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

  • Inadvertent IMC Entry

    ByHank Gibson

    I ran across the story about the Korean Air flight that crashed in Guam in the late ’90s the other day.  It was a 747 that hit the side of hill about 3 miles short of the runway, killing most of the people on board.  The flight was at night (arrival time was about 1:30am) and the pilot’s lost sight of the runway on a visual approach due to inadvertent IMC entry.  They didn’t execute a missed approach soon enough, got too low, and crashed.

    Korean Air Crash

    These were experienced pilots, mind you, who had flown into that airport a number of times. They were experienced enough to know when to execute a go around.  There were several other factors that led up to the crash, but, ultimately, they lost sight of the runway due to inadvertent IMC entry.

    To all the VFR pilots out there, what do you do if you accidentally fly into a cloud?  It’s a lot easier to encounter inadvertent IMC at night, simply because you can’t see the clouds in front of you.  It is no less dangerous during the day, either.

    So, we’re going back to the basics today.  What really is the best course of action for a VFR pilot when flying into a cloud?  One option (and in my opinion, the best option) is to turn around. Immediately start scanning your instruments, execute a shallow banked 180 degree turn while maintaining altitude, and fly out of the cloud you just flew into.  If you have an autopilot, turn it on immediately and let it do the turn.

    What if you were descending or climbing when you encountered the inadvertent IMC?  In this case, just reverse whatever you were just doing.  If you were descending, climb.  If you were climbing, descend.  Caution is needed, though, as climbing or descending when flying on instruments for an inexperienced IFR pilot could lead to a greater chance of disorientation.

    One thing that could assist in spotting those clouds at night is turning the cockpit lights down.  This will allow you to see outside a little bit better and start to notice when those ground lights are disappearing.

    IMC FlightMost VFR pilots only do instrument flying on flight reviews.  That doesn’t lead to a very high level of proficiency, so go out and grab your instructor and tell him to put you under the hood once a month.  You’ll be a better pilot overall for it.

    IFR pilots, taking a note from the Korean Air flight; if you lose sight of the runway on a visual approach, especially at night, go missed and ask for the instrument approach procedure.  Don’t try and duck down below the clouds as there may be a hill or a mountain directly below you.

    I ran across the story about the Korean Air flight that crashed in Guam in the late ’90s the other day.  It was a 747 that hit the side of hill about 3 miles short of the runway, killing most of the people on board.  The flight was at night (arrival time was about 1:30am)…

  • Setting Standards

    ByCharlie Precourt

    Type Clubs Lead By Example with Standard Operating Practices

    This article appeared in the May 2019 edition of EAA’s Sport Aviation Magazine. It is used with permission. For other articles by Charlie Precourt, please visit EAA.org and join for a full subscription.

    Imagine a year when there are no fatal accidents in general aviation. Does that seem impossible? The airlines achieved that many years ago, and so can we if we focus on the right things in our safety pro- grams. In fact, the overall trend in GA accident rates over the last few years is very encouraging. AOPA’s Air Safety Institute published its annual GA Accident Scorecard recently (see www.EAA.org/ extras), revealing fatal accidents from 2008 to 2017 are down more than 30 percent. Nevertheless, there were 185 fatal accidents in 2017, so we still have a long way to go. But, there are many developments in safety programs across GA that can keep the trend going.

    One such development that I’ve advocated through a couple of type clubs is establishing standard operating practices (SOP). When I flew for both the U.S. Air Force and NASA, we had what we called standard operating procedures. They were the law for our flying. That is, we had to follow them procedurally because the folks that paid our salaries said so. The objective was to ensure we all used the same playbook, minimizing the risk that one of us might develop a bad in-flight habit that increased risk to the organization.

    One way to think about SOPs is to recognize the difference between procedure and technique. For example, you have to follow the manufacturer’s pilot’s operating handbook (procedure)where it says to lower the landing gear before landing. If you don’t, you are in for a bad day. However, it does not tell you exactly when to lower the gear; that’s left to technique.

    In the middle, between procedure and technique, is a best practice. In this example, lowering the gear just before the final approach fix is a “standard practice.” It is the generally accepted “best” place to lower the gear. In GA, however, aircraft owners don’t generally answer to a boss, so I prefer the term practices instead of procedures.

    However, whether or not someone is paying us to fly, following best practices just makes sense. If you have a good set of practices, they enable you to do things the same way every time, leaving lots of brain cells to manage the unusual, the things that might go wrong. The safest approach to accomplishing a flight task is one that leverages consistency. On the other hand, if you are inconsistent, doing flight tasks differently each time, you’ll always be struggling to keep up. So, in my involvement with the safety committees for both the Malibu Mirage Owners and Pilots Association and the Citation Jet Pilots Association, there has been broad acceptance of recently developed standard operating practices.

