Make The Upgrade to Pressurization

ByHank Gibson

Are oxygen cannulas rubbing your nostrils raw?

Is turbulence giving you back problems?

Would you like to be above the bumps, breathing without tubes stuck up your nose or a mask on?  Would you like a quiet ride?

Sounds like you need pressurization.  Need more convincing?

What’s that you say?  You don’t have a multi-engine rating?  You don’t want to spend the money on a turbo prop?

Have no fear, there are options galore for you to choose from in the single engine piston marketplace, both certified aircraft and experimental.

A word of caution, though; once you go pressurized, you don’t go back….

Here is my review of the certified, pressurized single engine piston options.

Piper PA46 Malibu/Mirage/M350

In 1983, Piper shocked the world with an amazing airplane.  The pressurized, Continental TSIO-520 (310 HP) powered PA46 Malibu hit the market in the fall of that year taking the piston world by storm.  A six seat, cabin class, pressurized single engine piston that easily cruised at 190-200 knots while only burning 16-17 GPH. It was awesome.  It even had an air stair door that felt like getting on a private jet.

I love the original Continental powered Malibu, specifically the ’86-’88 models.  Piper initially had hydraulic flaps, which were clunky and had several issues (most notably, the hydraulic system would randomly kick offline while the flaps were in motion at very in-opportune moments).  Piper switched to the electric flaps in ’86, making the ’86-’88 year models very desirable.

Unfortunately for Piper, the Continental TSIO-520 was not the engine manufacturer’s best product.  There were several Malibu crankshaft problems and engine failures, so much so that Piper decided to go with the Lycoming TIO-540 engine in 1989, creating the Malibu Mirage (all the current Malibu’s operating the -520 engine have been overhauled many times over, so there are no safety concerns with the -520 engine).  The Lycoming powered Mirage (350 HP), cruises a little bit faster than the Continental powered Malibu, but burns about 5 more GPH.  Piper still makes the Mirage, now dubbed the M350, complete with the Garmin G1000 NXi panel.

The 4 seat, cabin class back seat is very roomy (unlike a Bonanza or Saratoga).  There is plenty of rooms for bags, both behind the back seat and in the handy nose compartment, which is wide enough to fit golf clubs, minus the driver.  The 1600 pound useful load (880 pound payload with full fuel), allows for a lot of people and gear to be loaded on board.  The airplane is a little stingy on CG, though.  You do not want to have a CG that is out of the rear limits.

The airplane is fun to fly.  It has a heavy elevator, similar to a Bonanza, which requires a lot of trim on landing.  It’s very long wings cause it to float a bit on landing if the pilot comes in too fast.  It’s very docile in stalls and extremely comfortable for cross country flying.  The air conditioning system works very well, though it is still hot on the front seats when sitting on the ramp on a Texas July afternoon.

Many of the airplanes have upgraded to glass panels.  Most are still equipped with the King KFC 150 autopilot, some with a Yaw Damper, some not.  The KFC 150 is a good autopilot, but when Garmin certifies their GFC 600 for the PA46, that will be a popular retrofit.

If I had my pick, I would buy an ’86-’88 Malibu with an upgraded Continental TSIO-550 engine.  Climbs a bit better and does a bit better in cruise than the original -520 engine.  See why here.

I would rate the PA46 line as the best pressurized single engine piston option out there.

Cessna P210 Centurion

The P210 was introduced by Cessna in 1978.  It also came with the Continental TSIO-520 engine that the Malibu was certified with.  Climbing at about 700-800 fpm (equal to the Malibu), the P210 cruises at around 190 KTAS as well, burning around 17-18 GPH.  Like the Malibu, the P210 had a Continental TSIO-520 power plant, but, unlike the Malibu, the P210 makes the pilot work to keep the CHTs cool.  With smaller cowl openings and a tighter cowl, cooling isn’t as good as the Malibu.

Even though the P210 has six seats, the forward facing, Cessna style 3 rows aren’t quite as comfortable as the Malibu.  The single door on the pilot’s side makes loading and unloading a bit of a chore (especially compared to the air stair door in the Malibu).  The third row of seats isn’t extremely useful, as the ceiling is lower and the proximity of the second row of seats decreases the amount of leg room, making it uncomfortable for a full size adult.  Most operators remove the pilot’s side second row seat to add an aisle to get to the back row for people and bags.  It also has a smaller cabin then the Malibu.

There is less baggage in the P210, with the singular baggage compartment accessed through a baggage door behind the cabin.  The Air conditioning system is also not as good as the Malibu.

It’s hard to get the P210 out of CG and overloaded.  A useful load of 1500 pounds (with 90 gallons of fuel, it drops to only 960 pounds) allows the airplane to be loaded to the gills without being overweight.

