Pipistrel Panthera

So....just what exactly is from the 1950s? Is it the composite design, or the state of the art glass panel, or??????????
 
They have a hybrid and all electric version coming out shortly as well. Amazing looking plane.
 
DavidWhite said:
Oh ok, I misread your post. Pipistrel is definitely leaps and bounds ahead of anything coming out of the US.
Click to expand...

Why is that?

Over regulation by FAA certification requirements?

Union control of production? Send production faciliies to China? Why?

Arrogance by airplane manufactures?

CEO's making too much?
 
Last edited:
If his does not embarrass the US into looking inward towards itself to roll back regulations nothing will.

Brought to you by the same government that thinks hitching in a ride into space is a good thing. :no::nono::no:
 
This aircraft, flight design C4 and Tecnam p2010 all look promising. The new Diamond DA 42 and 52 look promising too. Hopefully, they will all make it into production.
 
I want a 'build it at the factory' exp with a 230hp Diesel and retractable floats. ;)
 
Nice looking plane.

Will it cost only two, or more likely, three times more than my house, fully IFR equipped?

;)

Or is that :( :( :(
 
Geico266 said:
Why is that?

Over regulation by FAA certification requirements?

Union control of production? Send production faciliies to China? Why?

Arrogance by airplane manufactures?

CEO's making too much?
Click to expand...

I don't think European certification requirements are far less stringent than FAA ones (plus if they want to make money, they have to get FAA cert as well).

Fact is that without any sort of market pressure (read gallon prices) US manufacturers have no incentive in changing 1950es designs, and Flying Magazine is relentlessly pounding the "Cessna 172 is still relevant" mantra in the GA people psyche.

If performance claims come true (actually I don't doubt they will as they already have a flying airframe that supports the claims so far) the Panthera will deliver Mooney speeds at a fraction of the operating cost. Not to mention that the engine is good for mogas which can significantly cut operation costs even further in Europe.

Considering their track record (Pipistrel are by no means amateurs, having won two NASA Challenges) I really hope they pull this off.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Ever wonder why the US is so far behind the times in aviation design?

Why are we still building airplanes that were state of the art in 1950?
Click to expand...

Because (According to an article in the current edition of Flying), the certification costs on a new piston single are in the range of $100 million.
Even worse, you've gotta spend all of that money before you can sell the first airplane and make back the first dollar.
 
kyleb said:
Because (According to an article in the current edition of Flying), the certification costs on a new piston single are in the range of $100 million.
Even worse, you've gotta spend all of that money before you can sell the first airplane and make back the first dollar.
Click to expand...

That would mean that say Diamond has spent 300mln on certifying the DA20, 40 and 42. I find that hard to believe!
 
Shorrick Mk2 said:
That would mean that say Diamond has spent 300mln on certifying the DA20, 40 and 42. I find that hard to believe!
Click to expand...

I believe they were certified by reciprocity based on the austrian TCs. Most foreign designs are. I would say that their safety record demonstrates that this can work well (Mu2 otoh not so much).


As for the Panthera
Unless the slovenians have found some previously unknown aerodynamic principle, the Panthera will cruise <185ktas at 75%. The 204 number is going to be flat out and we know how realistic that is.

One constraint for top speed in singles is the FAA mandated flaps up stall speed of 61kts. The europeans allow 65 which gives more room at the top end (there was an effort to drop that to 61 in 2008, don't know whether this got signed off) . I am sure this will be a great composite faster version of the Mooney, but unless the laws of physics and certification have been waived, I don't see the quantum leap proclaimed by some happening.
 
weilke said:
I believe they were certified by reciprocity based on the austrian TCs. Most foreign designs are. I would say that their safety record demonstrates that this can work well (Mu2 otoh not so much)
Click to expand...

Why not the MU-2? The problem isn't the airplane, it's pilots who don't know how to fly the airplane properly. Since the SFAR, I can't recall any issues with them.
 
Geico266 said:
Why is that?

Over regulation by FAA certification requirements?

Union control of production? Send production faciliies to China? Why?

Arrogance by airplane manufactures?

CEO's making too much?
Click to expand...


Our F'ed up litigious society making innovation impossible?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Why not the MU-2? The problem isn't the airplane, it's pilots who don't know how to fly the airplane properly. Since the SFAR, I can't recall any issues with them.
Click to expand...

And until the SFAR, it was a blood-bath.

It is a plane that doesn't behave like other planes. Had the primary certification been through the FAA, the plane would probably have looked and behaved differently (but possibly not provided the same performance it does now).
 
weilke said:
And until the SFAR, it was a blood-bath.

