Cirrus CAPS Pull in Arkansas

ByHank Gibson

Cirrus CAPS pull #55 took place at the beginning of November over Fayatteville, AR.  From initial reports, it appears a clamp broke on the oil cooler, causing a loss of oil pressure.  It does not appear that the engine immediately quit, but an annunciator alerted the pilot that the engine was losing oil pressure.  At this point, it appears the pilot elected to do an emergency descent to an airport below him, but ended up not timing it right, missing the airport and pulling the parachute.

As an experienced Cirrus flight instructor, there appears to be some suspect decision making in handling this operation.  I teach in a Cirrus that if an oil light comes on, given that a pilot has some altitude to work with, it is a better option to physically shut the engine down, leaving control of the situation in the pilot’s hands.  This way, the pilot knows when the engine is stopping and is prepared for it, instead of the engine acting erratically and causing problems on the descent.

After checking the engine gauges and shutting the engine down, a pilot should establish best glide first, not nose down and descend at a high rate trying to make an airport.  Best glide gives the pilot many more options and a lot more altitude to work with, further allowing him/her to plan how to make an airport directly underneath the airplane.

To pontificate, it seems that if the pilot had adjusted the plane to best glide, instead of performing an emergency descent, there is the possibility that Drake Field would have been reachable, the chute would not have been needed, and the driver of the truck would not have had to visit the hospital.  Hindsight is 20-20, but this may be an overall training and decision making issue that may need further emphasis.

The initial NTSB report as well as a link to the CBS story is below.

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/pilot-forced-to-deploy-emergency-parachute-in-arkansas/

NTSB Identification: CEN16LA026
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, November 03, 2015 in Fayetteville, AR
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22T, registration: N857SW
Injuries: 3 Minor, 1 Uninjured.
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 November 3, 2015, at 0950 central standard time, a Cirrus SR22T airplane, N857SW, descended under the canopy of the cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and landed on a road in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The pilot, pilot rated passenger and one person on the ground received minor injuries. One passenger in the back right seat was uninjured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to WG Aviation LLC, Rogers, Arkansas, and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed. The flight departed from the Bentonville Municipal Airport (VBT), Bentonville, Arkansas, at 0934 and was en route to the Waco Regional Airport (ACT), Waco, Texas.

According to the pilot, after departure from ACT he leveled off around 10,000 ft mean sea level (MSL) and was in “VFR on top” conditions. The pilot noticed that the crew alerting system (CAS) flashed a yellow caution light for oil pressure; the engine was still producing power. The pilot notified air traffic control (ATC) of the issue and received vectors to the nearest airport, Drake Field Airport (FYV), Fayetteville, Arkansas. The pilot descended and maneuvered toward FYV as the CAS indicated a red warning light for oil pressure, which had dropped below 10 psi. The engine was producing inconsistent power as the airplane descended to 3,300 ft and FYV was still not in sight due to cloud coverage. The pilot was unable to maintain altitude and the airplane’s stall warning horned sounded. The pilot deployed the Cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) and descended to the ground. During the landing the airplane collided with a truck and then came to rest on a four lane road.

At 0953, the weather observation at FYV reported wind from 190 at 9 knots, gusting to 17 knots, 10 miles visibility, clear sky, temperature 61° F, dew point 57° F, and altimeter setting 30.11 inches of mercury.

An initial postaccident examination was conducted on November 4, 2015, in Fayetteville. Engine oil was observed on the underside of the fuselage. The oil cooler cross fitting was broken and oil was observed in the engine compartment.

The airplane’s recoverable data module and three data cards were removed and sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory for download.

The airplane has been retained for further examination.

Similar Posts

  • Cirrus SR22T, Cirrus Vision Jet, or Diamond DA62?

    ByHank Gibson
    Diamond DA62 twin-engine aircraft parked on the ramp, a Cirrus SR22T alternative offered by Texas Top Aviation

    If you have been searching “Cirrus SR22T for sale” or reading up on the Cirrus Vision Jet, you are looking at genuinely excellent airplanes. Both have earned their reputations. This is not an article about why you should not buy one. It is about a third airplane that almost never shows up in a Cirrus search — and what the numbers look like when you set it next to the two you are already considering.

    190 ktDA62 Cruise
    762 lbFull-Fuel Payload
    648 nmRange, 4 Adults + Bags
    1 WeekTraining, No Travel

    What the Cirrus SR22T Gets Right

    Let us start where we should. The SR22T is one of the most successful piston singles ever built, and for good reason. Turbo-normalized power that holds performance up high. A Perspective+ flight deck that is about as good as glass gets in a single. Side-yoke handling most pilots fall for inside ten minutes. And CAPS — the whole-airframe parachute that changed how our whole industry talks about safety.

