The FAA has decided to discontinue the dedicated En Route Flight Advisory (EFAS or Flight Watch) frequency 122.0. The effective date will be September 24th, but Flight Service will continue to monitor the frequency for an additional six months to direct pilots to Flight Service Station frequencies.
EFAS services will still be provided by Flight Service, though, on the published Flight Service Station frequencies (and 122.2).
To me, this makes some sense. In the past, if I accidentally contacted Flight Service on one of their frequencies to issue a pilot report or get a weather update, they would send me over to Flight Watch on 122.0. More than likely, the Flight Watch operator was sitting right next to the Flight Service operator, but I had to flip frequencies. This will help alleviate some confusion for pilots.
The deactivation of Flight Watch had been coming for years since the advent of Foreflight and other iPad and tablet apps giving pilots much easier access to weather, both in flight and on the ground. With Nexrad and Stratus, there isn’t much need for Flight Watch anymore (though you still can’t file a PIREP over the XM Weather!).
In July, a Cirrus SR22 suffered an engine failure in Houston after departing KIAH. The CAPS system was deployed and the airplane came to rest in a neighborhood on the north side of Houston. This makes CAPS save number 53 for Cirrus and no fatalities. The initial NTSB report is below.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, July 07, 2015 in Houston, TX
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22, registration: N422PB
Injuries: 2 Minor.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On July 7, 2015, about 1137 central daylight time, a Cirrus SR-22 single-engine airplane, N422PB, descended under the canopy of the cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and landed in a residential neighborhood at Houston, Texas. The pilot and passenger sustained minor injuries, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to and operated by AIRCCS, LLC; Humble, Texas, as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 business flight. Day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed and a flight plan had not been filed. The airplane departed George Bush Intercontinental/Houston Airport (IAH), Houston, Texas, at 1133 and was destined for Austin Bergstrom International Airport (AUS), Austin, Texas.
The pilot reported that during initial climb, he noticed the engine temperatures began increasing and he reduced power in an attempt to lower the engine temperatures. When the airplane was about 900 feet above ground level (agl) the engine began detonating, and soon after there was a complete loss of engine power. With no suitable forced landing areas the pilot deployed the CAPS ballistic parachute system and the airplane impacted terrain and came to rest upright next to a residence.
An initial on-scene wreckage examination showed there was adequate fuel on-board. At the facility where the airplane had most recently been refueled, refueling unit records and a review of security camera video showed that the airplane had been refueled with aviation gasoline and not with jet fuel. Postaccident fuel quality checks of that fuel facility were satisfactory.
The wreckage was moved to a different location and will be further examined. Several avionics components containing non-volatile memory (NVM), including engine performance data, will then be removed from the wreckage for examination and an extraction of useful data is expected.
At 1053 the Automated Surface Observation System at IAH reported wind from 160 degrees at 15 knots gusting to 20 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 3,000 feet agl, broken clouds at 25,000 feet agl, temperature 31 degrees Celsius (C), dew point 24 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 30.03 inches of Mercury.
2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ) — 235 KTAS and Garmin G1000 glass, priced under a comparable Cirrus.
If you’re weighing a Cessna 400 vs Cirrus, start here. The 2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT cruises at 235 knots true — the fastest fixed-gear piston single ever certified. It’s faster than a turbocharged Cirrus on the same fuel and the same class of engine, and it costs less than a comparable SR22T. If you’re shopping a high-performance single for speed and value, N422TJ deserves a hard look.
The Airplane Cirrus Shoppers Overlook
The Cessna 400 is a Lancair design — a clean-sheet, all-composite airframe built to go fast. Cessna certified and refined it, and built N422TJ in 2008. It seats four, carries a real load, and handles weather. Most buyers shopping a high-performance single default to Cirrus, so airplanes like this one get overlooked. That’s where the value is.
Faster on the Same Fuel
The 400’s 235 KTAS is a true max cruise at 25,000 feet on oxygen. A 2011–2012 Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) trues about 211 KTAS. Both burn 100LL and run turbocharged Continental engines in the same ~310-horsepower class.
That’s about 24 knots up high — roughly 45 minutes off a 1,000-nautical-mile leg — with no bigger engine and no more fuel. And it isn’t only a flight-levels number: at 10,000 feet the 400 still trues about 180 KTAS, roughly 10 knots faster than an SR22T at the same altitude.
Lancair-designed, all-composite, fixed-gear — the airframe that makes 235 knots possible.
The Value Gap
N422TJ is priced at $350,000. A comparable Gen 3 SR22T typically trades between $450,000 and $550,000 used. (A new SR22T is a $1M-plus airplane — not the comparison.) Against the newer turbo Cirrus, that’s roughly $100,000 to $175,000 less for a faster airplane.
