Top 5 Most Fuel-Efficient 4-Seater Aircraft 2023-2024 | Price & Specs

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 36

  • @AviationFederation
    @AviationFederation  ปีที่แล้ว +2

    *Did we miss any other models out there that deserve to be on this list? Which other fuel-saving aircraft would you recommend buying? To see more amazing aircraft videos, check these out:*
    Top 5 Most Fuel-Efficient Turboprop Aircraft 2022-2023 | Price & Specs
    th-cam.com/video/ZdYG4mrWc9Q/w-d-xo.html
    Top 5 Most Fuel-Efficient Private Jets 2022-2023 | Price & Specs
    th-cam.com/video/MDv1qmdi_PI/w-d-xo.html
    Top 5 Hybrid-Electric Aircraft 2021-2022 | New Technologies & Features
    th-cam.com/video/sUW8vqn6ERQ/w-d-xo.html

  • @renardinosrenard9581
    @renardinosrenard9581 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Today you forgot a beautiful plane .... Pipistrel Panthera

  • @patshes1951
    @patshes1951 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Abselutly massive price differences.

  • @FasterLower
    @FasterLower ปีที่แล้ว +4

    What happened to the Pipistrel Panthera? Faster with less fuel consumption that the Cirrus and (even though its not Certified yet) there are more of them flying that the Evolution Piston

  • @clarencehopkins7832
    @clarencehopkins7832 ปีที่แล้ว

    Excellent stuff bro

  • @kresimirmilisa5560
    @kresimirmilisa5560 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    cirrus sr22 is good turboprop aircraft always nice videos.

    • @AC-jk8wq
      @AC-jk8wq ปีที่แล้ว

      This post supports the false pretenses…
      Congrats on responding to your own videos!
      This aircraft was never powered by a turboprop.
      😃

  • @진형김-b5t
    @진형김-b5t ปีที่แล้ว

    유익한 유튜브 채널 입니다

  • @cageordie
    @cageordie ปีที่แล้ว +2

    These numbers don't add up. SR22 has 92 gallon capacity and burns 18 gallons at cruise and yet we hear it has two hour duration, which is hard to square with the 1,049nm range the manufacturers claim at a cruise speed of 213 knots that would take nearly 5 hours. So where does the 2-3 come from? Since the first one is so far off why waste time listening to the rest?

  • @87camillo87
    @87camillo87 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    What about Tecnam P2010 170HP TDI?

    • @AviationFederation
      @AviationFederation  ปีที่แล้ว +2

      You really can't go wrong with most Tecnam in terms of fuel efficiency, in fact, we featured them on a separate video. Please check it out!

  • @williamkennedy2069
    @williamkennedy2069 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    The girl talking sounds cute, you should put her picture so we can see who is talking

  • @YG-wn7rk
    @YG-wn7rk ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Forgot Cessna TTX

    • @AviationFederation
      @AviationFederation  ปีที่แล้ว +1

      We considered it but the economic cruising speed seems too slow compared to the rest of the aircraft featured here.

  • @justNvlog
    @justNvlog ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Doesn't really seam lime a fuel efficient list

  • @6862ptc
    @6862ptc ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The Evolution aircraft shown is Turbine Powered!

    • @AviationFederation
      @AviationFederation  ปีที่แล้ว

      You're absolutely right! The Evolution aircraft is indeed turbine powered, offering impressive performance and capabilities.

    • @6862ptc
      @6862ptc ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @Aviation Federation But your video says both on the screen title and narration that the Evolution aircraft is PISTON-POWERED, yet shows a turbine-powered Evolution. You titled that section: the "Evolution Piston" on your video, you ONLY discuss the piston version yet show a Turbine powered aircraft.

  • @russelbaird3342
    @russelbaird3342 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I know range is somewhat subjective, but it would be really nice if you mentioned it more often or at all .

    • @AviationFederation
      @AviationFederation  8 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Absolutely! Range is an important consideration, especially for those planning longer flights. Is there a specific aircraft's range you'd like more details on?

  • @kevinmcquown
    @kevinmcquown ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I'm not sure where you are getting your retail pricing? For example, you state that the Diamond DA-42 has a base price of $462,000. That is way off. The actual base price is $979,000.

    • @AviationFederation
      @AviationFederation  ปีที่แล้ว

      These are original MSRPs and still do not include local taxes and other fees. Inflation is also not factored in yet. But thanks for pointing that out.

  • @Jyotishsr1982
    @Jyotishsr1982 ปีที่แล้ว

    it would have been better if you used SI.

  • @brycecampbell4845
    @brycecampbell4845 ปีที่แล้ว

    Cessna 182 RG Turbo pretty good

    • @AviationFederation
      @AviationFederation  ปีที่แล้ว

      Indeed, the Cessna 182 RG Turbo is a solid choice. What particularly stands out to you about this aircraft?

  • @cozyflyinggirl
    @cozyflyinggirl ปีที่แล้ว

    My 4 seat Cozy can fly 1000 miles at 15,000 feet on 5.5 gallons per hour (all be it at “only” 190 mph) and at ~< $100k.

  • @AC-jk8wq
    @AC-jk8wq ปีที่แล้ว

    Lots of confusion between normally aspirated, turbo, and turbine…
    If the author doesn’t understand these… they don’t understand efficiency of aircraft.
    One of the most efficient four seat planes ever is the Mooney line of aircraft…
    Note… when you see a pair of large exhaust pipes exiting at the front of the engine, that’s a turbine!
    None of the data seems to be factual…. Why let facts get in the way.

  • @pdeltoro
    @pdeltoro ปีที่แล้ว

    All the prices are wrong !

  • @deanwells2859
    @deanwells2859 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    It would sure be helpful to have had a narrator who knew how to pronounce English words correctly. I realize you may be using AI but you still have a long way to go. The number 3 and 4 airplanes don’t burn 80 gallons an hour of fuel, which is one of the problems. It can only stay in the air “for a little over 2 hours”? Somebody really messed up with this data. Part of the information included was not accurate and this video should not have been released.

    • @AviationFederation
      @AviationFederation  ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks for the feedback! We're continuously improving upon our editorial and presentations.

  • @Santu1939
    @Santu1939 ปีที่แล้ว

    That evolution piston is such an ugly airplane.

    • @AviationFederation
      @AviationFederation  ปีที่แล้ว

      We love those strong opinions! Feedback on the aesthetics of an aircraft can vary, and beauty is subjective. While you may find the Evolution Piston airplane unattractive, others may have different preferences. Ultimately, the design and appearance of an aircraft are influenced by factors such as functionality, performance, and aerodynamics.

  • @yurimoros
    @yurimoros 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    You are totally wrong in the description of the lanc air evolution. Mixing the pistol info with the turbine info make you as an aviation Channel totally un-reliable… happens in most of your videos