    Add strong resale, a deep service network, and one of the best owner communities in aviation, and you have an airplane that is very hard to argue with. If you fly two people and light bags on 300 to 500 nautical mile legs, we would tell you to go buy one — and we would help you find the right one. We also teach Cirrus SR20, SR22 and SR22T training here in Texas, so this is not an outsider’s opinion of the airplane.

    The conversation changes when the mission grows.

    Cirrus SR22T vs. Diamond DA62: The Numbers Side by Side

    Diamond DA62 on the hangar ramp, the twin-engine alternative pilots shopping a Cirrus SR22T rarely consider

    The Diamond DA62 is a seven-seat, twin-engine, Jet-A-burning composite airplane that most Cirrus shoppers have never sat in — usually because it simply never came up in the search. Here is how the two line up on the numbers that matter.

    SpecificationCirrus SR22TDiamond DA62
    Cruise speed184 KTAS @ 85% power / 10,000 ft190 KTAS @ 90% power / 10,000 ft
    Fuel burn18.3 GPH @ 85% (16.4 GPH @ 75%)19 GPH total (9.5 GPH per engine)
    Fuel type100LL AvGasJet-A (~$1.75/gal cheaper)
    Seats / rows5 seats, 2 rows7 seats, 3 rows
    Useful load~1,125 lb (3,600 lb MTOW)1,341 lb (5,071 lb MTOW)
    Full-fuel payload~575 lb762 lb
    Range, 4 adults + 75 lb bags (835 lb)~320–350 nm~648 nm (45-min reserve)
    Takeoff over 50-ft obstacle2,080 ft1,575 ft
    Landing over 50-ft obstacle2,535 ft1,447 ft
    Single-engine service ceiling—11,000 ft
    Engine-out redundancyCAPS parachuteSecond engine
    Recurring safety-system cost~$20,000 CAPS repack / 10 yrNone
    Rating requiredHigh-performance endorsementMulti-engine (~1 week, at home)

    Cirrus SR22T figures are taken from the Cirrus SR22T G6 Pilot’s Operating Handbook (P/N 13772-007, Reissue A): cruise at ISA and 3,400 lb, takeoff and landing over a 50-ft obstacle at sea level, ISA and 3,600 lb max gross.

    Read that speed line carefully, because it is closer than the marketing on either side suggests. At 10,000 feet the DA62 has about six knots on the SR22T — real, but hardly decisive. Climb higher and the advantage flips outright: the SR22T is turbo-normalized, so at 18,000 feet the POH shows 198 KTAS on the same 18.3 gallons an hour, comfortably faster than the DA62. If raw speed is what you are buying, the Cirrus has a genuine answer.

    Where the DA62 separates itself is everything around the speed. It burns Jet-A, which runs roughly $1.75 a gallon under 100LL at most FBOs and is available at airports where AvGas gets harder to find every year. And the full-fuel payload gap is 187 pounds. Payload is where light-airplane trip plans quietly fall apart.

    Four Adults, Bags, and the Range That Actually Matters

    Spec sheets get written for two people. Real trips are not flown that way.

    Load four adults and 75 pounds of luggage — call it 835 pounds — and the SR22T has to leave fuel on the ramp. On a typical G6 empty weight that leaves room for roughly 48 of its 92 usable gallons, and realistic range lands around 320 to 350 nautical miles with IFR reserves. Put that same 835 pounds into a DA62 and you are looking at roughly 648 nautical miles with a 45-minute reserve.

    To be fair to the airplane: with full fuel and two people aboard, the SR22T is genuinely long-legged. The POH shows 763 nm at 10,000 feet and 791 nm at 18,000 feet on a 45-minute reserve. The range only collapses when you fill the seats — which is precisely the mission this comparison is about.

    That is not a rounding error. That is one fuel stop versus none on a Texas-to-Colorado weekend. And the DA62 does it across three rows, with two seats still open behind you.

    Diamond DA62 cabin interior showing the second and third row seating that gives it a 762 lb full-fuel payload

    About the Cirrus Vision Jet G1

    If your search has moved from the SR22T up to the Vision Jet, that airplane deserves real credit too. Cirrus did something nobody else managed: a single-pilot personal jet, with CAPS, delivered in volume, flown successfully by owner-operators. That is a genuine achievement in this industry, and we teach Cirrus Vision Jet training ourselves.

    The G1 specifically, though, asks for a level of commitment that surprises a lot of first-time jet buyers.