N422TJ — no damage history, complete logs since new, Van Bortel-maintained.
Cross-Shopping a Turbonormalized Cirrus SR22
A lot of buyers looking at N422TJ also weigh a Cirrus SR22 with the Tornado Alley turbonormalized engine. It’s a fair comparison — the same ~310-horsepower-class Continental, the same all-composite fixed-gear layout, the same 100LL — so here’s the honest math.
Speed and engine: the turbonormalized SR22 trues around 211 KTAS; the 400 does 235. The 400 also runs a true twin-turbocharged TSIO-550-C, not a turbonormalized system — a true turbo makes boosted power up high, which is a big part of that speed edge.
Avionics and price — 2006–2008: those Cirrus came with the Avidyne Entegra panel. N422TJ’s Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision is a clear step up — better glass for comparable or less money.
Avionics and price — 2009 and later: Cirrus moved to Garmin Perspective (G1000-class) glass, but the price moved with it. A 2009 SR22 turbonormalized with Perspective typically runs around $400,000 or more — one representative listing is $429,900. N422TJ is $350,000: less money, comparable glass, and 24 knots faster.
The SR22 still brings the CAPS parachute and the Cirrus owner community. But on speed, engine, and price, the Cessna 400 stays ahead.
Metric
Cessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ)
Cirrus SR22T — Gen 3 (2011–2012)
Cirrus SR22 Turbonormalized (2006–2009)
Max cruise (25,000 ft)
235 KTAS
~211 KTAS
~211 KTAS
Cruise at 10,000 ft
~180 KTAS
~170 KTAS
~170 KTAS
Engine
Twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C (true turbo, ~310 hp class)
Turbocharged Continental (~310 hp class)
Turbonormalized Continental IO-550-N (~310 hp class)
Cessna 400 Corvalis TT vs. Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) and the turbonormalized SR22. Speeds and prices are typical estimates; verify against the aircraft records and current market.
The fastest fixed-gear piston single ever certified — and it out-runs a turbo Cirrus on the same fuel.
The Avionics You Can’t Buy Anymore
Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision (SVT) and the GFC-700 autopilot.
N422TJ has a Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision (SVT) and the GFC-700 autopilot. WAAS gives you LPV approaches — near-ILS precision at runways nationwide.
This matters because the WAAS upgrade path for the G1000 in these airframes is closed. A Cessna 400 that left the factory without WAAS can’t be upgraded — it will never fly an LPV approach. So a WAAS-plus-SVT 400 like this one is a scarce find. You either buy one that has it, or you don’t get it.
Both G1000 displays with synthetic vision — a modern, integrated flight deck.
Built to Actually Go
This airplane is equipped to be flown hard and often:
Thermawing electric de-ice with a backup alternator — a de-ice system (not certified known-ice)
Factory air conditioning
Speed brakes
Hot prop, built-in oxygen, and ADS-B Out
A comfortable four-seat cabin built for real trips.
The engine is a twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C with about 1,503 hours total time — the original engine, 1,503 since new. No damage history, complete logs since new, maintained by Van Bortel.
Leather interior, comfortable for four.
An Honest Word: What the Cirrus Does Better
One thing every Cirrus has that the 400 doesn’t: the CAPS whole-airframe parachute. Pull the handle and the airplane comes down under canopy. For a lot of buyers that’s the deciding factor, and it’s a fair reason to choose a Cirrus. Cirrus also has a large owner community and a strong support network.
Useful load is comparable across all three airplanes — the 400 is often equal or a little better. If the parachute and the community are your priorities, a Cirrus may be the right airplane, and we can help you find one. If your priorities are speed, avionics, and value, the 400 is hard to beat at this price.
Cessna 400 vs Cirrus: Quick Answers for Shoppers
Is the Cessna 400 faster than a Cirrus SR22T?
Yes. The Cessna 400 Corvalis TT trues up to 235 KTAS at 25,000 feet versus about 211 KTAS for a Gen 3 Cirrus SR22T — about 24 knots faster on the same 100LL and the same ~310-horsepower class of turbocharged Continental engine, or roughly 45 minutes saved on a 1,000-nautical-mile leg. At 10,000 feet the 400 still trues about 180 KTAS, roughly 10 knots faster than an SR22T at that altitude.
How does the Cessna 400 compare to a turbonormalized Cirrus SR22?
The Cessna 400 trues 235 KTAS versus about 211 KTAS for a turbonormalized SR22, and it uses a true twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C rather than a turbonormalized system. A 2006-2008 SR22 turbo has the older Avidyne Entegra panel, while the 400 has a Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision. A 2009-and-later SR22 turbo with Garmin Perspective glass typically costs around $400,000 or more, versus $350,000 for N422TJ. The SR22 still offers its CAPS whole-airframe parachute.
