A Piper PA46 partnership is being formed in the San Antonio area. Two to three partners are being sought to purchase either a Piper PA46-310P Malibu or a ’90s model Piper PA46-350P Mirage.
The Piper PA46 Malibu is the original Piper PA46 airframe. It is equipped with a Continental TSIO 520, 310HP engine (though many have been upgraded to the Continental TSIO 550C engine, which is a great upgrade), is complex, and pressurized (the best feature about the airplane!). The six seat airframe travels around 185-190 KTAS at FL200 on 16-17 GPH, giving an incredible range with 120 gallons of fuel.
The Piper Mirage is what Piper designated the PA46 when it switch to the Lycoming TIO 540 350HP engine in 1989. The airframe remained the same, but the engine eeks out a few more KTAS at 22-25 GPH depending on how high the cruise altitude is.
Both the Piper Malibu and the ’90s model Mirage are equipped with the KFC 150 autopilot. A lot of the Piper PA46 airframes still have a Garmin 530W/430W or dual 430Ws, but a large number have been upgraded to the Garmin GTN 750/650, while a few have opted for the Avidyne IFD 540/440 GPS units. There are a fair number still with steam gauges, while some have upgraded to Aspen units or the Garmin G500 or G500TXi.
If you are located in the San Antonio area and interested in a 3-4 way partnership on a Piper PA46, please Contact Us. The purchase price will be between $300,000-$450,000, so only interested parties that can afford a budget of $100,000-$150,000 please.
The plane will be based at Stinson Field (KSSF) or New Braunfels (KBAZ).
I’m a big fan of having my Foreflight map always match up exactly with the way I am flying. Having a Flight Stream in the airplane helps a lot with that as it always prompts me to load the new flight plan from the GPS into my Foreflight map. When I load an approach in the GPS flight plan, Foreflight will put it into my Foreflight flight plan via the Flight Stream.
The problem I run into on Foreflight is when there is a published hold at the Initial Approach Fix (IAF), but ATC has told me to fly the straight in approach and skip the hold. Up until recently, I didn’t think there was a way to set up a straight in approach on Foreflight, so I just settled for the hold staying on there.
Not anymore! There is a simple trick that I discovered that allows you to remove the hold from the Foreflight flight plan. Here’s how to do it.
Load the Approach
The first step is still to load the approach into your Foreflight flight plan on the Map page. In this scenario, we are flying from KAQO, the Llano Airport, to KHYI, the San Marcos Airport. Austin Approach has told us to expect the straight in RNAV 17 KHYI via PUKIY. So, on Foreflight, we have KAQO and KHYI in our flight plan. Then, I tap the Procedures button on the upper right hand corner of the screen. I then tap Approach, then RNAV 17 KHYI. Then I select my transition.
The options given are either PUKIY with the hold, seen below;
Or Vectors to Final, which lines me up inside of PUKIY. Neither of these are what I want.
But, to get this to work, I select PUKIY, then tap add to route. Now we have our approach loaded into our flight plan.
Removing the Hold
The RNAV 17 is now in the Foreflight flight plan, but the hold is displayed at PUKIY. To remove the hold, the first step is to tap the approach in green and a menu pops up.
The 7th option down is “Remove Hold in lieu of PT.” Eureka! Tap that, then the approach is displayed without the hold. Houston, we have success! It even says “NoPT” in the flight plan.
I’m a big fan of having my Foreflight map always match up exactly with the way I am flying. Having a Flight Stream in the airplane helps a lot with that as it always prompts me to load the new flight plan from the GPS into my Foreflight map. When I load an approach in…
Are you thinking of buying an iPad and going to a paperless cockpit? Have you just recently purchased an iPad and are unsure of how to use Foreflight to it’s fullest extent? Check out this free webinar on Monday, January 19th. Gary Reeves, a Master CFI from California, will be hosting the 90 minute seminar, which begins at 1800 Z. He will be able to point you in the right direction for what type of iPad to purchase, how to set up your Foreflight account, and the basics of using the App.
You can finally get rid of those paper charts, saving clutter in the cockpit. Just make sure you bring along a charger for those extended flight in case your battery dips low!
To sign up for this webinar, click here. There is no cost associated with the webinar.
Are you thinking of buying an iPad and going to a paperless cockpit? Have you just recently purchased an iPad and are unsure of how to use Foreflight to it’s fullest extent? Check out this free webinar on Monday, January 19th. Gary Reeves, a Master CFI from California, will be hosting the 90 minute seminar,…
On March 30th, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an Executive Order mandating that all travelers (including Texas air travelers operating or traveling in private aircraft) from the following designated areas were to self-quarantine for 14 days (or the extent of their stay in Texas, whichever was shorter) upon entering the State:
California
Louisiana
Washington State
Atlanta, Georgia
Chicago, Illinois
Detroit, Michigan
Miami, Florida
If you traveled to Texas by air from any of the above designated areas, you are required to fill out the Arrivals from Areas Designated for Mandatory Self-Quarantine Form. Failure to do so could lead to a $1,000 fine or 180 days in jail, or both. For private aircraft owners/operators, put your Tail Number in for Flight Number and “Private” for Airline.
