50% is well within the engineering margin available too. Ultimately you can make 2 seaters that are a little bigger than existing ones but have the same range.

50% is well within the engineering margin available too. Ultimately you can make 2 seaters that are a little bigger than existing ones but have the same range. Most Cessnas don't fly with full tanks all the time, people usually fill them to ~60% (tabs) for the vast majority of flying and training. Also, hyper efficient aircraft like the LongEZ (2000mi range on 52usg) become more interesting. Most legacy piston singles are horribly inefficient aerodynamically, to the point where just comparing them by frontal cross section is a completely legitimate strategy. A large amount of thrust is wasted just cooling the engine and the wings on most Cessna's are not flush riveted, seams not covered, etc. People often wonder why multi engine aircraft don't have 2x the performance; they have over 2x the cross section. Composite aircraft have the potential to allow for extremely competitive designs. I've done estimates before suggesting we don't even need 50% of the performance, but rather somewhere around 30% to start to be competitive. 1.2kw/kg is well beyond viable.