    The good news in this development is that a culture of safety is growing broadly across most sectors of GA through these type club initiatives. Perhaps more importantly, there is much to learn from each other about the effectiveness of these various initiatives. EAA has seen a four-year drop of 47 percent in fatal accidents among homebuilts! So, there must be something right going on there — a major focus on appropriate transition training before flying a new homebuilt (as a standard operating practice) is paying off.

    So, what is covered in the SOPs these type clubs have developed? The following outlines the kinds of standard practices other type clubs have set up and represent SOPs you could establish for yourself regardless of the type of aircraft you fly. You just have to fill in the blanks for your particular type and commit to sticking to them in your flying. These are notional and are practices (not mandatory procedures). They don’t tell you how to fly your aircraft; they give you things to think about when you do. If you take a bit of time to set your own SOPs and then stick with them, you’ll be a far safer pilot. Here are some ideas:

    Duty Day

    Set the maximum number of hours of flight time during a calendar day and rest hours off between flying days. One example is a maximum of eight hours in the air and a minimum of 10 hours off until flying again.

    Cargo

    Establish best practices for what you will carry as cargo. One example is no lithium batteries in the baggage compartment.

    Flight Planning and Preparation

    What are your limitations for the types of flight you’ll take on? Consider SOPs such as designating a suitable alternate airport for all flights. Another might be for first flights after significant maintenance, such as no flight at night or in IMC until a day-VMC functional check flight has been done.

    Runway Field Length Guidelines

    Establish an appropriate minimum field length for your aircraft and commit to not going into shorter fields. Consider sea level operations and high-altitude airports as well.

    Surface Operations

    What should be your maximum wind conditions for taxi, takeoff, or landing? Maximum acceptable crosswinds on landing? Set them in your SOP and stick to them.

    En Route

    Consider establishing practices like no non-operationally necessary conversation below 10,000 feet MSL, during any segment of an approach procedure, or during the last 1,000 feet before leveloff during climb or descent. Also consider declaring “minimum fuel” when the fuel state becomes less than fuel to destination plus 45 minutes at current burn, even if flying day VFR.

    Approach and Landing

    Consider establishing personal minimums in your SOPs for things like visual approaches. Perhaps use a 1,500-foot ceiling and 3 miles’ visibility for day and 5 miles for night, even though these exceed the FAA’s requirements.

    Pilot Limitations, Training, & Currency

    FAR Part 91 rules allow us to fly with pretty marginal levels of currency. Consider setting your own SOP to something more appropriate for the kind of aircraft you fly and the kind of flying you do in it. For example, consider these ideas as SOPs:

    • If you have less than 100 hours of time-in-type or have not flown at least 15 hours as pilot in command in the last 90 days, use a minimum planned fuel reserve of one hour.
    • Also, if flying IFR in this situation, use a minimum visibility for takeoff of 1 mile.
    • On instrument approaches, increase the published minimums by one- half mile visibility and add 200 feet to the decision altitude or minimum descent altitude.
    • Perform landings at a weight that allows a full stop in 60 percent of available runway length.
    • Consider an SOP that establishes you will fly with a CFI on a refresher flight before flying as pilot in command if you have not logged at least an hour of flight time and one takeoff and landing in an aircraft of the same type within the preceding 45 days.

    Maneuver Standards

    Wherever there are “techniques” associated with things like takeoffs and climbs, cruise, use of autopilot, power settings, and approaches and landings, you can write down your preferred technique as your own SOP. Describe each maneuver in enough detail (speeds, altitudes, power settings, configurations, etc.) to define a routine you will use each time. This ensures you fly consistently each flight and leverage the power of the standard operating practice, that is, to give you the bandwidth you need should you encounter an unexpected event or an emergency.

    SOPs are among the exciting concepts underway to make safety programs work for us. Hats off to type clubs like MMOPA and CJP and many others that are taking the initiative. But even if you’re not in this kind of group, you can still set up your own SOPs. Let’s all look forward to our first year in GA without a fatal accident — and let’s make it soon!
    Fly safe!

    Charlie Precourt is a former NASA chief astronaut, space shuttle commander, and Air Force test pilot. He built a VariEze, owns a Piper JetPROP, and is a member of the EAA board of directors.