Aircraft owners, stay away from the designated areas listed above and you won’t have any worries. A lot of you reading this are from Texas, so make Louisiana a fly over state for now and don’t make any landings in Cajun country.
Texas Air Travelers From Designated Areas Only On March 30th, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an Executive Order mandating that all travelers (including Texas air travelers operating or traveling in private aircraft) from the following designated areas were to self-quarantine for 14 days (or the extent of their stay in Texas, whichever was shorter) upon…
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.
Cirrus Vision Jet, meet your competition. 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…
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:
After removing the old bulb, I double checked the information on the back to be sure I ordered the correct LED replacement.
You can see that the bulb is a 13V, 250W landing light, #4313.
The new light mounted easily into the existing bracket with no modification.
After mounting the new bulb, I reconnected the wiring and installed the bracket back into the nose bowl.
It works!
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.
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…
A lot of my customers ask me which airplane that I train in is my favorite. The Cirrus and the Columbia both are very good airplanes, but if I had my pick, I’d go with a Piper PA46, specifically an ’86-’88 Malibu.
I love the Piper PA46. 6 seat, cabin class, pressurization, air conditioning, great ramp appeal, 17 GPH (in the Continental TSIO 520 or 550; Piper changed to the Lycoming TIO 540 in ’89, which you run rich of peak and burn 22 GPH, decreasing a little bit of the awesomeness). What more can you ask for? The interior is roomy, there is plenty of baggage space in the nose and in the rear of the cabin. They are downright fabulous airplanes. Plus, you can get into a nice one that has had some panel upgrades and a mid time engine for around $300,000. That’s not bad.
Cessna tried to make a pressurized single with the P210, but it just doesn’t match up with the Piper PA46. The Piper has more room, more baggage space, a higher max differential pressure and service ceiling, and better air conditioning to boot!
Don’t know much about the Piper PA46? It’s been called several things. Originally, it was the Malibu, with a Continental engine. Now the TSIO 520 was not one of Continental’s better motors. However, most of the original Malibus have been upgraded to the much better TSIO 550C engine, which is a great product. Cruise around at almost 200 knots at FL200 and burn only 17 GPH. It’s beautiful.
Piper changed to the Lycoming engine in 1989 and changed the name to the Malibu Mirage, later shortened to just Mirage.
Then, in 2016, Piper upgraded a lot of the avionics, cleaned up the panel, and dubbed it the M350.
Piper made the ill fated decision in the mid 2000s to quit making the Saratoga and instead make an unpressurized version of the PA46 called the Matrix. It didn’t last long, only about 10 years or so, and hasn’t been very popular (see: don’t buy one). Piper took the best part about the PA46, the pressurization, and took it away, leaving an airplane that you still have to wear oxygen in to get the advertised high speeds in the upper teens and flight levels. Who wants to be cruising around in a cabin class airplane with oxygen on? Piper needs to bring the Saratoga back to give folks a low level, high performance option.
What would be my dream Piper PA46? As stated above, an ’86-’88 model Malibu (Piper started off with hydraulic flaps in the ’84-’85 models and it wasn’t a very good system. They changed to electric flaps in ’86) with a Continental TSIO 550C upgrade. The Garmin autopilot isn’t out yet, so I’d go with the STEC 3100 Autopilot w/ a Yaw Damper (the airplane originally came with a King KFC 150, which is a really good autopilot, but most of them are getting old and are getting difficult to fix. King’s replacement KFC 325 is still slogging through certification. Garmin’s GFC 600 would be ideal, but that isn’t expected to be certified for the PA46 fleet till late this year). A single Garmin 10.6″ G500 TXi with EIS tied to a Garmin GTN 750 GPS with a Garmin GTR 225 Nav/Comm as the number 2 radio.
Then I just put gas in it and go. That would be my kind of airplane.
A lot of my customers ask me which airplane that I train in is my favorite. The Cirrus and the Columbia both are very good airplanes, but if I had my pick, I’d go with a Piper PA46, specifically an ’86-’88 Malibu. I love the Piper PA46. 6 seat, cabin class, pressurization, air conditioning, great…
One Comment
How’s the partnership on the Malibu going? Are the parties still in the market for one? I may be interested. I’m located at KBAZ.
How’s the partnership on the Malibu going? Are the parties still in the market for one? I may be interested. I’m located at KBAZ.