Chuck’s Aircraft, the Austin Cirrus Service Center located at the Austin Executive Airport (KEDC), is celebrating it’s 10 year anniversary this month. What better what to celebrate than to fly in for Texas BBQ? That’s what they thought too!
Chuck’s Aircraft will be hosting its 10 Year Anniversary Fly In on Friday, June 25th from 1pm to 5pm on their ramp at EDC (see airport diagram below). Chuck’s Aircraft always provides quality maintenance for Cirrus and other aircraft, so come show your appreciation for them.
When cleaning airplanes, the majority of people don’t know how to properly maintain their TKS panels. TKS panels provide wing leading edge, horizontal stabilizer leading edge, and, in the case of FIKI airplanes, vertical stabilizer leading edge de-icing protection. For those not familiar with them, they are metal strips that have thousands of holes drilled into them where the TKS fluid seeps out. They have become quite prevalent on Cirrus aircraft, the Cessna TTx, and Mooney aircraft manufactured in the last decade or so. The system is also known as a weeping wing system.
Being on the leading edges, these panels pick up bugs very easily. For the uninitiated, it would make sense to just use normal airplane cleaner to spray the panels and scrub the bugs. Don’t!
Using anything that contains Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) as that can harm the TKS bladders behind the panels. Any aircraft cleaner containing wax could cause the pores to clog, preventing the TKS fluid from properly seeping onto the wing.
What’s the best thing to do? Soap and water with a soft cloth is a good start (again, make sure it doesn’t have wax in it. Dish soap would be suitable). No hose available? Just simply turn the TKS system on, let it run till you start to see fluid drip off the wings onto the ground, and use the fluid to clean the panels.
A soft cloth would work fine, but, if the panels are really buggy, take a green scouring pad to do some scrubbing. Just make sure the scrubbing motion is up and down with the grain, not side to side. You can find the green scouring sponges on the dishwashing aisle in the grocery store. Just leave one in the hangar for when you need it.
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.
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.
When flying a WAAS GPS approach, there are several different levels of WAAS signal that a GPS receiver can get. The most precise is an LPV signal. LPV stands for Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance. An LPV approach has the lowest minimums of all the WAAS GPS approaches, typically in the range of 200-300 feet AGL. A GPS glide path (GP) is guaranteed with an LPV approach and the minimum altitude is a decision altitude (DA).
Just like a localizer, an LPV course width get’s tighter and the CDI becomes more sensitive the closer the plane get’s to the runway. Even though the LPV approach minimums are so low and the approach is down to a DA, they still aren’t considered precision approaches by the FAA (which leads to some extra planning when selecting an airport as an alternate that only has GPS approaches, since the AIM specifies only the LNAV minimum are to be considered if an alternate airport only has GPS approaches, bringing the 800 foot ceiling requirement to bear)
An LNAV/VNAV approach is still a WAAS approach that has a GPS glidepath, but is slightly different than an LPV approach. An LNAV/VNAV final approach course does not get more sensitive the closer the plane gets to the runway. The smallest course width on an LNAV/VNAV approach is 0.3 miles either side of center. LNAV/VNAV approaches will, most of the time, have higher minimums than LPV approaches and can have minimums no lower than 250′ AGL.
The third type of WAAS approach is strictly a non-precision approach with a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA). These are designated LP approaches, which stands for Localizer Performance. These are like old school Localizer only approaches that, similar to the lateral portion of an LPV approach, the course width tightens the closer to the runway that a pilot is. There is no glide path by definition of an LP approach, though there is a caveat.
Now, by looking at an approach plate that is a WAAS approach, but only has LP minimums listed, a pilot would assume there would be no glide path. Depending on what type of GPS unit the airplane has, that pilot could be wrong. Garmin Perspective units (Cirrus G1000), all GTN 750s and GTN 650s, All G1000 NXi units, most Garmin 430W and 530W, and all Avidyne IFD 550/540 and 440 units will display an advisory glide path on an LP approach, designated LP+V.
What does LP+V indicate? An advisory glide path is just advisory, but it is totally legal to follow down on a non-precision LP approach. The kicker is obstacle clearance is not guaranteed and the pilot needs to keep an eye on minimum altitudes at the different waypoints on the approach. The big thing I tell people is, when you arrive at the MDA and the runway is in sight, following the advisory glide path below the MDA could get you in trouble with obstacles. Don’t just hone in on your instruments when you break out of the clouds. Look out the windscreen and make sure you won’t hit anything.
If you arrive at the MDA on the advisory glide path and the runway isn’t in sight, DON’T GO BELOW THE MDA! Most autopilots won’t level off at the MDA, even if that altitude is set in the altitude pre-select, so this will involve turning off the autopilot before the MDA and manually leveling off, or engaging the altitude mode of your autopilot at the MDA.