    Type Clubs Lead By Example with Standard Operating Practices This article appeared in the May 2019 edition of EAA’s Sport Aviation Magazine. It is used with permission. For other articles by Charlie Precourt, please visit EAA.org and join for a full subscription. Imagine a year when there are no fatal accidents in general aviation. Does…

  • What’s Going On With the Airplane Market?

    ByHank Gibson

    An Airplane Market Update, Q2 2026

    I get asked some version of the same question almost every day right now: “Hank, what’s going on with the airplane market?” Owners are nervous. The market has definitely slowed down, and the second quarter has been especially quiet. So let me give you a straight read on what’s actually happening, why, and what it means for your airplane.

    Here’s the short version: don’t panic. A slow market is not a market crash. It’s a market that rewards sellers who price realistically and buyers who are ready to pull the trigger. Patience is the name of the game right now.

    PDF
    ★ Free Download
    Get the Full Q2 2026 Aircraft Market Report
    The complete write-up — values, trends, and forecasts broken down by airframe. Sent straight to your inbox, free.

    Where values have actually been heading

    Used airplane values shot up through the COVID years, peaked somewhere around 2022, and have been softening ever since — really since about 2023. That’s carried into 2026. But in most piston airplanes, it looks a whole lot more like a slow, steady give-back than a crash.

    Now, here’s where I’d rather look than at asking prices. An asking price is just what a seller is hoping — or dreaming — to get; it isn’t what the airplane is worth. What an airplane is actually worth is what VREF tracks. And when I pull the VREF values on the single-engine pistons I’ve been appraising lately, a clear pattern shows up:

    • Older and less expensive airplanes are holding up the best. A clean normally-aspirated G1, G2, or G3 Cirrus SR20 or SR22 is down about 3% over the last twelve months. Older, more classic airplanes — Bonanzas, a Cherokee Six, a clean P210 — are flat to down just a few points. One outlier is the Cessna/Columbia 400 market — those are down about 13%.
    • The newer and more expensive, cabin-class singles have dropped more. A pressurized Malibu Mirage is down around 12% on VREF value, with other PA-46 pistons and turbines valued a little better, but still down between 8–12% over the last year.

    Call it roughly 5% on average across the segment. That’s more than the under-1% you’d guess from asking prices alone — but it’s still less than 15% down over the last year, not a crash. The rule of thumb: the older and less expensive the aircraft, the better the values are holding; the newer and more expensive the aircraft, the more the value has dropped over the last year.

    What a Crash Actually Looks Like

    Worth being precise about what I mean. A real crash — like 2008–09 — is sudden and disorderly: values plunge almost overnight, financing dries up, buyers walk away from their deposits, and airplanes sit because there’s no one to buy them at any price. New business-jet deliveries fell nearly 34% in a single year, and it took years to climb back. What we have now is the opposite on every count — value drops of 15% or less, financing that’s tighter but still available, and airplanes that are still changing hands. That’s a soft, orderly market, not a crash.

    Why Q2 got so quiet

    A handful of things piled up at the same time. None of them is a disaster on its own, but together they explain why the phone has been ringing less.

    Rates didn’t come down the way everybody expected. Oil shot past $110 a barrel after the conflict with Iran, inflation came roaring back, and the Fed stopped dropping rates — so financing an airplane still costs more, and that takes the urgency out of buyers. Financing also got tighter; the days of 100% loans with no money down are basically over, and lenders want bigger down payments.

    The tax rush already happened, too: when the One Big Beautiful Bill brought back 100% bonus depreciation, it set off a mad dash to close before year-end, and a lot of the folks who’d have been shopping this spring already bought last winter. Plus, there are simply more airplanes to choose from now, which hands buyers options and pulls pricing power away from sellers.

    So what should you do?

    It depends on which side of the deal you’re on.

    If you’re selling, price to today’s market — not the 2022 peak, and, unfortunately, not what you paid for the airplane. Realistically priced airplanes are still selling; the ones that sit are the ones chasing a number the market left behind. Keep your logs complete, stay current on inspections (don’t forget those 24-month IFR inspections!) and ADs, and present the airplane well. Have a thorough annual done before putting it on the market. Keep it clean and do whatever cosmetic or avionics fixes or upgrades you’ve been neglecting — you want it to show as well as possible, because there’s a lot of competition out there.

    Re-dyeing the leather seats is a cost-effective way to spruce up the interior without replacing the seats. A good wash will certainly help the exterior. Glass in the panel always shows better than steam gauges, so even something simple like an Aspen upgrade, two Garmin GI 275s or G5s, or a 7-inch Garmin G3X will bring value to your airplane and make it show better — any of those are less than $10,000. If you do still have a Garmin 530W or 430W, consider changing them out for a newer Garmin or Avidyne IFD unit; Garmin won’t support the 530W/430W anymore. And Avidyne is quietly ending support for the Entegra system this fall — but the good news is the Avidyne Vantage panels are finally certified.

