It does seem rather unrealistic especially when comparing to other existing designs that also claim low drag. I assume their performance predictions come from calculations and as such one can make the numbers work. The question is whether they are able to build the aircraft and maintain the necessary drag coefficient.
To those who have actually seen and sat in the aircraft, what other 4 seater would you compare the cabin with? Or is this a Ferrari of the sky? And who will buy it? I don't see many flying clubs taking an interest if it is too extreme, especially due to creature comfort and price, so that leaves the private market. If you could spend that amount of money on an aircraft would you worry about the fuel cost and willingly give up cabin comfort? You could probably pick up a nice SR22 fully equipped with Known Ice instead.
I'm not in the market for one, it's too slow compared to the day job and doesn't seem like any fun for recreational flying, but I am curious about the potential market.
I don't see many flying clubs taking an interest if it is too extreme, especially due to creature comfort and price
Agree. A 500k Euro, very "sporty" 180-knot aircraft will not be bought by flying clubs.
If you could spend that amount of money on an aircraft would you worry about the fuel cost and willingly give up cabin comfort? You could probably pick up a nice SR22 fully equipped with Known Ice instead.
Exactly. What people sometimes forget is that the Cirrus, while nicely fast, has been designed primarily with comfort, visibility and design in mind. That is mostly why it is so successful, not so much because of its sheer performance numbers (even though they are quite good).
To those who have actually seen and sat in the aircraft, what other 4 seater would you compare the cabin with? Or is this a Ferrari of the sky?
I would say it is considerably more comfy than some "Ferraris" I have sat in. One Lambo I sat in a few years ago (brand new) was horrid.
It is certainly more of a squeeze than my TB20, and I would not swap the two because I like to do occassional long trips (up to 7hrs).
And who will buy it? I don't see many flying clubs taking an interest if it is too extreme, especially due to creature comfort and price, so that leaves the private market.
Flying clubs almost never buy anything decent.
If you could spend that amount of money on an aircraft would you worry about the fuel cost and willingly give up cabin comfort? You could probably pick up a nice SR22 fully equipped with Known Ice instead.
A good question.
Fuel is expensive though.
That's true Peter, flying clubs rarely buy anything exciting. I guess it's in the nature of the "business", they need kit that anyone can and will want to operate. And preferably as cheap as possible. Hence the hordes of old cherokees and skyhawks all over the place.
Yes, fuel is expensive. I just think that those who can afford to buy new also want creature comfort. "People" who buy expensive cars rarely do so to save fuel. Sure, they'll accept low fuel consumption so long as it doesn't degrade on other more important aspects such as massaging seats, electric boot openers etc.
One of the claims made by the Klapmeiers when they started the SR20 design, allegedly, was that they focused on the pilot and passengers first then built an aircraft around it. This included the first large screen MFD, a parachute to still the nervous wives, a large well appointed cabin, single lever power etc etc.
One can have different opinions on the product, but I think they got the psychological aspect of the proposal right. I'm not so sure about Pipistrel's market research for the Panthera. Seems more like the engineering approach - this is what we'll design and then we'll see if anyone buys it.
I don't know what "the plan" might be.
We can judge Cirrus with the benefit of hindsight, but they are heading downwards now - like most players.
My take is that Cirrus offered very little innovation apart from the chute but they marketed it all (including what I think is a cynical "simplicity" ploy of the fixed gear, and removing the prop lever, which cost their owners a lot of money on a continuous basis) very well, to a whole new stratum of non-anorak customers (which had never been tried before) and they came along with an attractive proposition at just the right time. I think it's obvious they could not do it in the current economic climate.
I started the first of my two businesses in 1978, when the UK economy was in the pits, not long after the 3-day week, and with the top rate of tax being something over 85%, plus I believe the Investment Income Surcharge. So things could only get better 
And I think the Panthera is coming out at such a time too, when nobody can imagine it selling, but hopefully by the time it is ready (if indeed they get it done) things will be getting sorted economically, Germany will have purchased Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece and introduced capital punishment for tax evasion, which will make these countries the economic powerhouses of Europe, and everybody will have loads of money again
Flying clubs almost never buy anything decent.
Which is mainly due to lack of capital. Flying club members want to fly for the price of the fuel plus some minimum extra amount to cover all the rest. This leaves no financial space for a 400000+ Euro investment. And 95 percent of all flying club members (and charter customers as well) will prefer a 30 year old Cherokee for 110 Euros per hour over a factory new Panthera for 180 Euros (or whatever it will be).
Yes, but isn't that because the vast majority of people who get a PPL chuck it away within a very short time?
I know there is a certain number of self fly hire diehards, and people were even paying £300/hr+ for a "zero equity" SR22 facility (though that business is dead today also) but SFH has a very limited lifespan for the average pilot. For a start, you can't go anywhere on SFH (due to minimum daily billing etc) so any plane which is built for going places isn't going to be of interest.
There is a market for €400k+ planes. Look how many Cirrus have sold. But Cirrus got massive financial backing, so they had to sell loads. Pipistrel don't have to sell many to make money out of it. Apart from the airframe, everything in it is off the shelf, so their business model is well scaleable.
There is a market for €400k+ planes. Look how many Cirrus have sold. But Cirrus got massive financial backing, so they had to sell loads. Pipistrel don't have to sell many to make money out of it. Apart from the airframe, everything in it is off the shelf, so their business model is well scaleable.
I'm impressed that Pipistrel have held back from betting the company on this - as an example they are deliberately taking a year longer to complete certification rather than throwing all of their resources at it.
I'm impressed that Pipistrel have held back from betting the company on this - as an example they are deliberately taking a year longer to complete certification rather than throwing all of their resources at it.
That's because they are communists, not capitalists
Think "long term".
Cirrus certainly packaged their product right and probably at the right time too. You may not like their design and/or solutions but they had a clear and identified market and they incorporated enough features that were "new" to make a difference. Meanwhile Piper built their PA28/PA32s and Cessna revived the 172/182. Designs from the 1950s.
Can Pipistrel do what Cirrus did? I doubt it, but perhaps they can build 10-20 aircraft per year and make a profit, I have no clue. Sure there's a market for €400k+ airplanes. But the size of an italian shoe?
Poll: How many on the forum would buy the Panthera over any other aircraft they could select in that same price range?