One other type of GPS approach that you will encounter is an LNAV approach. This is a non-WAAS approach down to an MDA, but your GPS unit may still give you a +V. Most modern ones will.
One of the first questions a student pilot asks me when starting the cross country portion of his or her training is, how do I know what altitude is best for my flight? This is a good question, because without taking certain aspects of the flight into account, it’s really just a crap shoot when selecting an altitude. Craps and flying don’t mix, so let’s take a look at a few considerations when selecting an altitude.
Sky Coverage
Sky coverage has several subcategories when it comes to selecting an altitude. First is how high are the bases? Is it IFR (VFR pilots would be grounded), marginal VFR (1,000 AGL to 3,000 AGL ceiling), or good VFR (above 3,000 AGL ceiling)? If the cloud deck is only 2,500 feet off the ground, then VFR pilots are limited to either 1,000 AGL to 2,000 AGL. This is an excellent segue into why VFR pilots shouldn’t scud run!
Second, what kind of cloud deck is it? Is it an actual ceiling (broken or overcast), or is it a scattered layer? Few or scattered layers usually allow VFR pilots to find a hole to get higher to some smoother air, making the flight more pleasant. VFR pilots, always make sure to check the destination weather as it could be scattered where you are departing from, but it might be broken or overcast where you are arriving.
Last, how high are the tops of the clouds? Pilots can only get this information in the planning stage from the area forecast or from pilot reports, so most of the time, it’s not very precise information. If the tops are at 10,000 feet and the pilot is flying a 172 on a 30 mile trip, it doesn’t make much sense to get on top of the clouds.
Terrain and Obstacles
Terrain goes hand in hand with sky coverage. If there are low clouds and high terrain, that doesn’t bode well for trying to stay VFR and not hitting anything. Obstacles need to be taken into account too, as there are some pretty tall radio towers that can stretch up into a 1,500-2,000 AGL deck of clouds.
Winds Aloft
Once the sky coverage and terrain have been considered, it’s time to look at the winds aloft. Tailwinds are preferred, but, sometimes, a headwind is the only option. After taking the clouds and terrain into account, this narrows down your altitude to a handful of options. The winds aloft will further narrow it down.
Aircraft Performance
Once you have two or three altitudes in mind, taking a look at the performance charts for your airplane will help nail down that final altitude. Pull out the POH, compare fuel burn and cruise speed, and you’ll have your altitude selected.
In July, Stratos Aircraft completed the first test flight of the single engine Stratos 716X personal jet. Stratos, based in Redmond, OR, is taking a page out of Epic Aircraft’s book in how the company is planning on bringing the Stratos 716X to market.
Epic Aircraft first released the Epic LT composite single engine turboprop in the early 2000s as an experimental. The first kit was completed and flying in 2005. Epic’s goal was to bring the airplane to market as a certified aircraft, a feat that took them almost 20 years to do, achieving full certification earlier this year.
Stratos Aircraft is hoping to learn a lot from their Bend, OR neighbors. The 716X is going to start off as a limited release experimental kit, while the company is working on achieving certification for the airplane. Once the plane is certified, it will be dubbed the Stratos 716. The 716X experimental kits will be assembled through a factory builder assist program (no garage built single engine jets here!). The kit will cost $2.5 million assembled, while the expected cost of the certified Stratos 716 will be $3.5 million.
Now, let’s talk about the airplane. 400 KTAS. One engine.
That’s right, you did hear correctly. The Stratos 716X is expected to cruise at 400 KTAS on only one engine. Compared to the Cirrus Vision Jet, that’s 100 knots faster. Think, “I’ll be relaxing at the hotel pool with a drink in hand when you are landing” type speeds. The fuel burn of the Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5 engine (3,000 lbs of thrust) is about 25 GPH more than the Vision Jet (the Stratos 716X will burn about 98 GPH of Jet A while the Vision Jet averages about 75 GPH of Jet A).
Comparing the two engines, the above numbers start to make sense. The Williams FJ33 engine on the Vision Jet only puts out 1,850 lbs of thrust, significantly less than the 3,000 lbs of thrust that the Stratos 716X Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5 puts out.
What does that mean to the pilot? In the Stratos 716X, it means less takeoff roll, better climb rate, faster cruise (as evidence by the 400 KTAS expected cruise speed), and a better payload. More power = more weight carrying capacity. And, the 716X is expected to have a service ceiling of 41,000 feet. I probably wouldn’t want to go that high single pilot with one engine, but I’d be very happy with that speed in the mid-30s.
