Texas Top Aviation is proud to announce that we now offer Piper PA46 Training in the Malibu and Mirage. Our Piper PA46 training is provided with the same excellent & professional approach that has become our hallmark.
The four-day format of this course allows time to answer all of your questions about your new airplane. The Texas Top Aviation Piper PA46 training course leaves you with a confidence and understanding that will help you enjoy your Malibu or Mirage even more.
New avionics have you scratching your head in confusion? No problem. Texas Top Aviation is well versed in the latest Garmin and glass panel instrumentation.
If you are in need of recurrent training in your PA-46, Texas Top Aviation would be proud to help with that as well. Consider us your one stop shop for Piper PA-46 training.
For more information, check out our Piper Malibu/Mirage Training page.
For a VFR or an IFR pilot, an unusual attitude can be one of the most dangerous situations to get into. That is one reason so many new autopilots are being developed with a level button. The concept behind the level button is if the pilot gets into a disorienting situation, press the level button and the autopilot comes on, holding the airplane in a straight and level pitch attitude.
What about all those planes without autopilots that have a level button? That’s who this article is for.
First off, what is an unusual attitude? The Airplane Flying Handbook on page 4-17 gives the following definition: “An unusual attitude is commonly referenced as an unintended or unexpected attitude in instrument flight.” The AFH also goes on to say that an unusual attitude in training has no defined bank and pitch parameters, but “for training purposes an instructor could place the airplane in a 30 degree bank with a nose up pitch attitude of 15 degrees and ask the student to recover and that would be considered an unusual attitude….”
We now have a basis from the FAA. VFR Pilots are now saying, “Oh, instrument flight, that doesn’t apply to us.” Not so fast. The Private Pilot ACS (and before it, the PTS) has a requirement for Basic Attitude Instrument Flying, including unusual attitude recoveries. Why? Because VFR pilots still inadvertently fly into IMC conditions and can get into an unusual attitude. Plus, a private, non-instrument rated pilot has a higher chance of not recovering from an unusual attitude since he isn’t used to relying on his instruments.
At each training event I do, whether it be private pilot training, a flight review, IFR training, transition training, or pretty much any kind of recurrent training, I like to do unusual attitude recoveries with my customers. It’s one of those things that the recovery procedure wanes over time since it isn’t routinely practiced solo (for good reason!).
I see people have the most trouble with the nose high unusual attitude recoveries. Let’s start with the recovery procedure, then I’ll discuss the common errors (notice that the nose high unusual attitude recovery procedure mirrors a stall recovery). Remember, this is in IFR conditions:
Breathe
Pitch Down to a level pitch attitude on the Attitude Indicator (or lower if the stall warning horn continues to go off)
Simultaneously add full power
Roll wings level
Flaps up and recover to a level pitch attitude if not there already
The order is important, especially the breathing part. What happens if a pilot goes straight into a recovery and doesn’t pause for a second or two to absorb what’s going on is the recovery isn’t executed properly.
Our brains see the wings banked and set off all kinds of alarms to roll the wings level first before doing anything else. Adding any kind of aileron input with the nose close to the critical angle of attack is a bad idea. You are adding adverse yaw (since you probably won’t be coordinated) and load factor which increases the stall speed. Then we all know that Stall + Yaw = Spin. That’s something that is best avoided in IMC.
We have to teach our brains to ignore the bank angle until the pitch and power come in. Once the airplane is far away from the critical angle of attack, then the bank can be rolled to neutral.
Let’s look at the nose low unusual attitude recovery. The order is still important on this one too:
Breathe
Power Reduce (to idle if necessary)
Roll Wings Level
Pitch up to a level pitch attitude
Add Power back to cruise
The theory with the nose low unusual attitude is your speed is accelerating. By reducing the power first, that helps reduce the load factor experienced when the pitch is increased. Same with rolling the wings level. Neutral bank is a lower load factor than some kind of a bank angle. We are trying to prevent overspeeding the airplane. The lower the load factor, the less of a chance we have to rip the wings off.
The most important step in either recovery procedure is to breathe first, allowing the brain to process exactly what is happening. That way, the proper recovery can be executed.
