Pipistrel Panthera

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...

Uhhhh, lots and lots of planes have one door. Heck airliners board through one door.
 
weilke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which is why I stipulated only with BRS. How about mechanical flaps or flaps with a backup deployment system?

Big thing is really an off-airport landing. In the unlikely event of flap failure you could pick an airport with a huge ass runway. But if you had an engine failure and have to land off-airport, (or in the flap scenario, can't find a suitable airport) BRS provides you a way of not being forced to make a high speed forced landing.
 
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...
Hearing from people who shopped the later Mooneys new, their main problem was the death spiral and lack of capital. As their sales took a dip, they started to raise prices, and then sales went down faster, and so on. In the end, a G-36 was cheaper, just as fast, but more roomy and comfortable, with a better equipment, so the choice became a no-brainer.

Pipistrel's success is going to be determined in a large part by their ability to secure investment and find the right price.
 
zaitcev said:
Pipistrel's success is going to be determined in a large part by their ability to secure investment and find the right price.
Click to expand...

That and being able to create a big enough marketing and support organization in the US right out of the gates.
 
weilke said:
I

As for the Panthera
One constraint for top speed in singles is the FAA mandated flaps up stall speed of 61kts.
Click to expand...

SR22 stalls between 68 and 70 with flaps up.
 
zaitcev said:
Hearing from people who shopped the later Mooneys new, their main problem was the death spiral and lack of capital. As their sales took a dip, they started to raise prices, and then sales went down faster, and so on. In the end, a G-36 was cheaper, just as fast, but more roomy and comfortable, with a better equipment, so the choice became a no-brainer.

Pipistrel's success is going to be determined in a large part by their ability to secure investment and find the right price.
Click to expand...

Hush now, you're gonna start a Mooney owner frenzy of Bonanza bashings and drive by shootings.
 
Shorrick Mk2 said:
SR22 stalls between 68 and 70 with flaps up.
Click to expand...

And we see how well that worked out given the number of RLOC accidents in Cirri.

As noted, higher stall speeds are approved if a manufacturer can show that the loads on the first-row passengers are below a certain level.
 
weilke said:
And we see how well that worked out given the number of RLOC accidents in Cirri.
Click to expand...

But that hardly allows any deduction or implication.

The Dakota I usually fly stalls at 65 clean (says the AFM) - same as the Pipistrel is supposed to. But you'd be hard pressed to deduct they'll have the same safety record just because they have the same stall speed.
 
Henning said:
Do not confuse poor business acumen with poor product or market performance.
Click to expand...

Good point, of course.

When I first saw the Panthera in an article a few months back, I immediately thought "that reminds me of something" but I didn't click on the Mooney comparison until reading Paul Bertorelli's notes from Aero 2012, where he mentions the tight cabin.

A slick SEP, low-wing airframe maximized for efficiency and performance over cabin accommodations. Like the Mooney before it, I just don't see a wide market for such an aircraft, just a specific niche. I hope that's enough for Pipistrel to find success with the Panthera, because Heaven knows we need some variety out there!
 
flightwriter said:
Good point, of course.

When I first saw the Panthera in an article a few months back, I immediately thought "that reminds me of something" but I didn't click on the Mooney comparison until reading Paul Bertorelli's notes from Aero 2012, where he mentions the tight cabin.

A slick SEP, low-wing airframe maximized for efficiency and performance over cabin accommodations. Like the Mooney before it, I just don't see a wide market for such an aircraft, just a specific niche. I hope that's enough for Pipistrel to find success with the Panthera, because Heaven knows we need some variety out there!
Click to expand...

Trust me - when you the end customer pays 15 USD per gallon the market gets wider all of a sudden ^^
 
weilke said:
One constraint for top speed in singles is the FAA mandated flaps up stall speed of 61kts.
Click to expand...

The FAR 23 stall speed requirement of 61 KCAS is for VS0 - flaps extended in the landing configuration, not flaps up.

The only flaps-up stall speed requirement for singles applies only to LSA, and it's 45 KCAS. But that isn't part 23.
 
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...

That's what I thought, until I found out that these guys have a two-seater that'll do 140 knots on 3 and change gallons per hour. They've also won lots of "green flight" awards. If anyone can do it, it's Pipistrel.
 
dbflyer said:
The FAR 23 stall speed requirement of 61 KCAS is for VS0 - flaps extended in the landing configuration, not flaps up.
Click to expand...

My bad. It is flaps down.

Still, unless someone does something fancy like leading edge devices or multi-piece fowler flaps, the 61kts lower end puts creates somewhat of a limit for wing loading and top end speed. Look at the TBM, all flaps, tiny ailerons.
 
It certainly does. Take a look at a Cessna Caravan sometime.

weilke said:
My bad. It is flaps down.

Still, unless someone does something fancy like leading edge devices or multi-piece fowler flaps, the 61kts lower end puts creates somewhat of a limit for wing loading and top end speed. Look at the TBM, all flaps, tiny ailerons.
Click to expand...
 
According to their own paperwork, there will be "possible delivery of some units in 2014, otherwise 2015". That's for the Experimental Build-it-yourself unit. The factory unit isn't expected to be available until "late 2015". Throw in some fudge-factor and certification bumps, and I'll bet we won't see this quite some time. And if I'm spending $400-$600K, you can be sure I'd want some serious service/support. Hey, at least they got a few years to grow a sales/service organization.
 
CT4ME said:
According to their own paperwork, there will be "possible delivery of some units in 2014, otherwise 2015". That's for the Experimental Build-it-yourself unit. The factory unit isn't expected to be available until "late 2015". Throw in some fudge-factor and certification bumps, and I'll bet we won't see this quite some time. And if I'm spending $400-$600K, you can be sure I'd want some serious service/support. Hey, at least they got a few years to grow a sales/service organization.
Click to expand...


You hit the nail on the head. Right now they have zero service centers. ;)
 
However, is a service center even needed? I heard of tales of discontent with the work done by Mooney Service Centers, for example. So, the value of the factory training is questionable, and it's more important to know a mechanic who knows what he's doing. Parts support? Well, Remos is moving to the direct support model with the Arkansas center winding down. And finally, all these brands began with airplanes flying without service centers. That includes Tim's Flight Design.

I would argue that what you really need is someone in Slovenia being able to speak fluent English, order, and deliver you the right part quickly. The experience with the support of Virus is going to shape the expectations for Pantera.
 
In spite of lots of $$$ on advertising, Remos registered so few aircraft in 2011, that they don't appear on the top 10 LSA sales list. That's less than 4 aircraft. I've called the company a dozen times over two weeks, and only got an answering machine. No call back. I hope Pipistrel doesn't adopt this service/sales model.
I'm thinking anyone who spends $600K on an aircraft is going to expect something more.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That's what I thought, until I found out that these guys have a two-seater that'll do 140 knots on 3 and change gallons per hour. They've also won lots of "green flight" awards. If anyone can do it, it's Pipistrel.
Click to expand...


Didn't their spindly little (modified, but by the factory) record setting virus suffer structural damage recently in CAT?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top