Actually, Bosco, I’m not so sure. Especially the C182 (FG or RG) and the C210 would be prime candidates for that, as they are used extensively as work horses in professional GA in partsb of the world where Avgas is a real issue. I personally would love to have a C182RG as described by JWoolard. In fact, I would prefer that over a Cirrus (not because I’m a masochist!), but because of the ability to land pretty much anywhere. I know the FG is even more rugged, but I also know what kind of field you can take a C210 in and out of….
@MD
Ok, but 200hp is 200hp. Unless there is a huge difference in efficiency between the two, and I find that very unlikely, then 75% power leaned to best economy or power should yield the same (very close) fuel flow. The greatest difference comes from operating LOP or ROP, and therefore it is dangerous to make these calculations without knowing the operating conditions they are quoting for.
We’ll see what the figures are once we get our hands on the aircraft. Will be interesting to see a shootout between the M20J and Panthera.
The past has taught that innovation has never made flying more affordable. It always made airplanes, faster, nicer, more comfortable, etc. But never more affordable. And I guess that will always be the case
I think innovation can and does make flying more affordable, but to see how you have to consider the cost of money as an operating cost and factor in the used aircraft market. New aircraft designs have several times depressed the resale price of existing products, and made flying more affordable for prospective buyers of those aircraft. Today the market innovations introduced by Cirrus and Vans, different products that they are, has in both instances made flying more affordable for prospective buyers of clean older single engine retractables – which are still just as useful as they ever were.
Peter,
How can that be done to beat Cirrus? I cannot see any way.
Primarily by cost. Lower aquisition cost first and lower maintenance and running cost 2nd.
Efficiency is the ONLY bit which can really get people think these days when it comes to that.
Cirrus has set the standard in a LOT of fields but one, affordability. I could not afford a Cirrus from the maintenance and consumable pricing I hear, nor to buy one. I can however easily afford the Mooney.
For what it’s worth, also Cirrus know this and they are working on a Diesel version to address exactly this issue. Probably if at all, the Diesel may turn out to be a SR20 variant with slightly more power (230 hp if it’s the SMA/Conti Diesel) and more speed accordingly.
We also should not forget one other competitor. Diamond. Their DA40 is doing quite well, on Diesel and is also very efficient when flown with the Diesel, not when flown with the O360 it is also offered with however. I did not include it because it’s a different engine type. The DA42 would probably also show remarkable gas mileage even as a twin.
I can however easily afford the Mooney.
Sure. But could you afford a new Mooney?
Cirrus has set the standard in a LOT of fields but one, affordability. I could not afford a Cirrus from the maintenance and consumable pricing I hear, nor to buy one. I can however easily afford the Mooney.
I take it you mean your antique Mooney, but what does that have to do with this thread?
On the other hand, Mooney could drain the market of M20Js, slap a Continental 300 diesel up front, refurb the interior and panel, add TKS and send it back out the door at 300kEUR
Krister,
Would you read that and think about it once again, please? 
bosco,
I did not mean more affordable planes but cheaper maintenance and especially lower fuel comsumption. With the Diesel the fuel consumption of an SR22 could probably be 50% of what it s now (with 200 percent of the range!).
What seems to be the problem?
I am quite SURE that maintenance costs of a Bravo, 252, TLS or Ovation are not lower than of the SR22. I would say they should be higher.
