The Panthera is FAST, Efficient, and BEAUTIFUL - Flight Demo 

I don't think it was the ATC. It was a non tower airport.

@@eyalvolkmar6558 laama kai! Abuaa

@@eyalvolkmar6558 .ًز.ظكحززززنزظزظززز.زز.ن ن ن ن ن ز.ن ز.ن.ن ن ن ز..ً.......د00حمزح.ح...حزحزحححظحح0حح000ححذ

Yea except for one thing, the tail end of the plane was designed for the slower speed which the io-390 could give, now with the 540 the tail is still the same and , “”hasn’t””been reinforced to save costs. That’s why the never exceed speed is so close to the high speed cruise number. The FAA has to get on their case and make them apply more layers of carbon to that skinny tail boom before it gets certified.

@@tropicthndr projected cruise speed with IO-390 was about the same. It was close to Vne, too. And why should it be any other way?

You sold enough lemonade yet?

@@howey935 He's gonna have to sell heroin. By the pound :)

Yeah I'm all about lemonaid,I'll be your partner.

Yeah, I'm all about lemonade I'll be your partner

@@devilsoffspring5519 😂😂😂😂

I had been dreaming to see the Panthera in person, let alone fly in one! The Alpha was really great too. I am honestly impressed by the pipistrel aircraft

Will a pair of skiis fit in the back?

@@anewrnn yes Elan Voyager will 👍

Michael, are you coming to Oshkosh?

@@FloridaFlying ORLyk oooo

Looking for a plane to fly around the world and break records. Think I found it! Thanks for the video!!

I agree it's right up there with my favorite warbirds.

Dont worry hes not going hungry, makes lots of money from youtube

yeah, it's crazy.

You are spot-on, it's just amazing. I am in supprised more people are not flying in this day in age.

​@@LouisianaNative13 bro we can barely afford rent (most of us) getting into flying is a pipe dream for most people.

you don't measure a plane in mpg's you measure a plane in cost per hour of flight, and this one isnt chbeap with the titanium landing gear and composite structure. titanium and carbon fiber hate each other and will corrode faster than aluminum and steel

@@ElevatedVehicles That's supposed to be anyone else's problem? Do you also complain when billionaires drop what someone makes in a year on something trivial and that they will throw? F your rent.

start saving now!

Now that you know whatt you want for yourself, start thinking what others may want from you, and how to provide it.

Lucas, keep the dream, kid! Get good grades in school, go to college (I recommend Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, I'm an alum.), and if you want to fly some very awesome A/C, join the military. In my opinion, the US Navy. I was an F-14 RIO (Radar Intercept Officer), it was awesome. Unfortunately, there never will be another plane like the Tomcat, but there are some absolutely cool A/C to fly nowadays.

And $100K less

Same here

Second ditto.

That is not quite accurate. EASA did an abbreviated spin series-60 spins as you note, which is far far less than what is required per FAR 23. Look up the FAR 23 spin matrix requirements-it can easily take hundreds or even thousands of spins to satisfy the matrix requirements. For example, Columbia spent over a year doing spin certification testing on the 400, with multiple configuration changes, before they could produce a design which was conforming. They ended up performing something like 2,000-3,000 spins during this process. Lots of time, and lots of money spent. The EASA test pilot noted that the SR20 [they did not test an SR22] recovery characteristics were not typical for GA. I have tried to find a copy of the March 2004 report online, so far no luck [although I have read it previously]but here is a quote from the report which illustrates what I am talking about [quote is available on this thread-philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20]: "Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are challenging to recover, according to the test pilots. An EASA report from March 2004 describes some spin entries and recoveries done by a company expert test pilot. Despite the fact that they always recovered within one turn, "Altitude loss from spin entry to recovery ranged from 1,200-1,800 feet." Furthermore, "The Cirrus test pilot performing the spin program noted that while all spins entered were recoverable, they required a method of spin recovery that, while not unique in light general aviation airplanes, is different from that of a light trainer airplane in which a pilot is likely to receive spin training. ... While a small percentage of Cirrus pilots may be able to successfully recover from an inadvertent spin, Cirrus contends that the far larger portion of pilots would not do so in a surprise departure spin situation." This is not to imply that BRS does not provide an equivalent level of safety-considering the skill level and lack of aerobatic training amongst the GA pilot population, the chances of a successful spin recovery are likely far less than having a successful outcome by pulling the red handle. But whenever I read statements to the effect that the SR2X were "Spin certified in Europe" I think it is worth pointing out the differences between FAR23 spin certification and the very limited spin testing done by EASA.

