Bruce’s Custom Covers

I have used a few different sun shields in airplanes in my flying career.  I have found one that I really like. Bruce’s Custom Covers knocks it out of the park for usability and ease of storage.

Let’s start off with functionality.  Like other window sun shields, Bruce’s Custom Covers fit very nicely into the airplane glare shield and side windows. Depending on the type of airplane you have, some of the window covers use the suction cups and others don’t.  I recently had 2 customers order from Bruce’s, one that owns a P210 that uses the suction cups for all windows, including the glare shield, and the other owns a Cirrus which doesn’t use the suction cups on anything.

They work great.  They do the job of blocking the sun and keeping the cabin much cooler while the airplane is sitting on the ramp.

The thing I like best about Bruce’s Custom Covers is their storage.  Other sun shields require you to roll them up and lash a tie around them. Bruce’s, on the other hand, come folded very neatly in a black canvas bag.  The folded covers don’t take up nearly as much room as the rolled up covers, plus they are really easy to just fold up and store.

Bruce’s Custom Covers also sells plugs for cowling, pitot tubes, etc., as well as aircraft exterior covers.

Bruce’s Custom Covers gets my recommendation for anyone wanting to get some new sun shields.  For those of you in Texas, you know you need them!

Similar Posts

  • Lightspeed Tango Headset

    I recently purchased the new, wireless, Lightspeed Tango headset.  I’m a little OCD, so when a headset wire is banging against my shoulder while I’m trying to tune a radio or point something out, it’s a little annoying. A headset without the wires caught my eye.

    As I’ve stated before in a previous article, I really like Lightspeed headsets.  They are more comfortable than Bose, and a little bit more affordable too.  The noise canceling quality is very high in the different Lightspeed models.  I personally believe it got even better with the Lightspeed Tango.

    Lightspeed Tango

    Let’s talk about the obvious first.  Not having a wire connecting you to the headset jacks is really nice.  You’re not tethered to anything, so your head is free to move anywhere without getting yanked back in place. Lightspeed developed a new technology, called Lightspeed Link, which bypasses Bluetooth or Wifi and connects the Panel Interface to the headset wirelessly.

    The Link technology works pretty well.  The only problem I have noticed is in certain airplanes, I occasionally lose one ear, but after I wiggle the input wires around, the deaf ear comes back up.  It may be a loose connector in the plane itself.

    The really nice thing about the Lightspeed Tango is the fact that it doesn’t need AA batteries anymore. Lightspeed put rechargeable lithium ion batteries in both the Panel Interface and the headset.  You get 12 hours of battery life out of both, far surpassing any length of time you would want to be in an airplane.  If the battery dies, there is a handy aux cable that can connect the Panel Interface directly to the headset (the ion batteries recharge with the included wall charger and USB cables in 2 hours).

    Though the Lightspeed Tango is slightly heavier than the Zulu 2 due to the Link hardware and the lithium ion battery, it is still extremely comfortable.  The ear cups actually fit better over my ears and give me a better seal with glasses on then the Zulu 2 did.  As with all Lightspeed products, there is no squeezing of my head and the cushions on top of the headset sit very comfortably on top of my head.

    The Bluetooth is much simpler to use than the Zulu 2 and definitely simpler than the Bose A20.  Sound quality is very good for phone calls and music.  The volume control on the headset itself is set to make smaller adjustments so you don’t have to deal with wide swings in volume.

    Overall, I’m a big fan of the Lightspeed Tango.  I am recommending them to all the pilots I talk to.  Rolling in at $400 cheaper than the Bose, you can’t go wrong.

    Lightspeed Tango 3

  • Breathing…It’s The Difference in Engine Performance

    The PT6 engine that’s found on the Jetprop and Meridian is designated a -21, -34,-35, or a -42A.  The Continental engine on a Malibu is either a TSIO 520 or a 550.  What’s the difference? Why should I care? Most pilots don’t understand the difference, but it’s pretty easy to understand…and it’s all about breathing.

    Whether a piston or a turbine, the engine has a ratio of fuel/air that works best.  For a piston model, we can make adjustments to this ratio by adjusting the mixture.  In climb we use a richer ratio to help cool the engine, and in cruise we lean the mixture to save fuel since we don’t need the extra fuel for cooling (due to higher speeds which cools the engine). In the turbine, the ratio is set and there’s nothing that can be done about it…except climb to a higher altitude.  But, more about that in a second..let’s go back to the piston discussion…

    Piston: A Continental 520 engine and the 550 engine are flown exactly the same.  On takeoff, both will develop 310HP (38″MP with the 520, 35.5″MP with the 550).  So, why would a pilot want a 550 in his airplane as opposed to a 520?  The answer is breathing.