Does the 2006-2008 Cirrus SR22 have a Garmin G1000?
No. Cirrus SR22s from 2006-2008 typically came with the Avidyne Entegra glass panel; Garmin-based Perspective glass arrived in 2009. The 2008 Cessna 400 came with the Garmin G1000, and N422TJ has the WAAS and Synthetic Vision version.
How much less is a Cessna 400 than a comparable Cirrus SR22T?
N422TJ is priced at $350,000, while a comparable 2011-2012 Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) typically sells for about $450,000 to $550,000 used — roughly $100,000 to $175,000 less for a faster airplane.
What is the fastest fixed-gear single-engine airplane?
The Cessna 400 Corvalis TT, at 235 KTAS maximum cruise, is the fastest fixed-gear piston single-engine airplane ever certified.
Does the Cessna 400 have a parachute like the Cirrus?
No. A whole-airframe CAPS parachute is the one meaningful capability the Cirrus offers that the Cessna 400 does not. On speed, avionics, and useful load, the 400 matches or beats a comparable SR22 or SR22T.
Can the Cessna 400’s Garmin G1000 be upgraded to WAAS?
No. The WAAS upgrade path for the G1000 in these airframes is closed, so a non-WAAS Cessna 400 can never gain LPV approach capability. N422TJ already has WAAS plus Synthetic Vision, which makes it a scarce find.
Does the Cessna 400 carry less than a Cirrus SR22?
No. Useful load is comparable — the Cessna 400 is often equal to or a little better than a comparable SR22 or SR22T.
Looking for a fly in this fall? Check out the Texas STOL Roundup at the end of September in Hondo, KHDO. Interested in entering? All are welcome! There are several different categories including LSA, Experimental, and others. Come in for a fun weekend and see how short an airplane can be landed!
There will be bands, a STOL seminar, and even a hangar dance.
Fly in or drive in. Camping will be available on the airport.
I get to fly a lot of different airplanes in my chosen career. There aren’t many airplanes that I take off in, then say “Wow,” and have a big smile on my face. The RDD LX7 was definitely one of those.
I wrote about the RDD LX7 in the past, bragging about everything I read about it. The blogs all advertised 250 KTAS and 17 GPH and FL250, all of which are eye popping numbers.
Lo and behold, those numbers are true.
I got to go up to RDD’s Redmond, Oregon facility in April 2021 to get my initial training in the RDD LX7 and I couldn’t wipe the smile off my face. The 3 screen G3X Touch layout is very impressive and not crowded like I thought it would be. Being familiar with the G500TXi, there are some G3X specifics that take a little getting used to, but overall, it’s a good system. The main GPS and number 1 radio is a GTN 750Xi.
We took off from RDM and proceeded to climb at 140 KIAS, which equated to 2,000 FPM. We only had half tanks (which is still 90 gallons of fuel!), but it climbed with no problem. It’s extremely responsive as I learned while doing the basic flight maneuvers. The stall speed of the airplane (the biggest problem with the Lancair 4P, the airframe that the RDD LX7 is derived from, was the terrible wing design and extremely high stall speed), was in the low 60s or high 50s, with the stall being extremely docile.
The airplane handled very similarly to a Columbia 400, but seemed even more responsive. The glide ratio isn’t as good as some, but it’s still better than a Cirrus (plus it still has a BRS system to boot).
The big test was the flight to San Antonio from Redmond to bring the plane home. The new owner and I departed RDM with the tanks full of Avgas (180 gallons), then got up to a cruise altitude of FL210. After setting power and leaning, the numbers came out true to spec: 252 KTAS, 17.5 GPH.
The greatest part? We stopped in Santa Fe to stretch our legs and we didn’t need fuel. We still had 100 gallons left! That left us plenty to get to San Antonio with 40-50 gallons left over. Another RDD LX7 owner flew his piston direct from Redmond, OR to Jacksonville, FL, non-stop. It was over 9 hours. That’s impressive.
You can’t beat the purchase price, either. A new Cirrus SR22T runs a little north of $1.2m. A piston engine LX7, that is pressurized, 70 KTAS faster with a much longer range, and still has a BRS, is between $850,000-$900,000. An LX7 starts to make a whole lot of sense when you weigh all that. There is also a PT6 option with several different sizes and horsepowers to choose from, which costs more, but you see 300 KTAS.
To learn more about the RDD LX7, check out the company’s website: RDD LX7.
Recently, I did my TBM and Meridian recurrent training with Joe Casey of Casey Aviation. I always like being challenged my more seasoned instructors than me because I always get to learn something. When I learn something, it makes me a better instructor and allows me to give better instruction to my customers. Plus, there is still a bunch that I don’t know!