It is a plane that doesn't behave like other planes. Had the primary certification been through the FAA, the plane would probably have looked and behaved differently (but possibly not provided the same performance it does now).
Click to expand...

There isn't a design flaw in the MU-2. There is a pilot flaw. I don't see how certification in the US versus wherever it was certified would change that.
 
weilke said:
As for the Panthera
Unless the slovenians have found some previously unknown aerodynamic principle, the Panthera will cruise <185ktas at 75%. The 204 number is going to be flat out and we know how realistic that is.
Click to expand...

Well seen as how the Virus cruises at 140kts on 100hp... I reckon they know a thing or two about aerodynamic principles :)
 
Althought I think this looks like a streamlined DA40, I think I'll wait until they get the naming conventions right. C'Mon they name a plane Sinus and Virus! What's up with that???
 
Jaybird180 said:
Althought I think this looks like a streamlined DA40, I think I'll wait until they get the naming conventions right. C'Mon they name a plane Sinus and Virus! What's up with that???
Click to expand...

Sinus and Virus don't bother me as much as PIPIstrel does :D
 
weilke said:
One constraint for top speed in singles is the FAA mandated flaps up stall speed of 61kts. The europeans allow 65 which gives more room at the top end (there was an effort to drop that to 61 in 2008, don't know whether this got signed off) . I am sure this will be a great composite faster version of the Mooney, but unless the laws of physics and certification have been waived, I don't see the quantum leap proclaimed by some happening.
Click to expand...

I'd allow them to raise it on an aircraft with BRS. Reason being, if the engine fails you have an option besides stuffing it into a field or on a road somewhere. At 80 kts or whatever..
 
This airplane looks awesome. Planes like this are what I feel has a chance of getting the younger crowd into aviation, because they are somewhat useful for travel.
 
DavidWhite said:
Oh ok, I misread your post. Pipistrel is definitely leaps and bounds ahead of anything coming out of the US.
Click to expand...

Well Pipistrel says it places the pantera between Cirrus and Diamond. Cirrus is still made here but funded a bit West of Duluth.
 
dell30rb said:
I'd allow them to raise it on an aircraft with BRS. Reason being, if the engine fails you have an option besides stuffing it into a field or on a road somewhere. At 80 kts or whatever..
Click to expand...

I may be wrong on that, but the 65 limit applies to aircraft that can show an equal level of safety for crash resistance at the higher speed.

80kts would mean coming over the fence at jet speeds in case of a flap or electrical failure. Not sure I would consider that a desireable characteristic. The record of hot-rods like the Lancair IVp that have to be flown that way is not that promising.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Althought I think this looks like a streamlined DA40, I think I'll wait until they get the naming conventions right. C'Mon they name a plane Sinus and Virus! What's up with that???
Click to expand...

Could be worse, they could call it C172 or C182!!!! :lol:
 
Geico266 said:
The US is still building Cessnas, Bonnanzas, and Pipers. Slovenia is building the Panthera. ;)
Click to expand...

I will keep my cessna.

Having said that, it looks nice and wish them nothing but the best.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Has nothing to do with it, we don't want to pay for innovation regardless how cheap or high value.
Click to expand...

That's the big thing. We rarely reward innovation these days. Nope, the big focus is on the next quarter now for publicly traded companies. Don't have a "good" quarter, watch the stock price tank. Never mind you stated in advance that you were designing this multimillion dollar project that has x potential for profit. Nope, you get punished.

You see this in anything outside of computers, and sometimes within. Heck, we're a country of people that (just like the moon push) say we "support" NASA going to Mars until the bill for R&D shows up. We stopped dreaming. Sad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I love the looks of the Panthera, and the speed and efficiency targets seem encouraging... but then I remind myself about the (lack of) success Mooney's had lately offering aircraft with similar numbers.
 
Rob,
The only difference is that sitting in the mooney is like sitting in a sardines can. Not very useful for traveling with other poeple, as they only have 1 door.
 
jmp470 said:
Rob,
The only difference is that sitting in the mooney is like sitting in a sardines can. Not very useful for traveling with other poeple, as they only have 1 door.
Click to expand...

Pipers also have 1 door.
IIRC Bellanca too.
 
flightwriter said:
I love the looks of the Panthera, and the speed and efficiency targets seem encouraging... but then I remind myself about the (lack of) success Mooney's had lately offering aircraft with similar numbers.
Click to expand...

Do not confuse poor business acumen with poor product or market performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top