For a VFR or an IFR pilot, an unusual attitude can be one of the most dangerous situations to get into. That is one reason so many new autopilots are being developed with a level button. The concept behind the level button is if the pilot gets into a disorienting situation, press the level button…
The safest pilots are the ones who attempt to gain as much knowledge and learning about their airplane and environment as possible. These pilots are the ones who enjoy learning, going to seminars and conventions, and soak up all the MMOPA magazine articles in each issue. These pilots are the ones who get as much training as they can, above and beyond what the minimum requirements are.
If you are one of these pilots and you own a Piper PA46, then this blog is for you.
Casey Aviation, one of the best Piper PA46 training companies out there, recently released all of their Malibu, Mirage, Matrix, Meridian, and JetProp systems training videos for free. These are some fantastic videos that Casey Aviation created which go much more in depth than any power point presentation could.
The great thing about the videos is they give the viewer an all access “inside look” to the specific airplane. Joe Casey, owner of Casey Aviation, takes off cowlings, crawls under the nose gear compartment, and even shows an airplane with the interior out so all the flap cables and environmental systems can be seen.
I have started referring all of my PA46 customers to the Casey Aviation videos as part of the prep work for our training sessions.
To access the videos, check out the Casey Aviation website.
The safest pilots are the ones who attempt to gain as much knowledge and learning about their airplane and environment as possible. These pilots are the ones who enjoy learning, going to seminars and conventions, and soak up all the MMOPA magazine articles in each issue. These pilots are the ones who get as much…
Most of us who have been through instrument training are familiar with the traditional view limiting devices. There is the original hood, which does a decent job of blocking a pilot’s view of outside, but there are still gaps that allow “peeking”, though that peeking doesn’t really help a pilot fly an approach. It does help them figure out which way is up, so it’s not a true simulation.
The other problem with a hood is the process of putting it on to begin simulating IFR conditions, then taking it off when it’s time to land. This process takes time and the instructor has to take the controls (or the autopilot flies), losing some of the realism of the simulation.
Overall, an IFR hood is relatively comfortable. The elastic band sits under your headset, doesn’t squeeze your heard, and doesn’t press underneath your ear cups of the headset, giving you a headache. Hoods are large and somewhat unwieldy.
Foggles are another way to simulate IFR conditions for training. Most of the time, these are safety glasses that have most of the lens blacked out or fogged out, leaving little slits at the bottom for the pilot’s eyes to see the instruments.
Foggles aren’t quite as good as an IFR hood at blocking the outside. Due to their shape, there are often cracks that allow more “peeking” then a hood. The process of beginning to simulate IFR conditions and ending the simulated IFR conditions is easier though, since all the pilot has to do is put the foggles on or slip them off, which can often be done one handed (putting them on can be more difficult one handed since they have to fit underneath your headset). Wearing them for a long period of time can get painful as your headset is probably going to start crushing them against the side of your head.
The best comfort and view limiting combination I have found, so far, is called the ViBAN. It’s very comfortable and does a really good job of simulating IFR by blocking a view of the outside.
What’s the whole goal behind a view limiting device? When a pilot starts instrument training, ideally, all the training would take place in the clouds, since that is why someone get’s an instrument rating. As we all know, this isn’t possible, hence the need to simulate IFR conditions. The problem with simulating IFR is, it’s not true IFR. True IFR conditions are different then what a hood or a set of foggles can simulate. This can lead to spatial disorientation if a fresh instrument pilot enters the clouds for the first time, having done all his training in simulated conditions.
I’ve even heard a story of a pilot who did all his IFR training with a hood, passed his check ride, went into the clouds the first time, and put the hood on because he was getting disoriented since he hadn’t ever experienced true IFR.
What about full motion simulators? How I wish every airport had a full motion simulator for instrument training. Full motion sims are truly the best way to simulate IFR conditions. A pilot can easily get spatially disoriented in a sim if he or she isn’t careful. It’s a great way to simulate IFR conditions, but, alas, this just isn’t possible.
Are we doomed to just do an okay job of training instrument pilots in simulated IFR conditions with a hood or foggles?
Nope, at least not anymore.
Enter the ICARUS Device. The ICARUS Device, which stands for Instrument Conditions Awareness Recognition and Understanding System, is an amazing piece of equipment which truly simulates IFR conditions in the training environment. The ICARUS is a plastic shield that uses a Polymer Dispersed Liquid Crystal film that allows the degradation of a pilot’s visibility. It clips on to a baseball cap and is attached to a battery. That battery is then bluetoothed to an iPad or iPhone App that allows the instructor to put the pilot into and take him out of simulated IFR conditions.
Originally designed for helicopter training, it’s an excellent tool for fixed wing IFR training too. I’ve been using it for the last month and a half and I am hooked. The customer’s that I have used it with truly say that they cannot see a thing outside. Because the plastic shield turns white, it really does give the view that the pilot is in the clouds. The inner ear certainly believes it. The curve of it fits the glare shield in most planes nicely (there is some custom cutting that would have to take place for specifically rounded glare shields, but it fits Cirrus and Piper Saratogas nicely, the two planes I have used it in), and it sits away from the pilot’s face, blocking out all windows, which is what clouds do.
The greatest thing from an instructor’s standpoint is the ICARUS Device app. The pilot puts the device on before taxi and I set the app to VMC. This completely clears the ICARUS Device so the pilot can see just fine for taxi and takeoff. Then, at about 400 AGL, I tap the <1/2 VIS button on the app, and boom, the pilot is in the clouds. I even have a time delay to slowly make the ICARUS Device opaque to simulate slowly entering the clouds. I do the same thing on an approach, except in the reverse order, simulating we are slowly exiting the clouds.
The ICARUS Device is a game changer for IFR training. It’s comfortable, easy to use, the battery lasts for a long time (though bring a standard USB charging cord with you in the plane because the battery failure mode makes the ICARUS Device opaque instead of transparent. You don’t want that to happen at 200 AGL!), and, most important, it truly simulates IFR conditions.
After using it, I believe all flight schools and CFII should get one of these, both in the fixed wing and helicopter world. It’s the best option for simulating IFR conditions.
Texas Top Aviation, LLC was given an ICARUS Device by the ICARUS Device company to test. Texas Top Aviation, LLC was not paid for our above opinion on the ICARUS Device (trust me, if it was terrible, I would have told you!).
Most of us who have been through instrument training are familiar with the traditional view limiting devices. There is the original hood, which does a decent job of blocking a pilot’s view of outside, but there are still gaps that allow “peeking”, though that peeking doesn’t really help a pilot fly an approach. It does…
I was speaking with a pilot a few months back who was not instrument rated. He was telling me of his flying experience while continually speaking fondly of scud running. He told me several stories, most of the time with a smile on his face, about scud running to his destination while staying clear of clouds. While he was talking, my mind was cycling through the numerous accident reports I’ve seen where a scud running VFR pilot has crashed into terrain or an obstacle. Needless to say, scud running is not a very good idea.
This pilot’s stories got me to thinking, how common is the practice of scud running amongst VFR only pilots? As an instructor, I always teach my private students about personal minimums and making that no-go decision when clouds are below those personal minimums. The act of scud running falls under several of those dangerous pilot mindsets, get-there-itis, invincibility, and macho-ism, to name a few.
To bring everyone on the same page, let’s define scud running. Wikipedia has a very good definition:
Scud running is a practice in which pilots lower their altitude to avoid clouds or instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The goal of scud running is to stay clear of weather to continue flying with visual, rather than instrument, references. This practice is widely accepted to be dangerous, and has led to death in many cases from pilots flying into radio towers and high tension wires; however, even instrument-rated pilots sometimes elect to take the risk to avoid icing or embedded thunderstorms in cloud, or in situations where the minimum instrument altitudes are too high for their aircraft.
To put some numbers with that definition, a scud running VFR pilot would takeoff with a 1200-1500 foot ceiling and stay 700-1000 feet above the ground, right in the area where towers, hills, and rapidly rising terrain reside.
How do we change this mindset? Well, if someone has been scud running for years without incident, the practice becomes normal, like the pilot I mentioned above. The mindset of invincibility sets in and the practice continues. This particular pilot can also lead other pilots to adopt the same practice, encouraging them that nothing will happen to them, since we all know that our pilot peers know better than our flight instructors (insert heavy sarcasm here).
In order to change this mindset, instructors need to emphasize personal minimums from day one. This includes ceilings, visibility, and winds. For a seasoned pilot, a review of accident statistics might help the process.
Scud running is not a safe practice. If you’re a scud runner, you need to rethink your attitude. Is getting there really worth it?
