The Lancair IV is a very cool plane. There’s a TURBINE version at my airport, … 320 KTAS if I remember correctly. I just don’t want to spend 10 years in a garade (with 54 I’m too old for that). And even if you build it it costs about three times the price my Cirrus cost. Thanks, but NO thanks :-)
I am sure they have a “51% customer build programme” 
– just like Epic Dynasty and all the other high-end homebuilts. Nobody would be able to buy it if they had to really build 51% of it.
The problem for Europe is: no IFR.
Peter, 51 percent means you’re still at least 5 years in your basement and the hangar … not for me.
Let’s see. The M20J specifications seem awfully close to the Panthera. Roughly same price, size, equipment and engine, but the Mooney would be 40kts slower if Pipistrel’s predictions are correct. Maybe it’s not such a good idea to resurrect 40yr old technology? It’s bad enough that some companies persist in manufacturing 60yr old designs instead of developing new, but we all know the economics. For the majority of the time that aviation has been around, nothing much has happened on the GA scene.
In this age of environmental thinking where automotive manufacturers are bending over backwards to present the next efficiency improvement (claimed, and sometimes realized) our greatest GA manufacturers happily churn out one relic after the other. It would seem to me that Pipistrel is the only company challenging the old technology with a truly evolutionary machine. Too bad they’re fitting a John Deere farming power plant up front.
I do like the Tecnams and Diamonds, but come on, when are we going to take the next leap forward? Where is my warp speed machine?
Oh, and the Lancair IV, although cool, does not count. I want something with proper tail sizing, decent slow speed performance and handling qualities as well as creature comfort.
Well, if you are citing creature comfort, then you shouldn’t talk about the Panthera. 
Also, their (Pipstrel’s) preliminary claims are ridiculous. As usual for certain aircraft manufacturers, they mix full power airspeeds with long-range best economy fuel flows. Reminds me of the DA42 story.
If I’m not mistaken the M20J also needs to fly flat out to achieve its speed claims and the DA42 goes rather well these days, but point taken.
Outrageous as it may be, Pipistrel claim that they’ve been up to 180kts but what do I know, I’m not an aeronautical engineer. In terms of creature comfort I haven’t sat in the Panthera but it looks like a low slung version of the DA40. Creature comfort is a relative term..
While we’re on the subject, someone across the pond thinks he’s cracked the efficiency equation: Synergy Aircraft
51 percent means you’re still at least 5 years in your basement and the hangar
I think you missed my wink
The customer doesn’t actually build 51% of any advanced homebuilt. Obviously it depends on how you define “51%” but the process is substantially, shall we say, adjusted to make it much less unattractive. I recall hearing that people spent well under a year on the Epic Dynasty. A year or so ago I met someone who was quite close to that project, before it sunk amid loads of trouble.
As I’ve said, I’m no aeronautical engineer, but McGinnis sounds like one. Think he’s right?
Synergy talk!
There are people who enjoy building as much or more than flying, and I think the worldwide kit plane inventory is rising as they build more, of increasing longevity. Of course quality varies but as with most things, I think educating yourself and shopping around leads to a good purchase. The main issue with buying versus building homebuilts in the FAA regulatory setup is that you need an A&P certificate (no IA required) to sign off annual inspections – but finding a non-IA A&P to help is almost a trivial issue, lots of people have them. Normal maintenance can still be done by the owner.
I bought certified aircraft myself, but the main reason was that for the type of aircraft I was buying, certified designs were less expensive to purchase – in the US there is a market premium for well built, established Experimental Amateur Built aircraft designs (and RVs for sure) because of the maintenance and sometimes performance advantages. I solved that problem in a different way, by making friends with people who sign off the work done on the certified plane.
Buying used aside, my observation is that something like a Lancair IV more often than not gets built full time, by a retired (from business) builder. The one I mentioned above was built that way, and purchased by its current owner. Its gorgeous. Another way I’ve seen highly complex homebuilt projects get done (i.e. more complex than quick build RV kits) is that the builders are total airplane nuts, with businesses on the airport that they manage as they build full time, six days a week. I’ve noticed their wives and staff seem to do a lot of the work in running the business and tolerate the aircraft building, because the builder started the business and its doing OK.
I was surprised to see an N-registered homebuilt Harmon Rocket in Germany last month. I didn’t ask too many questions! It looked great.
Peter,
right, now i understand what you were talking about. I have visited a couple of operations in the US where kitplanes are built for owners.. Yes, that’s an alternative. But imagine what building a high quality Lancair IV will cost … And then you have an airplane you can’t use for IFR flights in Europe.