Joe has a podcast titled The Malibu Guru (because he really is the Malibu guru!). During our training, we did a podcast together and he interviewed me. I get to tell about Texas Top Aviation and some exciting things coming up this summer (hint: the biggest exciting thing is called The Aviator’s Academy). Before I give too much away, take a listen to the podcast.
One evening this summer, my wife and I were flying down the southern shore of Long Island in my father’s E33 Bonanza. We enjoyed the sunset as we flew westbound and our plan was to fly the New York Hudson corridor, where we would arrive just after dark. As we approached New York’s airspace, two voices in my head started having a debate.
The first voice said: “You should turn on your landing light when you get to New York to make the airplane more visible.”
The other voice said: “That’s true, but I bet you’ll burn the landing light out”
Well, as it turned out, both voices were right. My landing light fired right up when I needed it to fly the Hudson, but when it came time to land back home I had no such luck. Unfortunately, this was not the first time that I had been given the chance to practice my blackout landings. This Bonanza model has only one landing/ taxi light which is mounted in the lower cowling behind the propeller. This location is less than ideal because the filament in the bulb is fragile and can be damaged by engine vibration.
We landed uneventfully and after putting the airplane away, I decided it was time to look into upgrading the lighting to something a little more modern. I was unsure of my options, but seeing as the airplane needed a replacement bulb regardless, it seemed like a good opportunity to make a change.
After doing a little reading, I learned that HID or LED landing lights would be the best solution to my problem. I was familiar with LED aircraft lights, but had never heard of HID before.
Here is what I learned:
HID Landing Lights
HID, or High Intensity Discharge landing lights, create light by arcing electricity through a sealed gas capsule. They are brighter than LED and traditional incandescent, and the light created more closely resembles the look and feel of sunlight. HID installations require a ballast to carefully regulate the flow of electricity to the gas capsule and also require a “warm up” period after being turned on in order to reach their full brightness.
Fitting an aircraft with HID landing lights tends to be more expensive and time consuming than installing an LED light and would likely require involvement by an A&P/ IA. However, if you want the brightest light available, HID is probably the best bet.
Pros
Brighter, more natural looking light
Draws less power than standard bulbs
Long bulb life
Does not generate much heat
Cons
More expensive than other lighting options
Lights must “warm up” after being turned on
Cannot be pulsed easily
Cost/complexity of installations
LED Landing Lights
LED, or Light Emitting Diode landing lights, have no filament and work by moving electricity through diodes which are connected into a circuit. These lights have become very popular for many uses due to their simplicity, low cost, and brightness.
While not as bright as HID light, the LED lights require no “warm up period” and can be easily pulsed. LED lights draw much less power from the aircraft’s electrical system than traditional bulbs and boast incredible life length. LED bulb installation is very simple and can often serve as a direct replacement for the original lights.
Pros
Instant light (no warm up)
Incredible life length (>5,000 hours)
Low Cost
Simplicity of installation
Can be pulsed easily
Low power draw
Cons
Not as bright as HID lighting
After weighing the options, I decided to replace the incandescent bulb in the Bonanza with an LED bulb. I read the reviews online and talked to some of my friends who work in aviation and eventually decided on the Lycoming Alphabeam. The Alphabeam is FAA/PMA approved and is available through Aircraft Spruce and other aviation parts vendors. The bulb cost around 250-300 dollars and I was able to install it as a direct replacement for our old light. All I had to do was take the old one out, put the new one in, and make a logbook entry.
Below are some pictures of the installation:
After removing the old bulb, I double checked the information on the back to be sure I ordered the correct LED replacement.
You can see that the bulb is a 13V, 250W landing light, #4313.
The new light mounted easily into the existing bracket with no modification.
After mounting the new bulb, I reconnected the wiring and installed the bracket back into the nose bowl.
It works!
Last weekend I finally had an opportunity to take the airplane out after dark and see how the new light compared to the old one. I am pleased to say that it did a wonderful job and exceeded my expectations.
If you are interested in seeing a side by side comparison of the different lighting options, a quick Google search should provide what you are looking for. In my own experience, I would say that the LED light was brighter than the old light and did a very good job illuminating the taxiway and runway. It was extremely nice not to be concerned that my light wouldn’t work as I was setting up for landing at an unfamiliar field after dark. I also enjoyed feeling that I had the option to leave it on during climb and cruise in order to increase my visibility to other aircraft.
Many models of aircraft have multiple landing/ taxi lights installed which greatly reduces the likelihood of having to land without one. In our case, spending the extra money to upgrade to the LED bulb made sense because of the desire for increased reliability. If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive way to upgrade your airplane, LED or HID lighting may be something to consider.
Andrew Robinson is a 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania. He flies Pilatus PC-12s and instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.