    Cirrus Vision Jet G1: What Ownership Actually Asks Of You

    • Acquisition: approximately $1.8 million.
    • Fuel burn: 60–70 GPH of Jet-A.
    • Full-fuel payload: only 300–400 lb — roughly two adults and a soft bag.
    • Range: about 800 nm on paper, but heavily payload-limited in practice.
    • Type rating: a full FAA type rating is required — roughly two weeks of initial training in Knoxville, Tennessee.
    • Insurance dual: 25+ hours of additional dual instruction beyond the type rating.
    • Recurrent: annual simulator recurrent training back in Knoxville, at $15,000–$25,000 per year, every year.
    • Runway: 3,192 ft takeoff / 3,011 ft landing over a 50-ft obstacle.
    • Climb: drops to 1,100–1,200 fpm at heavier weights, and loses thrust at high density altitude airports — exactly where you want margin.
    Worth saying plainly: the G2 and G2+ are meaningfully more capable airplanes — better payload, better hot-and-high performance, updated flight deck. That is a different and more interesting conversation, and one we are glad to have. Everything above is specific to the G1, because the G1 is the airplane most often cross-shopped at DA62 money.

    Compare that training path to the DA62. A multi-engine rating is all that is required — roughly one week, typically at your home airport, with no hotel and no travel. There is no annual sim requirement in another state, and no recurring five-figure training line item on the budget.

    Runway Numbers Open Up the Map

    Diamond DA62 on a short field runway, clearing a 50-foot obstacle in about 1,575 feet on takeoff

    Performance over a 50-foot obstacle is where your airport list gets long or short. The DA62 clears it in about 1,575 feet on takeoff and 1,447 feet on landing. The SR22T needs 2,080 and 2,535 feet. The Vision Jet G1 needs 3,192 and 3,011 feet.

    That is roughly 500 feet less than the SR22T on departure and nearly 1,100 feet less on arrival — and against the G1 the gap is wider still. Practically, that difference is what gets you into the shorter ranch, lake and mountain-adjacent strips that a lot of the best flying runs on. That is not a spec. That is a different set of weekends.

    The Parachute and the Second Engine

    CAPS is a real safety system and we will not say otherwise. It has saved lives, and it deserves the respect it gets. It also carries a cost most buyers do not budget for: the rocket and canopy repack runs about $20,000 every ten years, and it is not optional.

    The DA62 answers the same question a different way. Lose an engine and you still have one making power, turning counter-rotating props, managed by a FADEC that keeps it to a single lever per side. One number to know either way: the DA62 single-engine service ceiling is 11,000 feet, so on one engine it will hold altitude over most terrain but not over the high country. Neither answer is wrong — they are two philosophies about the same risk. The DA62 version just does not come with a recurring five-figure bill.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Is the Diamond DA62 faster than a Cirrus SR22T?

    Only down low, and only slightly. At 10,000 feet the Diamond DA62 cruises at 190 KTAS at 90% power on 19 GPH of Jet-A total, while the Cirrus SR22T G6 POH shows 184 KTAS at 85% power on 18.3 GPH of 100LL. Higher up the SR22T is the faster airplane — its turbo-normalized engine holds 198 KTAS at 18,000 feet on the same fuel flow. The DA62 advantage is fuel cost, payload and runway, not raw speed.

    How much can a Diamond DA62 carry compared to a Cirrus SR22T?

    The DA62 carries a 762 lb full-fuel payload across seven seats in three rows. The Cirrus SR22T has a useful load of about 1,125 lb and a full-fuel payload of roughly 575 lb. Loaded with four adults and 75 lb of bags — 835 lb total — the DA62 flies about 648 nm with a 45-minute reserve, while the SR22T is closer to 350 nm.

    What training does a Cirrus Vision Jet G1 require compared to a Diamond DA62?

    The Vision Jet G1 requires a full FAA type rating: about two weeks of initial training in Knoxville, Tennessee, plus 25+ hours of additional dual for insurance, plus annual simulator recurrent back in Knoxville that runs $15,000–$25,000 per year on an ongoing basis. The Diamond DA62 requires only a multi-engine rating — about one week, usually at your home airport, with no travel.

    Can a Diamond DA62 use shorter runways than a Cirrus SR22T or Vision Jet?

    Yes. Over a 50-foot obstacle the DA62 takes off in about 1,575 ft and lands in about 1,447 ft. The Cirrus SR22T needs about 2,080 ft and 2,535 ft, and the Cirrus Vision Jet G1 needs about 3,192 ft and 3,011 ft. The Vision Jet G1 also sees climb rate fall to 1,100–1,200 fpm at heavier weights and loses thrust at higher density altitude airports.

    Does the Diamond DA62 have a whole-airframe parachute like Cirrus CAPS?