There are some engine upgrades out there for the P210 (the Silver Eagle conversion puts a Rolls Royce turboprop on it).  The best piston conversion is the Vitatoe Conversion that swaps the engine out for a Continental Turbo-Normalized IO-550, which is a much better engine than the -520.  You still have to monitor the CHTs, but cooling is less of an issue.  These are much higher priced on the market, though.

Because of the size of the cabin and the true reputation the P210 has of being a maintenance hog, I would rate it below the PA46 line.

Extra EA-400

There are 3 pressurized, single engine piston airplanes out there today: the Piper PA46, the Cessna P210, and the Extra EA-400.  Extra is the famous German aerobatic aircraft manufacturer that created the Extra 300 and 330.  In the early 2000s, Extra tried it’s hand at the pressurized single market with the EA-400 (Extra also tried to get into the single engine turbo-prop market with the EA-500, but the project fizzled before much progress was made).  Sadly, only 27 EA-400s were built before the company ran into financial trouble.

The concept sounds cool.  A fully composite, pressurized, liquid cooled, cabin class piston.  The engine was the Continental TSIOL-550, liquid cooled power plant.  Liquid cooling means no concern about hot CHTs while you are climbing.  The problem with the engine is that there are so few liquid cooled Continental engines out there, finding a mechanic familiar with one could be an issue.

I have never flown an Extra 400, but there are several floating around out there.  Most have steam gauges and the STEC-55x autopilot.  The price on the only one on Controller right now is comparable to the P210N but above the Continental powered Malibu.

If you are in the market, an Extra 400 might be fun to test fly and who knows, you might fall in love with it!

Experimental Options

There are a handful of experimental pressurized singles out there.  I have not flown any of them, so I can’t be a good resource on recommending them.  Here is the list, however.

Lancair Evolution Piston

Lancair IV-P

Lancair ES-P

Lancair LX7

As far as availability on the market goes, there are 8 Malibus on Controller (1 1986 model) ranging from $315,000 and down, 24 Mirages ranging from $705,000 (equipped with the Garmin G1000) and down, 25 P210s ranging from $405,000 and down, and 2 Extra EA 400s, priced at $369,000 and down.  Check out the available Experimental Lancair options here.

Have you decided to upgrade, but don’t know what to buy or how to buy it?  Check out Texas Top Aviation’s Acquisition Services.  We’ll get you the best airplane for you, your mission, and your budget.  Contact Us today to find out more information.

Similar Posts

  • Contact Approaches

    ByHank Gibson

    Almost all IFR pilots are familiar with visual approaches and what the requirements are in order to fly a visual approach. As a refresher, the Instrument Procedures Handbook defines a Visual Approach as “an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an [Instrument Approach Procedure]” (page 4-56).

    For ATC to issue a Visual Approach, the pilot must have the airport or the traffic to follow in sight. Once the pilot reports the airport or the traffic in sight, ATC can clear the aircraft for a visual approach.

    A limiting factor for a visual approach is ATC’s Minimum Vectoring Altitude. “This altitude, based on terrain and obstruction clearance, provides controllers with minimum altitudes to vector aircraft in and around a particular location” (Instrument Procedures Handbook page 1-42). ATC has to restrict aircraft to these MVAs, which can sometimes be quite high due to terrain or obstacles in the vicinity of the airport.

    Every pilot has been in a situation with a high MVA that ATC can’t get them below, but it’s solidly MVFR or VFR at the destination airport. The MVA keeps the pilot in the clouds, so a visual approach isn’t possible since the pilot can’t see the airport or the traffic to follow. This can lead to extra time to go out and fly an approach.

    Enter a Contact Approach. A Contact Approach is different then a Visual Approach. “The main differences between a visual approach and a contact approach are: a pilot must request a contact approach, while a visual approach may be assigned by ATC or requested by the pilot; and a contact approach may be approved with 1sm visibility if the flight can remain clear of clouds, while a visual approach requires the pilot to have the airport in sight, or a preceding aircraft to be followed, and the ceiling must be at least 1,000 feet AGL with at least 3sm visibility” [Instrument Procedures Handbook page 4-57].

    Here’s the simplified explanation: A pilot does not have to have the airport in sight to request a contact approach. All that is required is for the airport to be reporting at least 1sm visibility and for the pilot to remain clear of clouds.

    When would this be helpful for an IFR pilot? Good question. Here’s a scenario.