    And if you can wait, give it some thought — the back half of the year is shaping up stronger. The fourth quarter is traditionally the best stretch for used sales, and now that bonus depreciation is permanent, that year-end push resets every fall.

    If you’re buying, this is your window. Higher rates have thinned out the competition, there are more airplanes to pick from than there have been in years, and sellers are more willing to deal. If you’ve got cash ready or financing lined up, you’ve got leverage you didn’t have eighteen months ago. Be picky — buy the clean one with good records.

    If you’re just holding, relax. There’s no reason to panic-sell. Most piston values are easing off slowly, not collapsing. Patience wins here.

    The right move always comes down to your specific airplane, your timeline, and what you’re trying to accomplish. If you’d like a current valuation — or just an honest read on where your airplane sits in today’s market — give me a call. That’s what we’re here for.

    An Airplane Market Update, Q2 2026 I get asked some version of the same question almost every day right now: “Hank, what’s going on with the airplane market?” Owners are nervous. The market has definitely slowed down, and the second quarter has been especially quiet. So let me give you a straight read on what’s […]

  • 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

    Shopping a Cirrus SR22T or Cirrus Vision Jet? A numbers-first look at how both compare to the Diamond DA62 on speed, payload, range, runway performance and the real cost of training.

  • Utilizing Personal Minimums

    ByPedro Vargas-Lebron

    The FAA defines personal minimums “as an individual pilot’s set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines for deciding whether and under what conditions to operate (or continue operating) in the National Airspace System.” Have you actually given thought as to why we choose the personal minimums we do? From the beginning of initial pilot training, weather minimums were established for day-to-day training and during solo flight. I didn’t realize it at first, but I later learned these limits were not just an insurance mandate, but these minimums were set at the time to safely operate an aircraft based on my “then” current experience.

    So here’s the question: what are your personal minimums and WHY do YOU have them? Do you ever lower or raise your minimums? Are your minimums based solely on your overall experience level or do they take into account other variables such as advanced avionics? For pilots that fly multiple aircraft like I do, can and do your minimums change in regard to category or type of aircraft you are flying? It’s a judgment decision on how you chose your minimums. However, it’s important that time is taken before you strap into the cockpit for each flight to critically think about the different risk factors and variables which may affect your decision for the minimums you choose.

    To guide us, let’s try briefly apply the FAA’s Personal Minimums Checklist to see how risk factors might shape what personal minimums or decisions we make for the day. Remember, just because you have been flying with a certain set of minimums one day, doesn’t mean you can’t adjust your minimums to a higher value given an ever-changing situation.

    The acronym most pilots have heard is PAVE:

    Pilot– We all should be familiar with the acronym IMSAFE associated with this. It addresses variables such as Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, and Emotion. But how do you adjust your personal minimums using this guideline? Have you ever thought about raising your minimums for a training flight if you only got 4-6 hours of sleep, instead of 8? Or if you anticipate a hard IFR flight with a long day, maybe taking a safety pilot to mitigate the chance of a mistake if you’re forecasting having to shoot an approach to your weather planning minimums.

    Aircraft– Personally, this is a really important factor for me when deciding what minimums to apply. I often spend a large majority of my time asking myself; is this aircraft properly equipped for the flight? This question goes beyond just looking at the logbook for a properly equipped and legal aircraft. A professional pilot should think further. Am I flying a traditional 6-pack “steam gauge” layout, non-slaved compass card, with a separate OBS gauge for course guidance? What if the aircraft doesn’t have an auto-pilot? What if I’m flying an aircraft equipped with a dual auto-pilot, dual GPS with an integrated glass cockpit? I can comfortably say my personal minimums change depending on the equipment I have available.

    A pilot should also look at his/her recency with the aircraft. For example, if you are qualified to fly both airplanes and helicopters, maybe you should choose to have higher personal minimums in one particular airframe or if you haven’t flown that airframe within 30, 60 or 90 days. This is a very important factor for the owner/pilot.

    EnVironment– Most of the time, when we think of environment, we ask ourselves, is the weather legal for me to take off and, more importantly, can I conduct this flight safely? Basic flight planning should have taught us to take into consideration crosswind limits, day versus night, and the type of airspace the flight is conducted in. Thought should also be given to how you set your personal minimums in regards to the particular type of environment you might rarely encounter. Flying an approach to your minimums in the flat plains of Texas during the day is one thing, but how would you adjust your weather minimums flying to a new airport, at night, with no moon illumination, in the mountains of Colorado? Could you reduce the risk and adjust your minimums in this scenario with two pilots?

