Edit: there and the spots to the west/south in front of the building. Circled in blue.

I think the spots northeast of the run-up box are transient (circled in yellow) but may be wrong.

When I flew across the Country and back in 2015 - 5,000 s.m. - I used 266 gal. of 100LL. That works out to 18.8 mpg. A typical TAS at 12,500' was 165 Kts. I'm proud of my little Lancair 235/290.

Edit: there and the spots to the west/south in front of the building. Circled in blue.

I think the spots northeast of the run-up box are transient (circled in yellow) but may be wrong.

Transient being adjacent to the noise police is probably not ideal for the MU-2

Interesting, thanks! I hadn't heard of either. Are either certified or planned to be certified in the US?

Edit: ah I see from another post that they may be LSA. I should have said in the first post - IFR is a requirement to have reasonable dispatch reliability. Both ends, KPAO and KSMO, are often fogged.

These new designs are really cool and would appeal to the tech-focused other members of the partnership. The concern would be support and resale value. That may be the tradeoff between one of these and a Deb.

Negative. The Piper Dakota has a 235hp Lycoming O-540 J3A5D with an 8.5:1 compression requiring 100octane.

As I write this, I wonder if perhaps you meant the Cherokee 235 which has a 7.2:1 compression ratio in the -B4B5 variant. This engine can use even mogas.

The cost to support a second airplane to save a few gallons of gas will overshadow any additional fuel you burn in the MU-2. Take the Mitsubishi 12 times a year!

I think this runs on mogas. Best of all, no need for a hangar/tiedown!

The AirCar!

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57651843

Pipistrel Panthera, Lycoming IO540V-V4A5, avgas or mogas. Just a sliver under 200 knots at 13 gal/hr. Just sat in one recently. Loved it. Seats so comfortable I might need a jab every 15 minutes so I don’t snooze.

RV. Pick the number of seats and configuration, and you got it.

I've been following these for a while but the Exp/Exhibition limitations are a deal killer. However, several of these European hotrods, including the VL3, advertise on their websites a factory build program similar to that of CubCrafters here in the US: you build 51% of your plane at their factory, with their workers (and a translator), then ship it to the US where it registers as Exp/Amateur Built, with the same freedoms as any other homebuilt. To me, that seems like the way to go but I don't know if any US buyers/builders have actually done this or if it's just theoretical.

Turns out the SR22T is not certified for UL94.

There was a LOT of hooplah in the press, but after researching it in several version of the POH and so on, nada. Minimum fuel is 100LL per the POH, period.

The engine, the TSIO-550-K is though certified for UL94 or any mix of UL94 and 100LL, with a couple of limitations.

1. Max CHT is reduced to 420 instead of 460.
2. "Manifold Inlet Temperature" is limited to 130F at maximum power and 115F at maximum recommended cruise power.

The CHT limit wouldn't bother me a bit in the Columbia 400. It runs nice and cool even in the hottest weather.

Have no idea of the Manifold Inlet Temperature, however that's measured.

I've been following these for a while but the Exp/Exhibition limitations are a deal killer. However, several of these European hotrods, including the VL3, advertise on their websites a factory build program similar to that of CubCrafters here in the US: you build 51% of your plane at their factory, with their workers (and a translator), then ship it to the US where it registers as Exp/Amateur Built, with the same freedoms as any other homebuilt. To me, that seems like the way to go but I don't know if any US buyers/builders have actually done this or if it's just theoretical.