In the recent flight video on YouTube they alluded to 100k less than the competition or thereabouts. I’m guessing the competition is cirrus....?

Piper had partnered with Pipistrel to market one of their aircraft. That fell apart according to Piper due to some quality issues, who knows what the real story was.

The Panthera is a very attractive prospect, sure looks more exciting than anything Beech/Cessna/Textron or Piper have put out recently.

I applaud Pipistrel's forward thinking. Their approach to pilotless freighter linked below also shows some advanced thinking that looks to have eluded US manufacturers. Makes me wonder if the FAA has generated such a conservative approach to development it has eliminated any progressive thought processes in this industry.

https://youtu.be/6W65XCH3RwI

I've been a fan of the Panthera for a long time. Assuming the Panthera is successful, it might be enough to finally end Mooney (dare I suggest it...). It's the same buyer- speed and efficiency with modern construction and a parachute.

I'm not sure that Mooney hasn't already been "ended". Actually it's happened several times, it's just that there is a large enough fan base for the airplane that it keeps getting revived.

Steve, are you referring to the the PiperSport? That was a different Eastern bloc manufacturer. I suspect the deal fell apart because the LSA market was glutted, Piper thought maybe they had the juice to be the market leader, and CZAW was hoping for Piper to be a home run hitter that they couldn’t be.

Steve, are you referring to the the PiperSport? That was a different Eastern bloc manufacturer. I suspect the deal fell apart because the LSA market was glutted, Piper thought maybe they had the juice to be the market leader, and CZAW was hoping for Piper to be a home run hitter that they couldn’t be.

Thank you guys for correcting me, fuzzy memory. The sport was a nice looking aircraft, glad I was in error as it enhances my thoughts of Pipistrel. I wish them luck, also wish I were young enough and affluent enough to see one of these in my future.

I like the Panthera better than the DA-50.
Panthera 540 engine has a TBO and not a TBR like the DA-50 diesel.
Panthera has a chute.
Panthera looks like a plane manufactured in 2020 should look. It looks fast parked!
Both have trailing link gear.
Panthera will be much easier for engine parts and engine maintenance.
Panthera will fit in a hanger.

Not quite sure who will win out in the speed and distance category. AvWeb is going to have a video next week on the Panthera they tested at Right Rudder which should clear some things up.

I've been a big fan of the Panthera (and Pipistrel) in general since seeing the first prototype at Aero Friedrichshafen in 2012 (I think). The build quality, even on that first prototype, was far ahead of any diamond I've seen, including a brand new DA62. Panel gaps on that thing are an absolute joke.

The Pipistrel guys were really friendly as well, and happy to answer questions about the plane, whereas most manufacturers at such shows won't speak to you unless you have an expensive watch.

I really hope it gets certified.

AVWeb review: https://youtu.be/fmlfg-74m3U

[youtube]https://youtu.be/fmlfg-74m3U[/youtube]

I was a bit disappointed after watching that video, but not greatly so. Being able to use auto gas is an incredible advantage.

The speed numbers don't look as good as I was expecting. The tight cowling and CHTs above 400 in climb (and even in cruise??) are really problematic. Sure you can cruise climb at 130 KIAS as they suggested, but at a higher altitude airport, this to me points to less flexibility than you might have with better cooling, or TN.

The price, though, looks great. And unlike a Cirrus, it apparently has a nice control feel.

Great video as usual from Paul and AvWeb.

Incredible airplane.

We are spoiled with the easy access we have to our Bo engines for inspection.

What stood out to me was the incredible performance of the DA50!

Yeah, as usual everything is a trade-off. The airplane looks great inside and out. While it wouldn't be hard to improve on the Cirrus control feel (or lack thereof), hearing that it handles as good as it looks is really encouraging.

There are some things that I either don't like or just don't "get". I understand the reason for the low seating and rakish slope to the windscreen, but the forward visibility is abysmal. I would not like that at all. I've spent time in planes where you can't see out the front and never liked it.

The tight cowling and high CHTs are a problem. I would not like that at all. And, for such an otherwise well thought out airplane, why the heck is it so hard to see the engine? Maybe they don't think we need to look at things like that on pre-flight.

The range vs payload issue is for me the biggest deal. With 55 gallon tanks you're a 3 hour airplane with reserves. With 91 gallon tanks you're a 6 hour airplane but your payload is down to 544 lbs. (Note that he screwed up the math in the video: 1090-(6x91)=544 not 644.) That doesn't even work for my bantam weight family, not if we want to bring any bags at all. And you don't have any extras with that like AC/TKS/Oxygen, etc. That 640 number would work if you had 75 gallon tanks, and that makes the plane practical for long trips with very light people, but still no "extras". Apples to apples, the SR22 has 130 lbs more useful load with the same fuel and similar fuel burn.

So, sharp looking airplane. Weird view out the front. Good performance and handling. Mediocre payload with full fuel, or limited range with good payload. Nothing new in that song.

Bonanzas are outliers in this regard. For something like 40 years, most other GA singles have had a similar cowl design where you can only see in through the oil door. It's nice to be able to see the whole engine, but having limited access hasn't proven to be a factor in other planes.

It would be interesting to compare the shape, construction, useful load and performance to:

Bellanca Skyrocket II 19-25 from 1975
Windecker Eagle 1969
Bellanca Aries 1980

How would these old but tested/proven airframes stack up if given lighter modern avionics, composite propeller, lighter engine accessories, similar Lycoming engine and parachute?

Interesting no Bonanza made their performance chart comparison just for an example.

It seems a little radical in design for a production airplane especially with getting in and out of the cabin. Glad they can bring a little radical to the market but I’d prefer the windshield a little further away from my head.