    Pilot Smalls is about 20 minutes from his destination, which is an uncontrolled airport with only one approach to runway 17. He is approaching from the south and the initial approach fix for the approach to 17 is about 15 miles north of the airport. The airport is under Center control. When he has arrived at this destination in the past, Center usually could only vector him down to 4,000 AGL. He is very familiar with this airport and the surrounding area as he comes to this destination at least 2-3 times a month for business.

    Pilot Smalls listens to the AWOS, which is reporting a 2500 foot scattered layer and 10 miles visibility. He knows it is right traffic for 17 since there is a 2,000 foot antenna on the east side of the field. There is some hilly terrain around, but all the terrain is well below pattern altitude and doesn’t cause a safety issue.

    Looking out at the clouds, Pilot Smalls observes that the cloud layer is scattered to broken, but more scattered on the west side of the airport, with several large openings that he can see the ground through. Center asks for his approach request and Pilot Smalls requests a visual approach. Center gives him a descent to 4,000 AGL, their MVA for the area. They tell him to report the airport in sight for the visual approach.

    At 4,000 AGL, Pilot Smalls is going through the scattered layer of clouds, but can see the ground in between the clouds and deems he has room to maneuver safely between the clouds and stay clear of them. He can’t see the airport, so a visual approach seems unlikely. He can’t cancel IFR because then he would have to keep the VFR cloud clearance and visibility requirements in Class E airspace (1,000 feet above, 500 below and 2sm horizontally), which isn’t possible in this case.

    5 miles from the airport, ATC states, “N12345, I’m going to have to send you out for the approach since you don’t have the airport in sight.” Pilot Smalls then requests a Contact Approach. ATC clears him for the Contact Approach to his destination, so Pilot Smalls descends through a break in the clouds, remaining clear of clouds, until he gets below the base of the ceiling. He maneuvers onto the right downwind, lands and cancels IFR.

    Contact approaches can be useful at controlled and uncontrolled airports. The first time you request one, do so with a higher ceiling and some room to maneuver to keep your safety margins. After you’ve done a few, you can determine what your personal minimums are for a Contact Approach.

    I would not recommend doing a Contact Approach at an airport you are unfamiliar with. It’s vital to know what obstacles are around since on a Contact Approach, the pilot is now responsible for traffic avoidance and terrain avoidance, whereas on a visual approach, ATC resumes that responsibility.

    For more reading on Contact Approaches and another good scenario, check out Bold Method’s article on Contact Approaches.

    Almost all IFR pilots are familiar with visual approaches and what the requirements are in order to fly a visual approach. As a refresher, the Instrument Procedures Handbook defines a Visual Approach as “an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is…

  • Avidyne IFD 440 Receives Certification

    ByHank Gibson

    Avidyne’s plug and play replacement for the Garmin 430, the Avidyne IFD 440, finally received certification from the FAA last week.  The touch screen GPS unit is being marketed as a simple swap out for the Garmin 430.  This release follows up Avidyne’s release last year of the IFD 540, also a plug and play replacement, but for the Garmin 530.

    The features and touch screen of the GPS units sound quite nifty, but it will be hard for Avidyne to compete with the GTN 750 and 650 from Garmin.  The unit prices for the IFD 540 and 440 will be less (and installation is simpler), but we will see how the company does.

    Avidyne IFD 440

    The STC allows for installation in 1,000 makes and models of aircraft, according to the company, so there are a lot of possibilities for installs.

    In conjunction, Avidyne also released a new version of it’s software for both GPS units.  According to Avidyne, this will unlock multiple features that enhances the capabilities of both units.

    To read more on the IFD 440 and it’s bigger brother, the IFD 540, check out Avidyne’s website.

    Avidyne’s plug and play replacement for the Garmin 430, the Avidyne IFD 440, finally received certification from the FAA last week.  The touch screen GPS unit is being marketed as a simple swap out for the Garmin 430.  This release follows up Avidyne’s release last year of the IFD 540, also a plug and play…

  • Flying the RDD LX7

    ByHank Gibson

    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.

    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…

  • Picking Up an IFR Clearance

    ByHank Gibson

    Picking up an IFR clearance at first can seem very simple.  But, when taking off from an untowered field, especially if a pilot is based at a towered airport, it can be a little more complex.  Based at an untowered field?  The towered procedures are a little more streamlined, but still different.

    Towered Airports

    Class B or Class C

    At Class B or Class C airports, there is a dedicated frequency to get an IFR clearance and VFR departure instructions called Clearance Delivery.  It is published in the airport facilities directory as well as most approach plates.  Before you call Clearance Delivery, get the ATIS and tell the controller you have it as well as where you are located on the airport.

    CRAFT

    Class D

    Some Class D airports have a Clearance Delivery frequency (see KADS, Addison, TX), but for the most part, you’ll get your IFR clearance on the Ground frequency.  If there is a dedicated Clearance Delivery frequency, the ATIS will specify whether or not to get your clearance on it or on ground control.

