10 Fastest Personal SINGLE PISTON ENGINE Airplanes 

Yup. But they do have the piston option.

Why do Bonanzas crash so much?

Did he? Or are you a ^^$&

Ok, one cont. Mis named. Other wise? Thought it was great.

Isn't it the one with the wooden wings? I would steer away from that.

They are relatively slow compared to the ones of the list

There are no recent footage of the piston version... But they're basically the same plane... Just different engines

@@Dwaynesaviation Still...aesthetics count...The piston engine model looks soo different at the front.

Lancair Lx7 piston, better at everything, especially landing with slotted flaps.

@@tropicthndr LX7 is not a Lancair. Yes it started life as one before being rebuilt and changed. It does seem faster than the Evolution but more cramped inside… but man does it have speed and range

The redesign actually made it a tad slower than an actual IV-P. But much much safer to fly

@@thezeek2745 Thank You I’m amazed even with flaps for slow speed it’s a bit slower at cruise. But as I checked the stats that does seem true. Either way the LX-7 is an impressive aircraft. I appreciate the insight.

Evolutions might get thermo de-icing and parachute upgrades when they team up with JMB manufacturing.

@@abel4776 That would be a game changer! I never thought about the thermal de-icing on this airplane before.

@@andrewday3206 I think its an advantage for experimental aircraft, upgrade them without the restrictions of Part 23 aircraft.

He is a professional. His name is Tomislav Krevzelj.

How do you know Tom?

172's... I might add.

@@abel4776 152 in my case.

Multi Millionaires...one million would vanish fast with the planes. Not to mention if you count all the training to be able to use them.

Many of these are 20th century, sardine can aluminum, carbureted old timers charging outrageous prices. crash-land proof carbon fiber, fadec, parachuted toys are justified at this point.

Thank the FFA and economic landscape.

@Mike Kabakov True the cost for training is less by far, but 20k is a huge chunk of change none the less. And like you said, that just gets you up to the PPL.

Blame the FAA for letting existing manufacturers use Part 23 as a barrier to new competition in the US. Can you believe that Europe (Europe!) has a more regulatory-friendly environment for aerospace innovation than the USA? Maybe, just maybe, the new Light Personal Aircraft regs that are overdue will help fix it, but already the old guard have slowed them by linking them with drone regs (to slow the process down, until the can pay off congress) and are watering it down to make the new LPA less performant, smaller and just below the level people want to buy. Same story as always.

And I want a 6 seater twin that can do aerobics…

u need a cessna 421C

First you need money, otherwise you wouldn’t be here wanting like most dreamers.

421 boom

Check out AMMO NYC detailing an airplane. It shows an old multi engine with a toilet I believe.

tbf lycoming and continental have the vast majority of the market, with the only minor competitors being austro engine (that sells only to diamond) and rotax (wich makes only low power engine) so you really don't have a choice

Europe is innovating aerospace at a faster pace than the USA. The US has a lot of regulatory barriers in place by existing manufacturers. Nobody I know claims the US is the top aerospace innovator. Not anymore. Avionics is something else. Garmin is only one of many choices - there are quite a few others. But Garmin is better than the others, and that's just the way it is. There is no defined standard in the USA requiring anyone to go Garmin. They do because it's what people want. Choice is like that - everyone wants the best. When someone does better than Garmin (and the opportunity is there), then you'll just hear complaints about that one. The US buys most of the GA planes in the world (China catching up), and that shapes the market. Diamond is distinctly European and doing fairly well in N. America, but it will never take on something like Cirrus until it designs around missions that US pilots need. Both the DA-40 and DA-42 are primarily viewed as training craft in the USA. Why? My two US homes are as far apart as London is from Belarus, and that doesn't even take me the length of the East Coast. A center stick is fun for short glides, but horrible for long cruises. So while it is technologically better, it does not fit the need for many US GA consumers. The US is a BIG place, and we tend to move around a LOT. We need comfortable, efficient transport over distance. Anything designed for Western Europe is going to be scaled wrong for North America.

@@FamilyManMoving the da 50 rg is close to what the sr 22 is, it's a bit slower but carries more weight and is a lot more efficient, da 62 is more on par with cirrus performance but it has 2 engines