ANG Compared with Market Leaders
To demonstrate the real capabilities of the ANG – New Generation Aircraft, we compared it with some of the most recognized models in general aviation.
👉 All calculations are made under equal and objective criteria:
This way, the comparison covers not only speed or power, but what really matters to an owner:
how much it can carry with full tanks, how much it burns per hour, flight cost, and the runways it can safely operate.
Here is the first matchup: ANG vs Cirrus SR22, one of the best-selling aircraft in the world.
ANG vs Cirrus SR22
Objective comparison using equal criteria for both models.
| ANG | Cirrus SR22 | Winner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | ROTAX 916 iS (160 HP) | Continental IO-550-N (310 HP) | Info |
| MTOW: | 950 kg | 1,633 kg | Info |
| Fuel: | 245 L (≈170 kg) | 349 L (≈251 kg) | Info |
| Empty weight: | 380 kg | 1,031 kg | 🏆ANG (−651 kg) |
| Useful load: | 570 kg | 602 kg | Info |
| Full-fuel payload: | 400 kg | 351 kg | 🏆ANG (+49 kg) |
| Full-fuel capacity: | 4 adults + 80 kg luggage | 4 adults + 31 kg luggage | 🏆ANG (+49 kg luggage) |
| Fuel burn: | 28 L/h (MOGAS 95) | 60 L/h (Avgas 100LL) | 🏆ANG (−32 L/h) |
| Flight cost per hour: | €41/h | €220/h | 🏆ANG (−€179) |
| Range: | 2,500 km | 1,900 km | 🏆ANG (+600 km) |
| Cockpit width: | 135 cm | 124 cm | 🏆ANG (+11 cm) |
| Cruise speed: | 370 km/h (200 kt) | 340 km/h (183 kt) | 🏆ANG (+30 km/h) |
| Max climb rate: | 1,400 fpm | 1,270 fpm | 🏆ANG (+130 fpm) |
| Stall speed: | 80 km/h (43 kt) | 111 km/h (60 kt) | 🏆ANG (−17 kt) |
| Take-off distance: | 240 m | 330 m | 🏆ANG (−90 m) |
| Landing distance: | 150 m | 359 m | 🏆ANG (−209 m) |
| Price: | ≈ €370,000 | ≈ €1,200,000 | 🏆ANG (−€830,000) |
Conclusion
ANG is the clear winner. With full tanks it carries +49 kg more, burns half the fuel and saves €179 every flight hour.
The cabin is 11 cm wider, cruise is 30 km/h faster and it offers 600 km more range, ensuring longer and more comfortable trips.
With a much lower stall speed and shorter take-off and landing rolls, ANG is safer and more versatile, able to use small and economical airfields where the SR22 is limited.
And it does all that for less than one third of the price: a difference of over €800,000 compared to the SR22.
ANG vs Sling TSi
Objective comparison using identical criteria for both models.
| ANG | Sling TSi | Winner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Rotax 916 iS (160 hp) | Rotax 916 iS (160 hp) | Info |
| MTOW | 950 kg | 950 kg | Info |
| Fuel | 245 L | 198 L | Info |
| Empty weight | 380 kg | 520 kg | 🏆ANG (−140 kg) |
| Useful load | 570 kg | 430 kg | Info |
| Full-fuel payload | 400 kg | 288 kg | 🏆ANG (+112 kg) |
| Full-fuel capacity | 4 adults + 80 kg baggage | 3 adults + 48 kg baggage | 🏆ANG (+1 adult +32 kg) |
| Fuel burn | 28 L/h (MOGAS) | 28 L/h (MOGAS) | = |
| Hourly cost | €41/h | €41/h | = |
| Range | 2,500 km | 2,200 km | 🏆ANG (+300 km) |
| Cockpit width | 135 cm | 117 cm | 🏆ANG (+18 cm) |
| Cruise | 370 km/h (200 kt) | 285 km/h (155 kt) | 🏆ANG (+85 km/h) |
| Max climb rate | 1,400 fpm | 1,200 fpm | 🏆ANG (+200 fpm) |
| Stall speed | 80 km/h (43 kt) | 89 km/h (48 kt) | 🏆ANG (−9 km/h, −6 kt) |
| Takeoff distance | 240 m | 250 m | 🏆ANG (−10 m) |
| Landing distance | 150 m | 228 m | 🏆ANG (−78 m) |
| Price | ≈ €370,000 | ≈ €370,000 | = |
Conclusion
ANG is the clear winner. With full tanks it carries more real weight (+112 kg), allows +1 extra adult and +32 kg baggage, and with the same engine keeps the same fuel burn and hourly cost.
Its cockpit is +18 cm wider, cruise is +85 km/h faster, and range is +300 km longer—meaning more comfort and more reach.