Those that have tried have cried as they pulled the chute. An Australian Cirrus salesman told the customer it could be done in his brand new plane. They finally had to pull the chute when he couldn't recover it no matter what he did. Look up the Panthera doing a full 10 spin recovery with 4 people aboard in it's test phase. Came out of it like a fighter jet, simply amazing to watch. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9e31q09AksA.html Here's the video link:

I think the later models had some aerodynamic changes that helped it recover from a spin. And I think most of the cirrus accidents are low level spins. Th cirrus isn’t the only one out there that has the reputation either, also the Grumman tiger.

@@FloridaFlying I could afford a used Cirrus, and I have flown one. I simply don't trust the plane. I learned in a Diamond DA40. It's too small for me, but it looks like the Panthera a bit, especially the T Tail. Just love your plane and if I ever buy another one, it's at the top of my list. That Australian incident btw was in 2017 or 18, so not that long ago. I was living there at the time it happened.

The cirrus is a great plane actually, and I used to be one of those who would poke a little fun at them. Maybe I still do... but the SR22T has great numbers and it’s surprisingly fast. It just seems to attract a lot of people who find themselves with money and then decide to get into flying. Then there are pilots who will go broke just to be able to fly. I gotta say though, I think the panthera is going to give them a run for their money. The useful load and overall comfort (and looks) is amazing There is not a single plane out there that I want to fail or end production. If the cirrus attracts more people to aviation then I am all for it

cardinaldriver “converted snowmobile motor” was briefly used in the very early days of ultralights, that would be the seventies, 40 years ago! ALL engines being supported by all aircraft manufactures are purpose built aircraft engines. The only exception to that rule are a few independent engine builders selling car engine conversions and they advertise as such. Interesting to note that diamond aircraft produce two of their aircraft using converted car engines. Your comment does little to protect the integrity of aviation.

@@waynetokarz174 Rotax also makes snowmobile engines. also, do you think cardinaldriver cares about the integrity of aviation?

You need to have a look at the DA50 RG

Francis Molloy amen to that, those Austro engines are awesome

@@nick4506 Some people seem to stick in the past regarding engine developments. Rotax Aircraft engines is light years ahead of even this ancient Lycoming with mixture control.. Geez its 2020, fix that!

With it’s great useful load and efficiency it would make an excellent global flyer!

Dayummm, good luck ma dude

@@FloridaFlying whats it’s luggage capacity with four “standard adults” seated and full fuel? Really curious!

MountainHobbler - This little gem cost very close to a million canuck bucks here in the GreatWhiteNorth.

Maybe you can get a deal! Wasn't Rumpelstiltskin from Slovenia?

or a nice gawk gawk twist spit 3000

THAT‘S THE SPIRIT! 🤜🤛

Ill send some dollars to help you get to $649.850 ,,doesnt hurt to dream

Never too late! Did you get your Private's?

For the money you could get the new DA-50 RG or an SR22 or even a twin like a new DA-42. I'm trying to work out who on earth would buy this for well over half a million dollars. Also the 3 aircraft I mentioned will all be bought second hand by air schools, rental companies and other businesses. It'll be way harder to shift this Panthera, plus you won't have the extensive maintenance support network of the bigger brands. I think this will flop.

Market disrupter among the ultra-elite and commercial, sure. The $500,000+ price premium over a merely "great" aircraft nullifies the fuel burn/speed advantage for at least 99.9% of private pilots I'm sure.