    Class D towers are only part time towers, usually closing between 7pm and 10pm local time, depending on how busy the airspace is.  These airports usually have published Clearance Delivery frequencies to contact either the local approach control or center to pick up an IFR clearance on the ground.  They will be published on approach plates and in the A/FD.

    Untowered Airports

    Class E

    There are a number of Class E airports that are Class E all the way down to the surface (see KLFK, Angelina County).  At these airports, there will either be a Clearance Delivery frequency or you call on the Center or Approach frequency to get your clearance (at KLFK, you call Center as there is no Clearance Delivery frequency.  At Temple, KTPL, there is a published Clearance Delivery frequency which you would be talking to Grey Approach).

    Class G

    There are two ways to pick up an IFR clearance at a Class G airport, one typically a little safer than the other.

    The first option is to take off and maintain VFR while calling Center or Approach control.  They will give you your clearance making you IFR and allowing you to enter the clouds.  This option can be unsafe depending on the terrain surrounding the airport and how low the ceiling is.  If the ceiling is overcast at 1,000, you can legally remain VFR in Class G airspace at 500 AGL, but that isn’t the safest option and you might not be able to raise ATC at that altitude.

    The second, and safer option, is to call on the phone.  Flight Service has a nationwide Clearance Delivery phone number that every pilot should have saved in their contacts (888-766-8267).  Typically, you want to wait to call them until after you are done with your runup because they only give you a five or ten minute window to get off the ground.  With bluetooth equipped headsets, this usually isn’t a problem.

    Be prepared when calling Clearance Delivery on the phone to wait a few minutes.  Us pilots aren’t good at being patient sometimes, but the FSS has to call Center on the phone to get your clearance and release and this can take a few minutes.  Be prepared for that going in and just be patient.  Remember, this is the safer option!

    There are a handful of Class G airports around the US that have a GCO, a Ground Communications Outlet. With a GCO, you tune up the frequency, then click the mic 4 times to talk to ATC or 6 times to talk to FSS.  Each mic click must be at least one second, so if you click the mic too quickly, it won’t work.

    At certain airports that are underlying an approach control’s airspace, you can actually call the TRACON directly and get your clearance from them (5C1, the Boerne Stage Airport, for example.  San Antonio approach is the controlling agency and you can call them directly to pick up your clearance).  It’s a good practice to get the TRACON phone number and save that in your contacts as well.

    Picking up an IFR clearance at first can seem very simple.  But, when taking off from an untowered field, especially if a pilot is based at a towered airport, it can be a little more complex.  Based at an untowered field?  The towered procedures are a little more streamlined, but still different. Towered Airports Class…

  • 2022 MMOPA Convention

    ByHank Gibson

    MMOPA announced the location for the 2022 MMOPA Convention. The 2022 Convention will be in Tucson, Arizona and will take place September 29th-October 2nd, 2022. The JW Marriott Starr Pass will be the host resort.

    Thursday, September 29th will kick off the convention with a safety event for pilots and companions, lunch with exhibitors, and the return of the charity golf tournament.

    Friday, September 30th and Saturday, October 1st will be when all the classes and seminars that make the MMOPA convention great are held. The Friday dinner will be at an aviation themed spot in Tucson while the annual auction and black tie affair will be Saturday night.

    Stay tuned to the event details page on the MMOPA website to see when registration is opened.

    MMOPA announced the location for the 2022 MMOPA Convention. The 2022 Convention will be in Tucson, Arizona and will take place September 29th-October 2nd, 2022. The JW Marriott Starr Pass will be the host resort. Thursday, September 29th will kick off the convention with a safety event for pilots and companions, lunch with exhibitors, and…

  • Santa Fe Fly In Canceled

    ByHank Gibson

    Sadly, Texas Top Aviation is having to cancel it’s 2020 Santa Fe Fly In due to COVID. New Mexico has continued to implement travel restrictions, making it difficult for Texas Top Aviation to complete the event.

    Mark your calendars now, though, as Texas Top Aviation has scheduled is 2021 Fly In. We are returning to the Lajitas Golf Resort in the Big Bend area of Texas. The event will be March 24th-26th, 2021. Stay tuned for more information. We hope to see you there!

    Sadly, Texas Top Aviation is having to cancel it’s 2020 Santa Fe Fly In due to COVID. New Mexico has continued to implement travel restrictions, making it difficult for Texas Top Aviation to complete the event. Mark your calendars now, though, as Texas Top Aviation has scheduled is 2021 Fly In. We are returning to…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *