The Avidyne Equipped Cirrus Upgrade

Pitch + Power = Performance

ByHank Gibson October 10, 2016October 17, 2016

My first chief flight instructor had an addage he would impart to his flight instructors when we began working at that flight school. “Pitch + Power = Performance” he would tell us. Then he’d glare at us and follow up with, “nobody teaches that right, so make sure your students know it.”

Now, having been a CFI for seven years, I would tend to agree with him. I have moved on from doing mostly primary training to transition training. Transition training is taking someone who is already a pilot and teaching them how to fly a different type of airplane. In jets, you get a type rating. In piston engine airplanes, there is no FAA requirement to go through any type of extra training as long as you are rated in category and class (eg. single engine piston). But, insurance companies know that Mr. Fresh Private Pilot can’t just hop from a Cessna 172 into a Cirrus SR22 or a Bonanza, so they require transition training before insuring those pilots.

What did my chief instructor mean when he imparted his wisdom? He was speaking about a particular phase of flight, the final approach phase, regardless of whether it’s a VFR approach or an IFR approach. The pitch of the airplane and the power setting of the airplane have to be utilized together to achieve the proper speed and descent rate (performance).

VFR

On the final approach leg of a VFR pattern, most piston engine aircraft are configured with landing gear down and flaps down in the landing position. This puts the airplane on the back side of the power curve in the region of reverse command. In the region of positive command, in cruise, for example, the more power you add, the faster you are going to go and, if you pitch up, you will go up and you pitch down, you will go down. But, they work together (if you point the nose down, you will accelerate unless you reduce the power); remember, Pitch + Power = Performance.

In the region of reverse command, the pitch controls the airspeed and the power controls your rate of descent, but, again, they work together. Let’s say the airplane is 5 knots above it’s approach speed on final. Initially, the pilot will need to pitch up slightly to bleed off that airspeed. The airplane will want to climb, so as he is pitching up, he’ll need to make a slight power reduction to stay on glide slope.

Alternatively, let’s say the airplane is high, but is on speed. The pilot will make a power reduction to descend to the glide path, but he’ll also need to pitch down to maintain the proper airspeed.

What you don’t want to do is this: if the airplane is high on final, don’t push the nose down to try and get down. This does cause the airplane to lose altitude quickly, but the airspeed increases quickly. With a higher airspeed, the airplane has a lot more energy to dissipate when it gets to the runway, meaning you’ll float longer which can lead to forcing the airplane down or using up too much runway and not being able to get the airplane stopped in time.

IFR

On an instrument approach, you are on the front side of the power curve. When trying to stay on glide slope, the power is controlling the speed of the airplane and the pitch is keeping the airplane on glide slope. This can be a little bit confusing for VFR pilots transitioning to instrument approaches as they are not used to being on the front side of the power curve.

Keeping in mind that Pitch + Power = Performance, let’s put the airplane above the glide slope on an ILS approach. In order to get down to the glide slope, the pitch needs to be lowered as much as needed (it’s always better to pick a pitch attitude to fly and see if it is working to bring the glide slope back to center. If it doesn’t work, pick a new one. Don’t just push the nose down until the glide slope moves) and the power needs to be reduced to maintain airspeed (again, pick a specific power setting). Once the glide slope centers, then the pitch will be raised slightly and the power will need to be increased to hold glide slope and speed respectively.

Make The Upgrade to Pressurization

ByHank Gibson August 23, 2018August 24, 2018

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.

Flight Watch to be Discontinued

ByHank Gibson September 1, 2015September 8, 2015

The FAA has decided to discontinue the dedicated En Route Flight Advisory (EFAS or Flight Watch) frequency 122.0.  The effective date will be September 24th, but Flight Service will continue to monitor the frequency for an additional six months to direct pilots to Flight Service Station frequencies.

EFAS services will still be provided by Flight Service, though, on the published Flight Service Station frequencies (and 122.2).