    A 520 is named appropriately because the engine displaces 520 cubic inches of air with each complete cycle of all 6 cylinders.  To determine the displacement, just figure the bore (diameter of the cylinder) and the Stroke (how far the piston travels in the cylinder) and plug the numbers into this formula:

    CID = Bore X Bore X 0.8754 X Stroke X # of Cyl.

    Here’s the bore and stroke of the Continental 520 and 550 engine:

    TSIO 520:  Bore = 5.25″ and Stroke = 4″
    TSIO 550: Bore = 5.25″ and Stroke = 4.25″

    So, you can see the two engines are exactly the same except the 550 has a little longer stroke, and therefore displaces a little more air.  Said another way…it the sucks the air into the engine a little better.

    So, with this knowledge, the ability for the engine to breathe becomes a little more clear.  Both a 520 and a 550 will perform exactly the same until the point that a 520 simply cannot suck enough air and begins to develop less MP as a result.  For most 520 engines, this will happen somewhere around 18,000 ft.  But, it is dependent upon a myriad of factors including: health of the engine, altitude, temperature, and atmospheric pressure. When the 520 hits this point, the throttle can be full-forward, but the engine will not develop full MP, but some number that is less.  I’ve seen a max MP at FL250 in a 520 Malibu to be about 31″MP.  So, you can probably guess that the rate of climb will correspondingly suffer as the engine develops less MP.  How do we fix this problem?  Enter the 550…

    Since the 550 displaces more air, the engine will maintain max MP to a higher altitude.  When the 520 begins to develop less power at about FL180, the 550 engine will be able to continue to maintain 35″ at a higher altitude.  Make no mistake…the 550 will also hit an altitude where is cannot develop 35″MP, but this altitude will probably be nearly FL220.  So, the 550-powered Malibu will reach cruising altitude faster than the 520.

    But, at cruise both engines are pulled back to 30″MP.  So, either engine will deliver the same cruise speed because they are both able to develop 30″MP at any altitude.  Does it really matter if you’ve got a 520 or a 550 engine?  Answer: not much.  Both are excellent engines and both will deliver the airplane to the destination, but if the chosen altitude is above FL180, the 550-powered airframe will probably arrive a few minutes earlier.  Which would I want if I were purchasing an airplane?  It’s not a big enough deal, IMHO.  I’d select the best airframe/engine/prop combination and not put much weight into the 520 vs. the 550.

    Turbine world: So, how about the -21, -34/35, and -42A compare?  Here, there’s  big difference, but it’s still all about the breathing.  A -21, -34/35, and -42A are all derivatives of the famous PT6 family of engines, and all are designed to be 1000+SHP engines de-rated to fit the airframe.  For instance, the -42A engine is 750SHP when mounted on a King Air 200, but the same engine is derated to 500SHP when mounted on the Meridian.  Ditto with the -21 and -34/35 engines…all are de-rated.  So what’s the difference? Breathing…

    At the lower altitudes all will develop their maximum rated SHP, meaning they will all develop maximum torque.  And, down low there’s plenty of air to breathe so the engine has no problem developing that torque at a low ITT.  But, as altitude is gained, the engine must suck more air to develop the same torque, and the ITT goes up.  At some point in the climb (depending upon altitude, temperature, pressure, and IAS) the engine will not be able to produce max torque without exceeding Max ITT.  At this point, the engine cannot breathe any more (suck in anymore air), and the power (torque) developed falls off.  With the -21 engine, the power falls off quite dramatically because the engine simply cannot breathe well.  It is a smaller engine and more air cannot be forced into the compressor section.  For the rest of the climb the engine is “ITT limited” and the performance will suffer.

    The -34/35 engine is a little bigger and will develop maximum power (torque) to a higher altitude.  And, when the torque does drop off (as altitude is increased), the rate of decrease is less because it can breathe easier due to it’s larger size.  Guess what? The -42A will beat out the others and develop max torque to an even higher altitude.  With this decrease  in torque available also comes a welcome friend…less fuel burn.  Altitude is the friend of any turbine pilot, and he/she will climb to the highest altitude possible to save on fuel.