    External Pressures – What external pressures are affecting your flight? Passengers, the owner, “get-there-it is”, the desire to impress someone? Although external pressures should never be a factor when conducting a flight, they almost always play a role in your decision whether to conduct the flight or not. For example, a professional pilot gets hired to do a flight and the weather is below their personal minimums. The pilot could be tempted to lower their minimums by 100 feet to take the flight for a paying customer. This scenario plays out every day across the country whether it’s a professional pilot or owner/pilot. It would be foolish not to consider this type of pressure. Always make sure you have a plan if and when you encounter this situation. Planning your flight and having a plan to deal with these potential scenarios ahead of time ensures you stick to your minimums. It can be as simple as telling your passengers, or the owner, well ahead of your flight what your personal minimums are to accept the flight, and to ensure they, or you, have a back-up plan!

    Most pilots will never break a hard limitation such as an airframe cross wind limitation, or engine limit, but the chances of breaking a personal minimum are realistic. Think about the last time you went on a diet and broke your plan because you were tempted by your friends or family during an outing. Self-imposed personal minimums can be hard to enforce and we need to acknowledge this as humans. Here are a few techniques that you can use to assist in making a decision using personal minimums and help reduce the influence of external pressures.

    Step 1: Sit down with your CFI/CFII and fill out a personal minimums worksheet. Filling one out by yourself is a good start but having an outside objective view will help in making sure your personal minimums are realistic. Remember, it is easy to convince ourselves that we can do something even though we have set personal minimums. Talk with other pilots to see if you have set realistic expectations.

    Step 2: Preflight planning must start a few days in advanced. It can be as easy as checking what the forecast might be and looking at the projected route, near-by alternate airports, and various approaches. This can be done quickly and will give you a heads up on whether the flight can be safely conducted or not. By alerting the passengers or owner early enough, alternate plans can be developed. An extra pilot can be added, the passengers can fly commercial, bring along a CFI, or cancel the trip altogether and seek alternate transportation. The main point is the decision was made well ahead of the flight when conditions didn’t look favorable. This helps in removing external pressures and ensures you don’t go below your personal minimums.

    Step 3: Never be afraid to ask for a second opinion. Part 135 operators have set procedures for conducting flights which assist the pilots in making decisions. These set procedures help remove external pressures by allowing the pilot to say, “The rules don’t allow for this, or this is how we will conduct the flight!” However, under Part 91, the pilot has to take ownership for all phases of the flight. This is where talking it out with another pilot helps with mitigating external factors and the environment. Ideally, this person should have more experience and be able to talk through the situation. For instance, if I’m flying to a new destination, I often seek the advice from another pilot who’s familiar with the area. They may have key insights into weather patterns, preferred approaches, or hazards to avoid. In certain situations, asking for another pilot’s opinion might be what influences your go/no-go decision! You’ll be amazed how much you can learn just from talking to other pilots.

    Step 4: Continue to build your experience and knowledge base. Building experience requires us to push our abilities, and sometimes this may be to the limit. However, this can be done in a controlled training environment or just going out and experiencing it. Get a new license, fly regularly with a CFI/CFII, and always try and take advantage of training opportunities. For example on your next flight from point A to point B, practice hand flying an approach, do a short field landing, a quick steep turn, etc. Quality flight time is always better than quantity. Continue to challenge yourself and try not to become complacent.

    Personal minimums are a tool to assist in every pilot’s aeronautical decision making process. Use your personal minimums to guide your final go/no-go decision and remember to stick to the plan. I encourage you to review the FAA’s Risk Management Handbook (FAA-H-8083-2). Appendix B has Sample Risk Management Scenarios and reviewing them will give a better understanding how to apply the techniques discussed to your everyday flying.

    Pedro Vargas-Lebron is a King Air 200 and uH-60 Blackhawk Instructor pilot with the Texas Army National Guard. Pedro is a CFI/CFII/MEI both in airplanes and helicopters with over 4000 hours of flight time, half as an instructor pilot.

    The FAA defines personal minimums “as an individual pilot’s set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines for deciding whether and under what conditions to operate (or continue operating) in the National Airspace System.” Have you actually given thought as to why we choose the personal minimums we do? From the beginning of initial pilot training,…

  • Lightspeed Tango Headset

    ByHank Gibson

    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

    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…

Leave a Reply

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