Personally, I'm glad for any certified aircraft to be built and hope it's extremely successful and finds a market with tremendous demand.

I wish the best also, but I do hope they put good lights on this airplane because it is so damn ugly nobody will want to be seen flying it in the daylight. Can you imagine the pilots embarrassment when he has to park that thing next to a V tail Bonanza

He will probably get out with a paper bag over his head.

Robert

Pipistrel Panthera is a better looking piece of vaporware and the vapor specs are better also.

Reminds me of a Navion.

+1

So, this Brazilian manufacturer is going to make a 4 seat airplane where you can fill each seat, put in full gas, and be within performance bounds. Hmmm. I can do that in my Bonanza! With 70 lbs. of bags too. Somehow, they are going to make it light enough to allow a 1600 lb. useful load, and it will go almost 200 kts. too. It will also be pressurized (adds weight to any airframe). Aircraft design is all about compromise (that dirty word). It is hard to go fast AND carry a big load, to pressurize and make the airframe light. The laws of physics have not changed since the 1940's when the Model 35 first debuted. I will believe it when I see it.

Why is the leading edge of the wing swept back?

I was thinking Grumman Tiger / Cirrus combo !

I agree....how many times have we heard these same claims .... A flash In the pan...let's see where they are in 2 years when things develop into a real development effort. They always get heavier, more expensive, and slower.

Walt had it right....besides I hate plastic airplanes. Give me bendable, durable, maintainable aluminum and rivet anyday!

Dc

First thought ... ugly. Maybe the Chinese will invest in it.

Guys,

First in terms of Design. The Lancair Evolution meets or passes all those specs, except low cost.
So it can be done. Is it easy, answer is no. The real question is going to come down to the build quality and what margins the FAA wil let them build too. Basically one of the problems is the FAA does not "trust" composite manufacturering (and the Cessna/Columbia followed by the Airbus, Boeing delamination issues does not help). As a result depending on who you ask composite structures are required to be built to much stronger than design requirements dictate. If I recall correctly, for a wing spar for example the FAA requires you to demonstrate no deformation at 50% higher than design load. For composite the FAA then requires an additional doubling of the design strength due to potential manufacturing defects....

I wish them luck.

Tim

So the race is on! Will the restyled DA-50 make it to market before this one? Both pressurized but the DA-50 will have provision for three in the rear.

Nice to see a new design out there. There probably is a niche market out there for a pressurized model. They should probably align themselves to use a diesel such as the austro as an option.

Each one could come standard equipped with a fake mustache and thick glasses for incognito travel during the day.

A hybrid has 2 primary ways it saves fuel - energy recovery during braking, and running the combustion engine at more efficient throttle/rpm settings. Given that we effectively fly at constant and high power settings, a hybrid would offer little if anything at all.