    The end result is the -21 powered Jetprop will cruise at 238 KTAS (in the summer) with a fuel burn of only 28gph.  The -34 will have higher torque than the -21 and will develop more SHP and will have a higher cruise (260 KTAS in the summer) with a correspondingly higher fuel burn (32gph).  The -42A will be breathing easily at higher altitudes, and will develop the most torque, but with a fuel flow of 39gph.  The Meridian (with the -42A) will not out-perform the -34/35 Jetprop in cruise purely because the Meridian is much heavier.

    Just remember…fuel flow in a turbine is always commensurate with its ability to breathe and a turbine’s ability to breathe is a function of the engine’s ability to breathe.

    With this knowledge…let’s check your understanding.  Answer this question: Will a Jetprop cruise faster in the summer or winter?  Remember, cold air is more dense than warm air, and an engine will develop power according to it’s ability to suck in air.  More air available, more power available.  Answer: Winter.

    A good analogy: I’m a Cross-fitter (meaning I do crossfit workouts a lot).  In the gym we have various workouts that test a person’s ability to perform.  Guess who usually does the best?  Right…the guy who can breathe the best.  A person is nothing more than an engine…we intake air and combine it fuel and burn it to develop energy.  In Crossfit, the person with the biggest engine (muscles that can develop power) that can sustain power (good aerobic capability) will win almost every time.  The only variables then are genetics (how well-made is the engine), flexibility (you’ve got to be able to get into the position), and skills (there are more efficient movements).  A good Crossfitter will work hard on mobility, skill, and try to increase the bodies ability to increase capacity through a tough workout.

    To get maximum performance, the pilot cannot change the engines skill or mobility (at  least not without an engine change!), but a thorough understanding of the how the engine breathes will help him/her use the power that is available to the fullest.

    Joe Casey’s aviation story began in 1990 with his first flight near Nacogdoches, TX in a Cessna 172. From lift-off, Joe knew he would have a lifetime passion flying just about anything that will leave the ground…He was completely hooked.

    Along with being an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE), Joe is an ATP/CFI-AHMG and Commercial Rotorcraft/Glider Pilot in the civilian world and also a UH-60/AH-64 Pilot-in-Command/Instructor/Examiner Pilot in the US Army Reserves.  His passion for the last 19 years, however, has been the PA-46 Malibu/Mirage/Matrix/Jetprop/Meridian. Has has amassed over 6,500 hours in various PA-46 airframes and believe it to be one of the finest flying machines available for the serious cross-country pilot with an eye for efficiency.

    Now, Joe has flown more than 12,200 hours in just about every imaginable environment. Whether providing initial/recurrent training in the PA-46’s, TBM’s, instructing in NVG’s in a UH-60 Blackhawk, flying the King Air series of airplanes, giving tailwheel endorsements, or taking kids flying for the first time, he simply loves flying machines and the people who fly them.

  • Angelina County Airfest

    The Angelina County Airport in Lufkin, TX (KLFK) will be hosting the Angelina County Airfest on Saturday, October 10th.  The airport will open up at 9am.

    Prepare for a day of food, fun, and some great performances.  There will be warbirds and many other classic airplanes on display, not too mention a number of aerobatic performances as the day goes on.

    To learn more about the Airfest, visit the Angelina County Airfest website.  Tickets start at $10 for adults.

    Angelina County Airfest

  • Preventing Gear Up Landings

    baron
    Image credit: Aviation Consumer

    On the evening of November 3rd, 2015, I was returning to my home airport of Lancaster from Pittsburgh in my company’s Aerostar, after being out on charter all day. It was dark out as I entered the traffic pattern at Lancaster. After an uneventful approach, I was cleared to land behind a Mooney. The spacing looked good as I turned final, but, as I was nearing the threshold, I started to become concerned that the Mooney wouldn’t be clear of the runway in time for me to land. At that moment, over the radio I heard an uncomfortable transmission from the Mooney pilot: “Tower, Mooney ABC has landed gear up.”

    It took the tower controller a minute to grasp what was going on, and I was on about a 1-2 mile final when I was instructed to go around. Thankfully, the Mooney came to a stop in such a position that I was able to use the other intersecting runway, and was on the ground only a few minutes later. I can assure you, however, that I’ve never checked my “3 green” so many times in one traffic pattern as after that incident. Thankfully, no one was hurt, but there sure was an impressive amount of emergency equipment on the runway as I taxied back to my hangar.