@@mrscreamer379 that da50 rg really looks impressive. I think your kind of right since it looks like the DA will be certified and I assume this is experimental only for now? The draw of experimental is lower cost and the ability to modify it without all the read tape. I feel like a experimental that runs on LL avgas would be a huge turn off for me. One of the exciting things for me with experimentals is running them on car gas. The DA is just as good or even better running on JetA since that stuff is available nearly everywhere (though a little more $$ than var pump gas). I have to say, that da50 is looking like my new hang a poster on the wall "halo" aircraft. If I win the lotto or get lucky in the market ;)

Lets remember this is an all CF airframe which will always equate to uber acquisition costs. Liberty Aerospace XL-2 , two seat CF fuse LSA modeled after the Europa ended up a whopping $130,000.00. Their main startup mission was to offer an aircraft for less than 100G. Huge little failure for them. And I havent seen one in the air. China bought a few for flight schools, but the Panthera makes that thing look terrible by comparison. This little plane will do great, because it LOOKS great. Lots of ppl care about that i guess. Give me a 152 Aerobat or a 177 and im in heaven.

@@cardinaldriver i dont know about the CF issue damning something to expensive forever. I remember when CF was essentially military only and more expensive then titanium. Now we have people working with it in their garage and its commonly seen in a number of hobbies. As for the cessna 152 comment, really? I mean, good for you I guess. I trained in a 152 and its fine for that but GA pilots and the GA fleet is aging quickly. It *needs* young blood to keep it alive and grow it and you know where I'm seeing it all? Experimental. Its cheaper, you can "mod" them without a senate hearing involved and their faster/more efficient. You should have seen the look on a friends face when explaining the flight sim 2020 to him. He was checking out the 172 and asked what "mixture" was all about. I explained that its still extremely common for GA aircraft to not only be carborated but for you to manually control the mixture. As a car guy he was stunned. You would think in 2020 we would be using single control throttles with automated mixtures (and some new planes with more modern powerplants have it). Things that cost pennies in a toy drone are 10,000$ addons for a certified aircraft. A brand new, MSRP cessna 150 in 1966 cost 6995$ or 56,000$ in todays money. So you could buy a brand new aircraft for the price of a middle of the pack luxury sedan or a large SUV or pickup truck. The same style aircraft is 8-10 times that price now. And when you look at the same identical piece of avionics and the certified version is 10,000$ and the experimental version is 3700$ it begins to tell you where the problem might be. When looking at the (remote) possibility of buying an aircraft its easy to see the used prices of some certified aircraft and think its within reach until you find the running costs and maintenance costs. Then contrast that with some of these homebuilts running on pump gas at 6-8 gph and more power, its an even hard to swallow pill. Heck, a swiss company makes a LSA 2 seater that costs 215k$, has a top speed of 195mph and can cruise at 120mph burning 6L per hour (1.5 gallons per hour) or a more realistic 75% cruise @ 180mph with 17L or 4.5 gallons per hour! The CEO flew it across the atlantic (Risen, which is a dumb name for a plane but thats beside the point). Ill probably be dead before we really see much change outside the experimental realm, but maybe LSA will get revamped and we will end up seeing finished, new, aircraft in the 80-120k range. Still not cheap but also not "ha ha, never gonna happen" dream world price either.

Look at the RDD Lancair IV io-550. Way way cheaper and a hundred kts faster and nothing blocking the forward visibility.

Gary C Want and afterburner to accompany that? 😂

Sure, add a load more $$ to the purchase price for the ie2 engine. Minus another 100lbs useful load and increased operating costs for the turbo engine (cracked cylinders etc). Add all the other crap and you're down to 500nm range and the same useful load as a Mooney...

The IE2 should be insane in maintenance costs though, to the point of being comparable to a turbo prop engine. At this point, might as well get a PT6, or a Garret . I agree though, why on earth is this a non-FADEC? Seems like lately, a carbon fiber plane gets released on vintage engines, or a FADEC plane gets released with metals/fiberglass and no chute. Lancair Evolution and the Epic E1000 continue to shine on checking the most boxes in modernity.