    No. The DA62 redundancy is a second engine rather than a parachute. One practical difference in ownership cost: the Cirrus CAPS repack runs about $20,000 every ten years and is mandatory, while the DA62 has no equivalent recurring safety-system expense.

    Current Diamond DA62 market listings are aggregated on Controller: browse the Diamond DA62 inventory.

    DA62 Questions?

    Contact Us Today!

    Contact Texas Top Aviation•(512) 270-1298•Contact@txtopaviation.com

  • Angelina County Airfest

    ByHank Gibson

    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

  • Landing Light Replacement

    ByAndrew Robinson

    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:

    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.

  • Oh, Deer (Part 1)

    ByAndrew Robinson

    As far as I knew when I woke up, October 26, 2016 would be an ordinary day for me. It was a Wednesday, and I was scheduled to fly our Company’s BE58 Baron on a charter from Wings Field (KLOM), a non-towered airport just north of Philadelphia, to Pittsburgh International Airport (KPIT) and spend the day there waiting for my 3 passengers to finish up their meetings. The plan was to fly them back to Wings that evening and then make the short hop back to home base at Lancaster, PA. (KLNS).

    It was a flight that I had done countless times, and I was comfortable with the airports, the passengers, and the airplane. Everything went smoothly that morning and my short flight from Lancaster to Wings was uneventful. I even made it there in time to spill coffee all down the front of my pants before my passengers arrived. The weather was clear, calm and beautiful as we loaded into the Baron and the sun was just starting to come up as I taxied toward runway 24 for departure. I was departing VFR and had an IFR plan on file which I intended to pick up with Harrisburg Approach once we were airborne. According to my calculations, I was on schedule to be drinking my coffee at the Pittsburgh FBO right around 8:30.

    At 7:05, I advanced the throttles for departure. A few moments later, I received a very unpleasant surprise. I was quickly approaching rotation speed when 2 deer ran onto the runway directly in front of the aircraft. It was still dark enough that I was relying on my landing/ taxi lights to illuminate the runway for take-off.  As a result, I was unable to see the animals before it was too late. I don’t remember making a conscious decision to pull back on the yoke, but it was that or plow directly into them at about 85 knots. I pulled up as quickly as I could and the airplane rotated immediately.  A fraction of a second later I heard and felt a sickening THUD.

    There was no doubt that I had hit one of them, but, somewhat unbelievably, the airplane was climbing as though nothing had happened. I put the nose down to get the airspeed back up and began to try and piece together what damage the airplane had sustained. Based on the noise and the feeling of the impact, my suspicion was that I had hit the deer with the left main landing gear. A review of the instrumentation showed no abnormalities and the airplane was behaving normally, so I didn’t suspect any damage to the airframe/ flight controls. I couldn’t see anything out the windows that looked unusual, and somewhat unbelievably I still had 3 green lights.

    After gaining a safe amount of speed and altitude, I turned around and told the passengers that we had hit a deer. It was obvious that we had hit something and I was sure that they wanted to know what was going on. Then, I checked all my indications again and satisfied with what I was seeing, tried to bring up the landing gear. No dice. When I pulled the gear lever to the up position, the master “GEAR UP” warning light came on and I got a horn. There was never any change in the 3-green indication and the gear motor never came to life at all.

    At this point it was obvious that, minimally I was going to have to divert to Lancaster and have the maintenance guys look at the airplane to see if anything was broken. I figured that they would either give me the green light to continue or I would just jump into one of our PC12s and complete the trip while they worked on the Baron.

    The landing gear’s refusal to come up was my first indication that there was substantial damage. I set course for Lancaster and called our Chief Pilot. After explaining the situation to him, we agreed that KLNS was the best option and that he would let the maintenance guys know that I was coming.

    The logic was that proceeding to Lancaster would allow a visual check of the landing gear by maintenance people as well as the tower and result in the safest outcome if an emergency landing were required. Lancaster would likely have better services available in terms of emergency responders and, not to mention, I was fairly certain that there was a dead deer on the only runway at Wings that I didn’t feel like hitting for a second time. In addition, the relatively long runway at Lancaster combined with light traffic at that time of day made it the ideal option to divert to.

    I again turned around to brief the passengers. I told them that we were going to have to make precautionary landing before continuing to our intended destination and that I would be performing a few low passes for the tower.