    In aviation, there’s a saying that goes: “There are two types of pilots. Those who have landed with their gear up, and those that will.” I don’t like that saying. The potential of a gear up landing (as a result of pilot error) is something that has always been a risk that I have worked hard to avoid. Not only is a gear up landing embarrassing; but it’s also an extremely expensive black mark on any pilot’s career.

    image
    Not a good day. (Photo credit: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/plane-lands-at-republic-with-no-wheels-1.2735131)

    According to a July 2006, article in Aviation Consumer, the estimated cost of repairs following a gear up landing for an A-36 Bonanza would be about $27,000 and about 3 weeks of down time. 25 years ago, even my beloved E33 Bonanza was the victim of a gear up landing. While it was neither me nor my dad flying our airplane that day, the event stays in its history and reduces its value should the time ever come to sell it.

    That incident in 1990 resulted in approximately $25,000-30,000 in repairs. The cause of the incident was classic: the pilot put the gear down at the normal time, but then had his downwind extended by tower. He brought the gear back up to fly the longer downwind, but forgot to put it back down later when he was cleared to land. Like many pilots, he had a set routine time when he normally put the gear down, and when his routine was changed, he didn’t remember to lower the gear once more.

    Unfortunately, no matter what experience level one may be at, no pilot is immune to the possibility of such a mistake. The following are 5 tips that I have learned in my time flying that have helped myself and others minimize the chance of a gear-up landing occurring:

    1. Know your aircraft systems: What are the operating perimeters on your airplane’s gear warning system? Most airplanes have a designated speed or power setting at which the gear warning horn will sound in the event that the gear isn’t down and locked. In the Aerostar that I was flying, the gear horn was supposed to come on at 15” of manifold pressure with the gear up, but in practice, it didn’t come on until much lower than that. It has since been adjusted, but at the time it was important for me to know that if I had left the gear up, the horn wouldn’t have sounded in a timely enough manner for me to go around, much less lower it prior to touchdown. Most likely it would have just added to the noise of metal on concrete as I pulled the power all the way back in the landing flare.
    2. Don’t override gear-up warning systems: They were put there for a reason! Even if you’re out doing maneuvers and the horn is blasting in your ear for half an hour, resist the temptation to simply pull the circuit breaker or push the warning silencer to make it shut up. If a pilot disables the gear-up warning horn and then later forgets to put the gear down on landing, he or she will have a much worse headache on their hands than the one that the horn would have given them.
    3. Use your checklists and memory items: It doesn’t matter how much a pilot knows about his or her airplane, or the procedures for it. Distractions happen. Mistakes Happen. Always consult the checklist for confirmation that you’ve accomplished all the essential tasks before landing. Additionally, if you haven’t already, work on developing call outs which you perform out loud regardless of whether you are alone in the airplane or not. Whenever I’m landing an airplane, I start with my flows, go through my GUMPS (Gas-Under carriage- mixture- props- seat belt) checks, then do the printed checklist, and finally when on short final I call out “short final, cleared to land, three green.” I’ve had several passengers tease me about doing the “three green” call out while I was flying aircraft that didn’t have retractable landing gear. But, I’d much rather be in the habit of checking every time regardless of what I’m flying than forgetting to check when it is necessary.
    4. Use your available resources and develop healthy habits: If I have someone riding with me, I generally ask them to confirm that there are 3 green lights glowing on the instrument panel. Even if that person isn’t a pilot, they will probably enjoy the opportunity to be involved, and it’s a good way for me to stay in the habit of checking the gear lights to ensure that everything is properly down and locked. I’ve also found that intentionally leaving your hand on the gear lever until you have gear safe lights is a good idea. Forcing yourself to keep your hand on the handle until you have the all important lights obligates you to actually observe the indications instead of simply throwing the lever and moving onto something else. This way, if you only get an indication of 2 greens you’ll be aware of it right away and have more time to respond appropriately. It also helps you to learn the normal length of time it takes for the gear to extend or retract, which will be helpful to you to be aware of any abnormalities in the gear system.
    5. Upgrade your aircraft’s gear-up warnings: There’s a variety of ways you can improve your aircraft’s ability to warn you of a potential gear-up landing. For student pilots or pilots new to complex aircraft, it could be something as simple as a red post-it note on the panel to remind you to verify the gear position prior to landing. Or, if you own an aircraft that doesn’t have an effective way to warn the pilot of a gear-up landing, consider investing in an aftermarket gear-up warning system – surely the extra price of such an upgrade is a small amount next to the cost of repairing the damage from a gear-up landing!
    Crash recovery and emergency management crews survey a C-17 Globemaster as it rests on Bagram Air Field's active runway Jan. 31 after landing with its landing gear still up. More than 120 Airmen, Defense Department civilians and contractors successfully removed the crippled aircraft from the runway Feb. 2 and restored full air operations shortly thereafter. The "belly up," or no landing gear, recovery effort that began here Jan. 30 was the first time in the airframe's 16-year Air Force history. (U.S. Air Force photo)
    It can happen to anyone! The gear handle in this C-17 was in the “UP” position. (Photo Credit:https://theaviationist.com/2009/02/09/c-17-gear-up-landing-in-bagram-images/)