@@abel4776 what leads you to believe that an iE2 would cost as much, maintenance-wise, as a turboprop? There is no basis for that statement. The iE2 currently powers two aircraft the Lanciar Evolution and the Tecnam P2012. SInce the iE2 is built around the core of the IO-540, it should not be significanlty more to maintain and overhaul than the TSIO-540 found in the Piper Malibu. The initial cost will be more, maybe up to 40% more (I saw some figures that said $100,00-120,000, but can't find anything in current pricing). So, to say that is is near the same cost as a turboprop is wildly inaccurate. The overhaul cost on a PT-6, as of 2019, should be in the vicinity of $200,000-250,000, while the hot section inspection can run upwards of $40,000! A piston powered overhaul, with turbos and such, will run you about what the hot section on the PT-6 costs, but that's an overhaul, not an inspection. So, I have no idea where you are getting your ideas from, but they certainly aren't based in any reality I'm aware of. Would you like to back up your statement, please?

bruh shut the fuck up

Any specific reason why your SR22 (do you still own it?) is your least favorite to fly?

@@abel4776 i'd bet it's the side yoke, worst flight control ever put on plane ever

Cirrus has no competition. Their product is plainly superior in every way. It is a complete product. Both Diamond and Pipistrel are far behind.

@@speedomars3869 superior? You mean heavier with less payload? Or you mean its a lot more expensive?)

​@@VNtergon The Panthera is $650,000 four seater with a 190kt max cruise (using the largest of two Lycoming engine offered at 260hp). It has a laughable 54 gallon gas tank which equals a range far under 900 nm. The useful load is 950lbs btw thanks to the lack of FOB. It is NOT a good thing that it it's max gross is 2900lbs btw. The lighter the plane the easier it gets tossed around in the weather. The $920k Cirrus SR22T seats five has a1280 useful load and 315hp engine and a max gross of 3600lbs. The SR22T max cruise of 205kts and a 92 gallon gas tank yields a range of 1020 nm. The SR22 is $780 btw and is comparable to the Panthera in performance but beats it in useful load and range also. The real reason no one will buy the Panthera, other than it's meager performance stats is the retractable gear. Mooney is bankrupt using them...no modern piston single has them for good reason. Insurance companies HATE them and you will pay punishing rates in planes having them (worth it in jets and turboprops, not worth it for piston singles). And no insurance company will even write a policy until you have 100 hours logged in a plane with retractable...a steep cost for most.

@@speedomars3869 you forget about fuel consumption and full fuel payload, but who cares right?) Doubt retractable gear is a problem for any country other than US.

@@VNtergon The weight of 100LL is 6 pounds per gallon. The Cirrus 315hp SR22T burns 16 gph at 75% power yielding 185kts in still air. The Panthera's 26hp engine burns 15 gph at 75% power and says they can get 180 kts from that...(the Panthera picks up 2 kts from the retractable gear and 2 kts from it's drag profile over the Cirrus fixed gear). Still the fuel burn is reflected in the slight difference in max cruise speeds with the Cirrus slightly faster burning 1 gph more. The odd thing is by reducing the fuel on board (hurting range ) they should gain big on useful load, yet the useful load is still less than the Cirrus.

that's the version I can afford too.

I hear it can turn on a dimebag

As a car buff of a certain age, I have a hard time putting the "h" in there when I say it.

In the automotive world, brand new is no big deal, but in aviation it's much more rare.

Stop🤣

Right now they're selling them as experimental kits, with the FAA Certified version coming in 2022. Basically the same timeline as the Diamond DA-50 RG, but that one is not being sold as a kit.

TSIO540K would do nicely at altitude, nice smooth power. Miss my old BL-17ATC thank you for the ride, nice bird!

JUst headed out now to get a Lotto ticket!

LessCommonKnowledge The 540 is a Lycoming, usually far more reliable than a Continental.

I'll take you up in my 2000 Learjet 31, and let's see if that has a touch more power... ✌😎

Yes, although that would require greater fuel capacity in order to maintain the same range capability due to the increased fuel consumption rate. And it would also result in a decreased full fuel useful load.

Is you saying something...you can't tell me nothing 🎶

But the guy in the Piper Mirage says, you paid how much for that thing. Ha should studied your homework more.