11 ms·
Feel the same, rooting for them but website is still a bit light on actual data and a lot of startup speak, wondering how they would get that big of an improvem
by brunooo 6y ago
Feel the same, rooting for them but website is still a bit light on actual data and a lot of startup speak, wondering how they would get that big of an improvement vs similarly shaped (Avanti EVO) or powered (DA62) aircraft.
Other question is how safe the simplicity of the shape is, no front wing / canard with presumably very variable CG, or if they’ll have to sacrifice a lot of initial specs to make it work. Also if one should feel comfortable about the only semi-redundant engine over long stretches of water.
- scarier 6y agoThe CG question is really good, but considering the very conventional tail on the prototype, I imagine it has about the same acceptable CG range as a similar passenger aircraft. The wing just looks like it's way too far back since the engine's in the back instead of the front. Hopefully it's not intended to do regular transoceanic flights, but it should be fine for shorter crossings (e.g. Great Lakes, Mediterranean north/south, etc.).
- baybal2 6y agoWell, at least it's clear that they have no competition in piston powered niche because all pressurised piston aircrafts died out. Any remote equivalents are dual engine planes.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoPiper would like to please remind you that it is still selling the PA-46 Malibu / Mirage / M350 pressurized piston single.