It is not easy to work out exactly what ELA is, but it is not a certification standard. Only CS-23, VLA and LSA are certification standards for light aircraft. Rather, ELA is a process aiming to simplify maintainance (introducing "standard repairs") and equipment installation (avoiding the need for Form 1). It also has some relation to airworthiness that I do not really understand. I do not think ELA is developed yet. ELA 1 for acft below 1200 kgs should be on its way, but apparently ELA 2 for - probably - up to 2000 kgs is not coming in the near future.
According to this article in “Flying” the Panthera is running into big delays and will get a new engine.
If they really use the IO-540, it will mean about 50 kg more weight up front. I wonder what this means for the entire design? Lead bars in the back as with the Diamond NG’s 
?
The holdup, according to Pipistrel CEO Ivo Boscarol, is due to Lycoming’s decision not to certify its four-cylinder IO-390 engine for auto fuel use.
The company decided to replace the IO-390, four-cylinder engine with the Lycoming IO-540-V six-cylinder
Is the IO-540 certified for that? Note they’re talking about auto fuel, not 91-octane aviation fuel…
That’s a pity.
Yes the 250HP IO540 is 91UL certified. One of the last engines Lyco did.
There is an O-540 certified for MOGAS. Not 250HP though. 220? The C182 had it.
However the weight of a plane doesn’t affect its speed much – because we fly so far beyond Vbg that most of the drag is parasitic, not the induced drag that is a consequence of redirecting the airflow downwards (to support the weight). There are indirect effects: assuming you have already done the obvious thing and gone for a Vs=59kt, more weight needs bigger wings, a bigger elevator, more drag, etc…. If their Vs is not 59kt already then making it 59kt is the way they should definitely deal with this.
But an IO540 engined plane is going to sound better and will go a lot faster, and economy is not a huge driver in this game. Look at Cirrus, and their great success despite their MPG being very average.
Sounds like they better go for sma!
In this day and age you either have a very efficient multifuel engine or a jetfuel engine. In europe jetfuel definitely makes a lot more sense
Diesel does make great sense for Europe, but none are considered exactly “proven” by the wider marketplace, and sometimes “too much innovation” in one go is too risky.
Diamond nearly went bust due to the Thielert issue. IMHO the major reason they avoided going bust was because most buyers wre flying schools and they had separate engine and airframe warranties. Private buyers could have simply sued Diamond for the whole package, but also you can (generally) sue only for your economic loss and a private pilot does not usually suffer a quantifiable economic loss.
Thus far SMA has not flown in any numbers and if Pipistrel are successful with it in numbers and then some trouble appeared, the whole company would go bust. Virtually all buyers will be private buyers.
Also I think any emphasis on MOGAS (if indeed there is) is misplaced on the Panthera. This is not the traditional Pipistrel product that might be filled up with MOGAS or car petrol (the article calls it “auto fuel”) by somebody pouring a number of jerrycans into the fuel tank. This is a serious go-places machine which will only be viable with whatever pumped fuel is available “everywhere”, and that means 100LL (or whatever succeeds 100LL), and in a few cases in Europe 91UL. Nobody is going to be standing there pouring jerry cans into a Panthera.
Let’s hope they go for diesel. The SMA305 would be too big and heavy for the airframe and the Centurion too weak which makes it a difficult choice.
Peter: the problems of the past are the problems of the past.
Let’s hope they go for diesel.
I would even go further and say that it’s their only chance of ever selling one of these things. With that bigger engine, all they will get is maybe 10 Knots more speed in the cruise, but significantly more fuel consumption, less payload and less range. They will then be competing against 30 year old Mooneys that you can buy for less than the value of the engine. With a Diesel engine, they will maybe lose 15 Knots and get some more empty mass, but preserve their payload and range and will siginificantly lower the fuel burn and operating cost.
With that bigger engine, all they will get is maybe 10 Knots more speed in the cruise, but significantly more fuel consumption, less payload and less range
You start sounding like Mooney Driver. 
Also I think any emphasis on MOGAS (if indeed there is) is misplaced on the Panthera. This is not the traditional Pipistrel product that might be filled up with MOGAS or car petrol (the article calls it “auto fuel”) by somebody pouring a number of jerrycans into the fuel tank. This is a serious go-places machine which will only be viable with whatever pumped fuel is available “everywhere”, and that means 100LL (or whatever succeeds 100LL), and in a few cases in Europe 91UL. Nobody is going to be standing there pouring jerry cans into a Panthera.
I would agree with all that. UL91 compatibility is all that’s needed. Going one step further (mogas capability) doesn’t make much sense for an aircraft like the Panthera. About the only country in Europe that has mogas “on tap” at any significant number of aerodromes is Germany (and even there, the number of places that sell it is decreasing).
The difference between a fuel consumption of 16 litres as opposed to 30 or 35 litres probably tips the scale from “acceptable” to “unacceptable”.
There are exceptions, though. I know someone who owns a Tecnam P2006T and keeps it at his own private airstrip. Sure enough, he fuels his aircraft with mogas from the local gas station. Makes for some “cheap” twin engine aircraft flying…
Looks like the developers had a lesson in physics and now need to compensate their optimistic and sci-fi figures with a bigger engine to reach at least the speed part of their promises.
With that bigger engine, all they will get is maybe 10 Knots more speed in the cruise, but significantly more fuel consumption, less payload and less range. They will then be competing against 30 year old Mooneys that you can buy for less than the value of the engine.
Good analysis.
With a Diesel engine, they will maybe lose 15 Knots and get some more empty mass, but preserve their payload and range and will siginificantly lower the fuel burn and operating cost.
Again, I agree. With a diesel, they would set themselfs apart (for now) from the competition. Remains to be seen what they decide. Or if that airplane will ever make certification. If the promises they put forth won’t be met, a lot of people will walk away to cheaper and more proven solutions.