    Due to the drag from the landing gear, the flight to Lancaster seemed to take forever. The long cruise home, however, gave me time to try and reach someone on the ground at Wings in hope of having the runway inspected and cleaned off before other traffic tried to use it. After several attempts to raise anyone on the Unicom/ CTAF frequency, I called Philadelphia Approach for help instead. Philly answered right away and I explained to them what had happened. I requested that they call over to Wings on the phone or send someone out to check the runway. They told me that they would get it done and asked if there was any other way that they could assist me. I told them I was headed to Lancaster and that I appreciated their offer, but didn’t require any further assistance. I then switched over to Lancaster Tower and let them know that I was about 15-20 minutes out, but I would need to perform a couple of passes to have them check my gear. The tower cleared me for a low approach over runway 26.

    I arrived at LNS at about 7:30. I performed my first low pass by the tower, not really expecting anything to appear out of place. I figured I had bent something or damaged the squat switch, but not much more. I climbed to pattern altitude and awaited the good word. Shortly after the fly-by, Tower reported that the left main gear didn’t appear to be down and locked. They suggested that I make another pass. The airport maintenance personnel chimed in, reporting the same. We had just started discussing whether cranking the gear a little by hand might help when Philly approach called the Lancaster tower on the phone.

    Philly informed Lancaster that someone had inspected the runway at Wings and found the left main strut and wheel in the grass. I quickly concluded that cranking the gear down probably wouldn’t help!

    This was found in the grass by the runway at Wings Field

    To Be Continued…

    (Read Part 2 Here)

    Andrew Robinson is an airline pilot for Piedmont Airlines.  He is a former 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania.  He instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.

  • Hurricane Harvey

    ByHank Gibson

    Texas Top Aviation wants to express our heartfelt concerns and prayers for those affected by Hurricane Harvey along the Texas Gulf Coast and in Houston.  We have several customers in Houston and hope and pray that they are all safe.

    The Houston Hobby Airport after Hurricane Harvey’s Torrential downpour

    If you would like to donate to the relief effort, there are several organizations that are accepting support.  A few are below.

    Samaritan’s Purse

    American Red Cross

  • The Piper Saratoga Turbo

    ByHank Gibson

    Piper SaratogaRecently, I assisted with the delivery of a 2007 Piper Saratoga Turbo from San Antonio to New York City.  It was a very nicely equipped airplane, complete with a Garmin G1000 panel, an STEC 55x autopilot, and air conditioning.  The owner joined me on the flight back to get trained in the airplane, getting him comfortable in it over our 2 day excursion back to NYC.  Total flight time was 12 hours, though that did include several stops along the way and landing practice at the airports we stopped at.

    The 6 seat Turbo Saratoga is a very comfortable, very capable flying machine.  It is made for hauling, with a gross weight of 3,600 pounds, but that’s not to say it isn’t lacking in comfort, either.  The rear cabin has 4 seats, 2 facing forward and 2 facing rear.  It would be a little tight for 4 full size adults in the back seat.  To avoid knee knocking, the plane is an excellent 4 person and bags aircraft (or 4 adults and 2 kids).

    The really nice part about the Piper Saratoga is the baggage door.  Unlike the Bonanza, the Piper Saratoga has a baggage door that opens to the baggage compartment, creating a much easier way to load and unload baggage.  The nose baggage compartment, which holds an additional 100 pounds, is a very nice feature, allowing the bag load to be spread out.

    Piper Saratoga Inside

    We typically saw cruise speeds of 155-165 KTAS depending on altitude.  The highest we went was only about 9,000 feet, so we didn’t get up real high to see what the single turbo could do.  Even though the Lycoming TIO-540 engine burns about 20 gallons an hour, with 102 gallons of gas on board, the fuel consistently outlasted our desire to continue flying.

    Being equipped with the G1000 was a very nice feature of this particular Piper Saratoga.  The screens are nice and big, larger than the displays on a high wing Cessna or a Corvalis.  That allows for easier viewing of approach plates, NEXRAD, and the engine gauges.

    There are always downsides to an airplane, and the Saratoga is no exception.  The STEC Autopilot leaves some to be desired as I felt it hampered the capability of the G1000 when shooting approaches because the 12 knot crosswind limitation on the autopilot. You can still use the autopilot on an approach with higher than 12 knot crosswinds, but the autopilot tends to search around for the final approach course.

    The air conditioning works very nicely, though it did have a tendency to freeze up at altitude.  We discovered that quickly and just decided to turn it off and leave the blower on, since it was cool enough up high anyway.

    Overall, the Turbo Saratoga is a very nice airplane.  The speed leaves a little to be desired (you can get 10 KTAS more out of a Bonanza with a Continental engine, about 20 knots more if it is a Turbo Bonanza), but it is very high on comfort.  The Piper Saratoga makes for a good family airplane or as a hauler.  I liked the airplane a lot and thoroughly enjoyed my time in it.

Leave a Reply

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