PopSocket iPad Yoke Mount

I was recently clued in to a really cool (and very cost efficient) iPad yoke mount.

It’s called a PopSocket and you won’t find it on any aviation website (I have to credit Joe Casey of Casey Aviation with this nifty find).

It’s very simple.  You take the mount (see right) and stick it to your yoke.  Then you pick one of a ton of designs from PopSocket and stick it to the back of your iPad (you can even create your own design!  B2 Bomber anyone?).

It’s low profile, doesn’t get in the way of anything, and is easily removable.  The PopSocket mounts are $10 apiece (depending on the size of your iPad, you may want to get 2).  The PopSocket is $10, so at the most, you’ll be in $40 plus tax and shipping.  Most mounts on Sporty’s are upwards of $50 and require a lot of installation, are big and bulky, and usually require lots of juggling to get the iPad in and out of the mount.

Give the PopSocket a try.

Similar Posts

  • Make The Upgrade to Pressurization

    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.

  • The Importance of Density Altitude

    Density Altitude:  Pressure Altitude corrected for non-standard temperature.

    That’s the book definition of density altitude.  The problem is, that definition leaves a lot of general aviation pilots scratching their heads.  What really is density altitude?

    All airplane engines rely on air and fuel mixing together, then that mixture is ignited to create combustion. Normally aspirated piston engine airplanes get their best performance at sea level, where the air is nice and thick, allowing plenty of air molecules to get sucked in the engine intake.  As a normally-aspirated airplane climbs, the ambient air pressure drops with an increase in altitude (the air gets thinner, less dense), thereby reducing airplane takeoff, climb, and landing performance.  There just isn’t as much air at higher altitudes, to put it simply.

    Turbo charged piston engines assist with this air density problem.  A turbo charger boosts the air coming into the engine and fools the engine into thinking it is at sea level pressure all the time.  The higher the altitude, the faster the turbo charger spins, spinning the compressor faster, which compresses more air to continue to give the engine sea level pressure air.  This gets faster cruise speeds the higher you go.

    Both normally aspirated & turbo charged engines do experience longer takeoff rolls and reduced climb rates at higher airport elevations & higher altitudes.

    How does this all relate to density altitude?

    When the outside air temperature rises, the air becomes thinner, less dense.  This means that when an airport elevation is 1,000 feet, but the density altitude is reported as 3,000 feet, the airplane engine thinks it is at 3,000 feet.  It won’t accelerate as fast.  The airplane’s climb rate will also be reduced.  That means that the normal climb pitch attitude a pilot is used to seeing won’t be accurate at higher density altitudes. It will lead to slower indicated airspeeds, slow enough to potentially lead to a stall if a pilot isn’t paying attention.

    Where does this get dangerous?  High elevation airports.  Whenever the OAT creeps above 85 or 90 at an airport that is higher elevation (I would classify higher elevation as 2,500 feet or higher), the corresponding density altitude sky rockets.  If a pilot isn’t paying attention to airspeed or angle of attack (if the airplane is equipped with an AOA), a stall can come very quickly on climb out.

    What to take home from this?  Monitor your climb speed and angle of attack, especially right after takeoff, when you hear density altitude on the ATIS or AWOS.

  • Hurricane Harvey

    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

  • Oh, Deer (Part 1)

    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.

  • Flying WAAS GPS Approaches

    When flying a WAAS GPS approach, there are several different levels of WAAS signal that a GPS receiver can get. The most precise is an LPV signal. LPV stands for Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance. An LPV approach has the lowest minimums of all the WAAS GPS approaches, typically in the range of 200-300 feet AGL. A GPS glide path (GP) is guaranteed with an LPV approach and the minimum altitude is a decision altitude (DA).