Plus, thanks to its lower stall speed (−9 km/h / −6 kt) and shorter takeoff/landing distances (−10 m / −78 m), ANG is safer and more versatile for small, cost-effective airfields.
ANG vs Cessna 182 Skylane
Objective comparison using identical criteria for both models.
| ANG | Cessna 182 | Winner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Rotax 916 iS (160 hp) | Lycoming IO-540-A (230 hp) | Info |
| MTOW | 950 kg | 1,406 kg | Info |
| Fuel | 245 L (≈170 kg) | 329 L (≈236 kg) | Info |
| Empty weight | 380 kg | 907 kg | 🏆ANG (−527 kg) |
| Useful load | 570 kg | 499 kg | Info |
| Full-fuel payload | 400 kg | 263 kg | 🏆ANG (+137 kg) |
| Full-fuel capacity | 4 adults + 80 kg baggage | 3 adults + 23 kg baggage | 🏆ANG (+1 adult +57 kg) |
| Fuel burn | 28 L/h (MOGAS 95) | 53 L/h (AVGAS 100LL) | 🏆ANG (−25 L/h) |
| Hourly cost | €41/h | €195/h | 🏆ANG (−€154) |
| Range | 2,500 km | 1,523 km | 🏆ANG (+967 km) |
| Cockpit width | 135 cm | 107 cm | 🏆ANG (+28 cm) |
| Cruise | 370 km/h (200 kt) | 270 km/h (145 kt) | 🏆ANG (+100 km/h) |
| Max climb rate | 1,400 fpm | 924 fpm | 🏆ANG (+466 fpm) |
| Stall speed | 80 km/h (43 kt) | 91 km/h (49 kt) | 🏆ANG (−11 km/h) |
| Takeoff distance | 240 m | 460 m (1,514 ft) | 🏆ANG (−220 m) |
| Landing distance | 150 m | 411 m | 🏆ANG (−261 m) |
| Price | ≈ €370,000 | ≈ €900,000 | 🏆ANG (−€530,000) |
Conclusion
ANG is the clear winner.
With full tanks it carries +1 adult and more baggage, burns 25 L/h less, and saves €154 per flight hour.
Its cockpit is 28 cm wider, cruise is 100 km/h faster, and range is 967 km longer, providing more comfort and more reach.
With a lower stall speed and 200 m shorter takeoff and landing rolls, ANG is safer and more versatile, able to operate at small, cost-efficient airfields where the Cessna 182 cannot.
It also costs more than €530,000 less than the Cessna 182: maximum advantage in every parameter.
ANG vs Diamond DA50 RG
Objective comparison using identical criteria for both models.
| ANG | Diamond DA50 RG | Winner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | ROTAX 916 iS (160 hp) | Continental CD-300 (300 hp, Jet-A) | Info |
| MTOW | 950 kg | 1,999 kg | Info |
| Fuel | 245 L (≈170 kg) | 185 L Jet-A (≈148 kg) | Info |
| Empty weight | 380 kg | 1,450 kg | 🏆ANG (−1,070 kg) |
| Useful load | 570 kg | 549 kg | Info |
| Full-fuel payload | 400 kg | 401 kg | ≈ |
| Full-fuel capacity | 4 adults + 80 kg baggage | 5 adults, no baggage | Mission-dependent |
| Fuel burn | 28 L/h (MOGAS 95) | 39 L/h (Jet-A) | 🏆ANG (−11 L/h) |
| Hourly cost | €41/h | €77/h | 🏆ANG (−€36) |
| Range | 2,500 km | 1,350 km | 🏆ANG (+1,150 km) |
| Cockpit width | 135 cm | 129 cm | 🏆ANG (+6 cm) |
| Cruise | 370 km/h (200 kt) | 318 km/h (172 kt) | 🏆ANG (+52 km/h) |
| Max climb rate | 1,400 fpm | 780 fpm | 🏆ANG (+620 fpm) |
| Stall speed | 80 km/h (43 kt) | 107 km/h (58 kt) | 🏆ANG (−15 kt) |
| Takeoff distance | 240 m | 734 m (over 15 m obstacle) | 🏆ANG (−494 m) |
| Landing distance | 150 m | 678 m (over 15 m obstacle) | 🏆ANG (−528 m) |
| Price | ≈ €370,000 | ≈ €1,200,000 | 🏆ANG (−€830,000) |
Conclusion
ANG is the clear winner. With full tanks it keeps the same payload, but burns far less fuel and costs almost half per flight hour.
Its cockpit is wider (+6 cm), cruise is +52 km/h faster, and range is +1,150 km longer—delivering more comfort and more real-world reach.