I was speaking with a pilot a few months back who was not instrument rated. He was telling me of his flying experience while continually speaking fondly of scud running. He told me several stories, most of the time with a smile on his face, about scud running to his destination while staying clear of…
2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ) — 235 KTAS and Garmin G1000 glass, priced under a comparable Cirrus.
If you’re weighing a Cessna 400 vs Cirrus, start here. The 2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT cruises at 235 knots true — the fastest fixed-gear piston single ever certified. It’s faster than a turbocharged Cirrus on the same fuel and the same class of engine, and it costs less than a comparable SR22T. If you’re shopping a high-performance single for speed and value, N422TJ deserves a hard look.
The Airplane Cirrus Shoppers Overlook
The Cessna 400 is a Lancair design — a clean-sheet, all-composite airframe built to go fast. Cessna certified and refined it, and built N422TJ in 2008. It seats four, carries a real load, and handles weather. Most buyers shopping a high-performance single default to Cirrus, so airplanes like this one get overlooked. That’s where the value is.
Faster on the Same Fuel
The 400’s 235 KTAS is a true max cruise at 25,000 feet on oxygen. A 2011–2012 Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) trues about 211 KTAS. Both burn 100LL and run turbocharged Continental engines in the same ~310-horsepower class.
That’s about 24 knots up high — roughly 45 minutes off a 1,000-nautical-mile leg — with no bigger engine and no more fuel. And it isn’t only a flight-levels number: at 10,000 feet the 400 still trues about 180 KTAS, roughly 10 knots faster than an SR22T at the same altitude.
Lancair-designed, all-composite, fixed-gear — the airframe that makes 235 knots possible.
The Value Gap
N422TJ is priced at $350,000. A comparable Gen 3 SR22T typically trades between $450,000 and $550,000 used. (A new SR22T is a $1M-plus airplane — not the comparison.) Against the newer turbo Cirrus, that’s roughly $100,000 to $175,000 less for a faster airplane.
N422TJ — no damage history, complete logs since new, Van Bortel-maintained.
Cross-Shopping a Turbonormalized Cirrus SR22
A lot of buyers looking at N422TJ also weigh a Cirrus SR22 with the Tornado Alley turbonormalized engine. It’s a fair comparison — the same ~310-horsepower-class Continental, the same all-composite fixed-gear layout, the same 100LL — so here’s the honest math.
Speed and engine: the turbonormalized SR22 trues around 211 KTAS; the 400 does 235. The 400 also runs a true twin-turbocharged TSIO-550-C, not a turbonormalized system — a true turbo makes boosted power up high, which is a big part of that speed edge.
Avionics and price — 2006–2008: those Cirrus came with the Avidyne Entegra panel. N422TJ’s Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision is a clear step up — better glass for comparable or less money.
Avionics and price — 2009 and later: Cirrus moved to Garmin Perspective (G1000-class) glass, but the price moved with it. A 2009 SR22 turbonormalized with Perspective typically runs around $400,000 or more — one representative listing is $429,900. N422TJ is $350,000: less money, comparable glass, and 24 knots faster.
The SR22 still brings the CAPS parachute and the Cirrus owner community. But on speed, engine, and price, the Cessna 400 stays ahead.
Metric
Cessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ)
Cirrus SR22T — Gen 3 (2011–2012)
Cirrus SR22 Turbonormalized (2006–2009)
Max cruise (25,000 ft)
235 KTAS
~211 KTAS
~211 KTAS
Cruise at 10,000 ft
~180 KTAS
~170 KTAS
~170 KTAS
Engine
Twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C (true turbo, ~310 hp class)
Turbocharged Continental (~310 hp class)
Turbonormalized Continental IO-550-N (~310 hp class)
Cessna 400 Corvalis TT vs. Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) and the turbonormalized SR22. Speeds and prices are typical estimates; verify against the aircraft records and current market.
The fastest fixed-gear piston single ever certified — and it out-runs a turbo Cirrus on the same fuel.
The Avionics You Can’t Buy Anymore
Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision (SVT) and the GFC-700 autopilot.
N422TJ has a Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision (SVT) and the GFC-700 autopilot. WAAS gives you LPV approaches — near-ILS precision at runways nationwide.
This matters because the WAAS upgrade path for the G1000 in these airframes is closed. A Cessna 400 that left the factory without WAAS can’t be upgraded — it will never fly an LPV approach. So a WAAS-plus-SVT 400 like this one is a scarce find. You either buy one that has it, or you don’t get it.