    Just like a localizer, an LPV course width get’s tighter and the CDI becomes more sensitive the closer the plane get’s to the runway. Even though the LPV approach minimums are so low and the approach is down to a DA, they still aren’t considered precision approaches by the FAA (which leads to some extra planning when selecting an airport as an alternate that only has GPS approaches, since the AIM specifies only the LNAV minimum are to be considered if an alternate airport only has GPS approaches, bringing the 800 foot ceiling requirement to bear)

    An LNAV/VNAV approach is still a WAAS approach that has a GPS glidepath, but is slightly different than an LPV approach. An LNAV/VNAV final approach course does not get more sensitive the closer the plane gets to the runway. The smallest course width on an LNAV/VNAV approach is 0.3 miles either side of center. LNAV/VNAV approaches will, most of the time, have higher minimums than LPV approaches and can have minimums no lower than 250′ AGL.

    The third type of WAAS approach is strictly a non-precision approach with a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA). These are designated LP approaches, which stands for Localizer Performance. These are like old school Localizer only approaches that, similar to the lateral portion of an LPV approach, the course width tightens the closer to the runway that a pilot is. There is no glide path by definition of an LP approach, though there is a caveat.

    Now, by looking at an approach plate that is a WAAS approach, but only has LP minimums listed, a pilot would assume there would be no glide path. Depending on what type of GPS unit the airplane has, that pilot could be wrong. Garmin Perspective units (Cirrus G1000), all GTN 750s and GTN 650s, All G1000 NXi units, most Garmin 430W and 530W, and all Avidyne IFD 550/540 and 440 units will display an advisory glide path on an LP approach, designated LP+V.

    What does LP+V indicate? An advisory glide path is just advisory, but it is totally legal to follow down on a non-precision LP approach. The kicker is obstacle clearance is not guaranteed and the pilot needs to keep an eye on minimum altitudes at the different waypoints on the approach. The big thing I tell people is, when you arrive at the MDA and the runway is in sight, following the advisory glide path below the MDA could get you in trouble with obstacles. Don’t just hone in on your instruments when you break out of the clouds. Look out the windscreen and make sure you won’t hit anything.

    If you arrive at the MDA on the advisory glide path and the runway isn’t in sight, DON’T GO BELOW THE MDA! Most autopilots won’t level off at the MDA, even if that altitude is set in the altitude pre-select, so this will involve turning off the autopilot before the MDA and manually leveling off, or engaging the altitude mode of your autopilot at the MDA.

    One other type of GPS approach that you will encounter is an LNAV approach. This is a non-WAAS approach down to an MDA, but your GPS unit may still give you a +V. Most modern ones will.

  • 2018 Houston, TX CPPP

    The Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program is once again returning to Houston, TX the first weekend in November. Henrickson Jet Center at the Houston Executive Airport (KTME) will be the host FBO this year.  If you are a Cirrus owner in the South Central US, the Houston CPPP weekend is definitely worth your while.

    What is it?  The Houston CPPP is a combination ground and flight training weekend.  With ground classes ranging from engine management, to loss of control prevention, to avionics best practices, an attendee will not lack a better Cirrus education by the time he or she leaves.

    The flight training side of the weekend gives an attendee several options.  A Houston CPPP attendee can do 1 or 2 flights with a highly qualified Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilot (CSIP), one on Saturday and one on Sunday (if the 2 flight option is selected).  The Cirrus Owner’s and Pilot’s Association (COPA) brings in exceptional instructors for each of the CPPP events, so the training is top notch.  Folks who want to take in more ground school, but still want to fly a little bit have the option of just doing 1 flight, either Saturday or Sunday, in order to increase their Cirrus knowledge.

    The Houston CPPP event will be November 2nd, 2018-November 4th, 2018, a Friday through a Sunday.  The weekend kicks off with a welcome dinner Friday night, then ground sessions and flying on Saturday and Sunday, plus a dinner on Saturday night.

    For those who want to challenge themselves, there are simulator sessions available with a challenging instrument approach that doesn’t quite meet up with the normal, ho-hum type of approach.

    The Houston CPPP also provides a Partner in Command course for those right seaters out there wanting to learn more about what to do in an emergency situation.

    Hank Gibson of Texas Top Aviation will be at the Houston CPPP as a flight instructor.  For more information and to sign up, please click here.

    Hope to see you there!

Leave a Reply

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