    Always remember, regardless of experience, no pilot is immune to the possibility of a gear up landing. The best way to safeguard yourself is to discipline yourself in the use of flows, checklists, and call outs. Things like gear warning horns, visual reminders, and other systems are a useful back up, but they shouldn’t be relied upon to save your bacon if you don’t get the gear down at the proper time. Fortunately, in most gear up landings, the pilot and passengers are able to walk away uninjured – but that doesn’t lessen the embarrassment or financial burden of the event. So, keep your chin up, your gear down, and remember….THREE GREEN

  • Skyvector Has a New Look

    Skyvector has changed it’s look.  The aeronautical chart website is now offering flight plan filing capability. In order to gain the ability to file flight plans, the user has to form an account first.

    Personally, I really liked how Skyvector had a simple interface before they changed.  As an instructor, a lot of times, I go to multiple airports on one flight.  It was really nice to just plug in airport IDs to check distances and heading information on Skyvector.  The new format is a little clunky as the website has made it a little more difficult to do what it did best before.

    Did the aviation community need another venue to file flight plans?  Not with Foreflight, Garmin Pilot, and WingXPro leading the way in the app market.  Skyvector was smart in not trying to develop another app to compete with the big boys.

    Will the new Skyvector last?  We’ll see.  I’m hoping they’ll go back to the way they used to be, but we’ll see. I may use it enough to come around to liking it.

  • The New Diamond DA50 Line

    Diamond has joined the high performance single engine fray with the announcement of it’s new line of DA50 models.  Cirrus currently has the cornered the market on easy flying, fixed gear, speedy HP single engine airplanes.  But, (assuming that the Diamond DA50 gets certified in a timely manner and the appeal of the Jet A sipping SMA diesel engines appeals to a broad enough audience), Cirrus could have some competition soon.

    The proposed Diamond DA50 will come in 3 different configurations, the IV, the V, and the VII.  The IV and the V will each burn under 10 GPH of Jet A. The VII will burn about 14 GPH of Jet A, using the same amount of fuel as a normally aspirated SR22, but at cheaper Jet A prices (plus the discount of fuel companies like CAA or AEG Fuels).

    According to AOPA, all 3 Diamond DA50 models will be equipped with the Garmin G1000 NXi panel and the GFC 700 Autopilot. The Diamond DA50 -V will be the first model expected out next year, with the IV to follow soon after.  The wait for the VII will be a bit longer.

    In testing, the Diamond DA50 -V showed true airspeeds of 173 knots with an expected range of almost 1100 miles.  Gone is the bubble canopy that greatly increased the green house affect of the airplane.  It’s replaced by two suicide doors, similar to what is on the Cessna TTx.  The single back seat door on the pilot’s side remains.

    Carrying capacity will be greater than the Cirrus as well.  The Diamond DA50 -V will have a gross weight of around 4,000 pounds, giving it a useful load of 1,250 pounds, giving pilots a lot more flexibility in weight carrying.  The Diamond DA50 exterior will be fully customizable as well as advances in carbon fiber paint and decals has come a long way since the early 2000s when white was the only option.

    Here are some basic specs for each DA50 model:

    Diamond DA50 -IV

    • 230 HP
    • 4 seats
    • Less than 10GPH fuel burn

    Diamond DA50 -V

    • 260 HP
    • 5 seats
    • 10 GPH Fuel Burn

    Diamond DA50 -VII

    • 360 HP
    • 7 seats
    • Retractable Gear
    • Turboprop option

    I am most excited to see the performance numbers on the VII model when it comes to market.  With a 360 HP engine and retractable gear, it seems like it will be a screamer.

    There are also rumors that Diamond is working on a rotorcraft, the Dart 280, but there isn’t a flying model at the moment.

Leave a Reply

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