With an almost 2× climb rate (+620 fpm), a lower stall speed (−15 kt), and takeoff/landing rolls up to 500 m shorter, ANG is safer and more versatile, accessing hundreds of small, cost-efficient airfields where the DA50 cannot.
And it does so while costing over €800,000 less—that’s less than one third of the DA50’s price.
ANG vs Van’s RV-10
Objective comparison using identical criteria for both models.
| ANG | Van’s RV-10 | Winner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Rotax 916 iS (160 hp) | Lycoming IO-540 (260 hp) | Info |
| MTOW | 950 kg | 1,225 kg | Info |
| Fuel | 245 L (≈170 kg) | 227 L (≈163 kg) | Info |
| Empty weight | 380 kg | 748 kg | 🏆ANG (−368 kg) |
| Useful load | 570 kg | ~477 kg | Info |
| Full-fuel payload | 400 kg | 314 kg | 🏆ANG (+86 kg) |
| Full-fuel capacity | 4 adults + 80 kg baggage | 3 adults + 74 kg baggage | 🏆ANG (+1 adult +6 kg) |
| Fuel burn | 28 L/h (MOGAS 95) | 47 L/h (AVGAS 100LL) | 🏆ANG (−19 L/h) |
| Hourly cost | €41/h | €174/h | 🏆ANG (−€133) |
| Range | 2,500 km | 1,350–1,600 km | 🏆ANG (~+1,000 km) |
| Cockpit width | 135 cm | 122 cm | 🏆ANG (+13 cm) |
| Cruise | 370 km/h (200 kt) | 325 km/h (175 kt) | 🏆ANG (+45 km/h) |
| Max climb rate | 1,400 fpm | 1,450 fpm | ≈ |
| Stall speed | 80 km/h (43 kt) | 102 km/h (55 kt) | 🏆ANG (−12 kt) |
| Takeoff distance | 240 m | 152 m | 🏆RV-10 (−88 m) |
| Landing distance | 150 m | 198 m | 🏆ANG (−48 m) |
| Price | ≈ €370,000 | ≈ €370,000 | = |
Conclusion
ANG is the clear winner. With full tanks it carries +86 kg more, enabling +1 extra adult with baggage, while burning far less fuel and saving €133 per hour.
Its cockpit is 13 cm wider, cruise is 45 km/h faster, and range is ~1,000 km longer, ensuring more comfortable, longer flights.
Although the RV-10 takes off a bit shorter, the ANG’s lower stall speed and shorter landing distance provide greater safety and versatility, with access to small, low-cost airfields where the RV-10 is limited.
And all that at the same acquisition price—the choice is obvious.
ANG vs Pipistrel Panthera
Objective comparison using identical criteria for both models.
| ANG | Pipistrel Panthera | Winner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Rotax 916 iS (160 hp) | Lycoming IO-540-X (260 hp) | Info |
| MTOW | 950 kg | 1,200 kg | Info |
| Fuel | 245 L (≈170 kg) | 272 L (≈195 kg) | Info |
| Empty weight | 380 kg | 650 kg | 🏆ANG (−270 kg) |
| Useful load | 570 kg | 550 kg | Info |
| Full-fuel payload | 400 kg | 355 kg | 🏆ANG (+45 kg) |
| Full-fuel capacity | 4 adults + 80 kg baggage | 4 adults + 35 kg baggage | 🏆ANG (+45 kg baggage) |
| Fuel burn | 28 L/h (MOGAS 95) | 42 L/h (AVGAS 100) | 🏆ANG (−14 L/h) |
| Hourly cost | €41/h | €155/h | 🏆ANG (−€114) |
| Range | 2,500 km | 1,850 km | 🏆ANG (+650 km) |
| Cockpit width | 135 cm | 117 cm | 🏆ANG (+18 cm) |
| Cruise | 370 km/h (200 kt) | 370 km/h (200 kt) | = |
| Max climb rate | 1,400 fpm | 1,200 fpm | 🏆ANG (+200 fpm) |
| Stall speed | 80 km/h (43 kt) | 93 km/h (50 kt) | 🏆ANG (−13 km/h) |
| Takeoff distance | 240 m | 390 m | 🏆ANG (−150 m) |
| Landing distance | 150 m | 330 m | 🏆ANG (−180 m) |
| Price | ≈ €370,000 | ≈ €750,000 | 🏆ANG (−€380,000) |
Conclusion
ANG is again the 100% clear winner. With full tanks it carries more baggage, while burning 14 L/h less and saving over €110 every flight hour.
Its cockpit is 18 cm wider and range is 650 km longer, ensuring more comfortable and longer trips.
It also takes off and lands on runways 150–180 m shorter, with a much lower stall speed that brings greater safety and access to small airfields.
And all this at a €380,000 lower price than the Panthera: the choice is obvious.