aircraft, sets you back 539k. With de-ice you are just shy of 600. Looking at the market, they sell very few of the base models as for their target customer, 100 or 200k extra doesn't seem to be an issue.
A used Cirrus. And their plane goes just as fast as a new one that costs nearly a million.
Okay, fine, let's ignore the fact that as plane get older they are typically flown less and less frequently. Let's take the higher end that you mention, 200 hours per year, and assume that applies very old planes just like new ones. In that case, the 12,000 hour life-limit will expire after 60 years. Still worried?
I agree with you. I was responding to a different person who thought Cirrus owners pack on the hours.
UL 1100lb (projected)
Fuel burn 12.15gph
3hr + 1hr reserve will require 48.6 gallons FOB (291lbs)
Max cabin load 800lb
Fuel burn 14gph
3hr + 1hr reserve requires 56 gal FOB (312lbs)
Max cabin load 1010lb
Sure, if you load up your Cirrus with options like known ice, AC or turbo, your UL is going to be lower. But then you can't really compare the two anymore.
Oh, and an SR22 you can buy today.