Both G1000 displays with synthetic vision — a modern, integrated flight deck.
Built to Actually Go
This airplane is equipped to be flown hard and often:
Thermawing electric de-ice with a backup alternator — a de-ice system (not certified known-ice)
Factory air conditioning
Speed brakes
Hot prop, built-in oxygen, and ADS-B Out
A comfortable four-seat cabin built for real trips.
The engine is a twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C with about 1,503 hours total time — the original engine, 1,503 since new. No damage history, complete logs since new, maintained by Van Bortel.
Leather interior, comfortable for four.
An Honest Word: What the Cirrus Does Better
One thing every Cirrus has that the 400 doesn’t: the CAPS whole-airframe parachute. Pull the handle and the airplane comes down under canopy. For a lot of buyers that’s the deciding factor, and it’s a fair reason to choose a Cirrus. Cirrus also has a large owner community and a strong support network.
Useful load is comparable across all three airplanes — the 400 is often equal or a little better. If the parachute and the community are your priorities, a Cirrus may be the right airplane, and we can help you find one. If your priorities are speed, avionics, and value, the 400 is hard to beat at this price.
Cessna 400 vs Cirrus: Quick Answers for Shoppers
Is the Cessna 400 faster than a Cirrus SR22T?
Yes. The Cessna 400 Corvalis TT trues up to 235 KTAS at 25,000 feet versus about 211 KTAS for a Gen 3 Cirrus SR22T — about 24 knots faster on the same 100LL and the same ~310-horsepower class of turbocharged Continental engine, or roughly 45 minutes saved on a 1,000-nautical-mile leg. At 10,000 feet the 400 still trues about 180 KTAS, roughly 10 knots faster than an SR22T at that altitude.
How does the Cessna 400 compare to a turbonormalized Cirrus SR22?
The Cessna 400 trues 235 KTAS versus about 211 KTAS for a turbonormalized SR22, and it uses a true twin-turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C rather than a turbonormalized system. A 2006-2008 SR22 turbo has the older Avidyne Entegra panel, while the 400 has a Garmin G1000 with WAAS and Synthetic Vision. A 2009-and-later SR22 turbo with Garmin Perspective glass typically costs around $400,000 or more, versus $350,000 for N422TJ. The SR22 still offers its CAPS whole-airframe parachute.
Does the 2006-2008 Cirrus SR22 have a Garmin G1000?
No. Cirrus SR22s from 2006-2008 typically came with the Avidyne Entegra glass panel; Garmin-based Perspective glass arrived in 2009. The 2008 Cessna 400 came with the Garmin G1000, and N422TJ has the WAAS and Synthetic Vision version.
How much less is a Cessna 400 than a comparable Cirrus SR22T?
N422TJ is priced at $350,000, while a comparable 2011-2012 Cirrus SR22T (Gen 3) typically sells for about $450,000 to $550,000 used — roughly $100,000 to $175,000 less for a faster airplane.
What is the fastest fixed-gear single-engine airplane?
The Cessna 400 Corvalis TT, at 235 KTAS maximum cruise, is the fastest fixed-gear piston single-engine airplane ever certified.
Does the Cessna 400 have a parachute like the Cirrus?
No. A whole-airframe CAPS parachute is the one meaningful capability the Cirrus offers that the Cessna 400 does not. On speed, avionics, and useful load, the 400 matches or beats a comparable SR22 or SR22T.
Can the Cessna 400’s Garmin G1000 be upgraded to WAAS?
No. The WAAS upgrade path for the G1000 in these airframes is closed, so a non-WAAS Cessna 400 can never gain LPV approach capability. N422TJ already has WAAS plus Synthetic Vision, which makes it a scarce find.
Does the Cessna 400 carry less than a Cirrus SR22?
No. Useful load is comparable — the Cessna 400 is often equal to or a little better than a comparable SR22 or SR22T.
Call to see N422TJ or to talk through the Cessna 400 vs Cirrus decision: (512) 270-1298 · txtopaviation.com. Austin & San Antonio, TX.
The 2008 Cessna 400 Corvalis TT (N422TJ) trues 235 KTAS at FL250 — faster than a Cirrus SR22T — for roughly $100–175K less. An honest speed-and-value comparison.