The cabin, based on the pictures I’ve seen, looks very comfortable. The Stratos 716X seats 6 and can be configured in several different ways. Baggage is no problem as Stratos Aircraft stretched the fuselage from their original 714 Proof of Concept aircraft, adding a very roomy baggage compartment above the engine compartment. The passenger compartment is as big as a Phenom 100, providing more leg and head room than the Vision Jet. The front seats have plenty of legroom too, as Stratos has opted for a side stick instead of a yoke.
The avionics for the Stratos 716X are expected to be the Garmin G3X Touch for the panel which will be driven by a Garmin GTN 750 GPS. Autopilot will be integrated within the G3X. I would imagine that once the plane is certified, the panel will be switched to a Garmin G1000 NXi and a GFC 700 will be installed.
The genius of the design of the Stratos 716X is the aerodynamics of the engine placement. Instead of hanging the engine out in the slip stream and going with a drag inducing V-Tail like Cirrus did, Stratos took some notes from the myriad of single engine military fighter jets out there, placing the engine inside the fuselage. The fuselage is then built around the engine with two air scoops for intake directly in front of the wings. With two intakes instead of one, that leads to more air flow, which again, means more power. The Vision Jet has only one.
I’m going to keep tabs on the Stratos 716X (as I kept tabs on the Epic E1000). I’m hoping Stratos gets several flying soon (the company expects to do 3 kits a year till the airplane gets certified) and certification comes quickly after.
I got to stick my head in the mockup of the Stratos 716X when I went to Osh Kosh in 2018. I was very impressed and was excited to see the airplane was finally airborne this summer.
For more information about the Stratos 716X, check out the Stratos website.
The debate about which headset is the better product will never cease. We do know this for sure, though, Lightspeed and Bose make the best noise canceling headsets out there. David Clark’s offering doesn’t match up with these two. Newcomer AKG has a light (weight-wise that is, as the headset is equipped with a pair of LED lights as well) ANR headset that the jury is still out on. For now, Lightspeed and Bose sit atop the ANR kingdom.
The comparison for this article will be between the Lightspeed Zulu 2 and the Bose A20 headsets, both of which I have used quite extensively in my flying career. I am officially in the Lighspeed camp at this point and after reading my comparison below, you’ll see why.
ANR Functionality
Between the two, the Bose A20 cancels out more noise, no argument there. This isn’t to say that the Lightspeed Zulu 2 doesn’t. Quite the opposite, actually. The Lightspeed Zulu 2 does a great job of canceling the noise. But with the A20 on in a C172, you can barely hear the engine running. The difference before you press the power button and after is extremely noticeable. I had one client turn to me after turning on the noise canceling function of his new A20 headset and state, “These things are awesome!”
The other advantage Bose has is a continuation of the noise canceling. About the only thing I don’t like about the Lightspeed is if you don’t have the headset sized just right on your head, each time you turn your head to look at something, then the suction gets broken around the ear cup and you get some ambient noise. My glasses probably don’t help with this. It’s not that big of a deal, you just have to readjust the size of the headset, but, since I’m a little OCD, it bugs me. Once I get the set sized right, it’s smooth sailing.
Comfort
Far and away, the Lightspeed Zulu 2 is much more comfortable than the Bose A20. I flew for 5 hours in the right seat with my Lightspeed set on the other day. I switched to the left seat for the last leg and used the owner’s A20 headset since it was plugged in on that side already and I noticed quite a bit of difference. The ear cups seemed to press against my head more. The pad on top of my head didn’t seem to be as cushiony. It just wasn’t overall as comfortable as the Lightspeed Zulu 2.
Bose has made a lot of progress from their original noise canceling headsets. Those didn’t have much of a cushion on top at all. After about 2.5 hours, the slim ear cushions began to dig in to the side of your head. So, the A20 has made some progress, but the Lightspeed Zulu 2 takes the cake in comfort.
Weight Distribution
“Wait!” You Bose boys scream (no pun intended). “The A20 is lighter than the Zulu 2!” While this is true (the Zulu 2 weighs in at 15.7 oz while the A20 is only 12 oz), the way that weight is distributed makes a massive amount of difference. The Lightspeed Zulu 2 feels lighter on top of your noggin than the A20 because the weight of the A20 is firmly planted on the top of your head in a single point. With the Zulu 2, the weight is distributed evenly across the top of your scalp, so even though the set is heavier, it feels lighter on your head because the weight is not all concentrated on one point.
All this adds up to why I like the Lightspeed Zulu 2 more than the Bose A20. As for a practical example, I wore my Lightspeed Zulu 2 set for 9.1 hours one day two weeks ago. Needless to say, it was a long day. But, once I climbed out of the airplane, I had no pain on the top of my head and only a very little where my glasses ran along the side of my head. Now I call that a winner.