To me, this makes some sense.  In the past, if I accidentally contacted Flight Service on one of their frequencies to issue a pilot report or get a weather update, they would send me over to Flight Watch on 122.0.  More than likely, the Flight Watch operator was sitting right next to the Flight Service operator, but I had to flip frequencies.  This will help alleviate some confusion for pilots.

The deactivation of Flight Watch had been coming for years since the advent of Foreflight and other iPad and tablet apps giving pilots much easier access to weather, both in flight and on the ground.  With Nexrad and Stratus, there isn’t much need for Flight Watch anymore (though you still can’t file a PIREP over the XM Weather!).

For more information, check out AOPA’s website.

Epic E1000 Gets the GFC 700

ByHank Gibson December 29, 2020December 31, 2020

When the Epic E1000 was finally certified in the spring of 2020, there was much celebrating across the aviation world. Epic Aircraft expended a lot of time and energy getting the E1000 certified and into production (more information on that journey here and in Flying Magazine here).

The airplane is amazing. In the single engine, 6 seat turboprop market, it easily blows away the competition. With it’s 1,200 SHP PT6-67A, it has double the horsepower of the M600 (600 SHP), and 350 more horsepower than the TBM 940 (850 SHP). It’s 60 KTAS faster than the M600 and, even though the TBM can keep up (both airplanes have equal top cruise speeds of 330 KTAS), the Epic E1000 can carry a payload of 1,024 pounds with full fuel, while the 940 can only carry 584 pounds with full fuel. The TBM carries about 15 minutes more of fuel, but to me, that’s pretty negligible.

Did I mention climb rates? The E1000 climbs at an average of 1500 FPM at Vy (it’s capable of 4,000 FPM), making it to 25,000 feet in 10 minutes. The TBM climbs at 1000 FPM, taking 13 minutes to climb to the same altitude, while the M600 settles in at about 800 FPM, reaching FL250 in 21 minutes.

If you expand the comparison to include the Pilatus PC-12, the two airplanes have 1,200 SHP, but the Epic is 50 KTAS faster and they both have about the same weight carrying ability.

In the most important arena, price, the E1000 is around a million dollars cheaper than the TBM 940.

The one drawback to the Epic E1000 that immediately was noticeable was the autopilot. Epic originally installed the STEC 2100 autopilot to pair with the G1000 (and later the G1000 NXi). Epic decided to stick with the STEC 2100 through certification for the plane since that autopilot was on all of the E1000s paperwork going through all the levels of FAA approval. To change to the GFC 700 during the certification process would have been a massive undertaking that probably would have delayed certification.

The STEC 2100 is a good autopilot, but, as any G1000 pilot can tell you, the lack of integration between any STEC autopilot and Garmin panel leaves some to be desired. Not all the bugs talk, which often requires dual data entry, which can lead to forgetting to do both the bug and the autopilot when things get busy. Hello, altitude deviation.

The goal for Epic was never to leave the STEC autopilot in the airplane. The first E1000s were rolled off the line with the STEC, but Epic didn’t take long to change the autopilot to the much more integrated Garmin GFC 700. That took place this winter (2020), and the E1000 received it’s first upgrade, with Epic dubbing the airplane the Epic E1000 GX.

I expect the innovators in Bend, OR, where Epic is based and where tons of innovation in aviation happens (Lancair/Columbia started in Bend while RDD is based there as well), to quickly come out with more avionics upgrades for the airplane. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a G3000 version at some point, complete with auto throttles and the new Garmin Autoland. Epic would be smart to follow in the steps of Daher and offer two models, one with the G1000 and one with the G3000 (the TBM 910 has the G1000 NXi while the TBM 940 has the G3000).

I have yet to fly in an Epic E1000, but I would certainly jump at the chance to do so. Someone asked me yesterday what airplane I would buy if I had a blank check. With the GFC 700 now in the Epic, it would absolutely be the E1000 GX.

Coflyt Ownership App

ByHank Gibson January 29, 2021February 17, 2021

A new app came out last year that fits a need for many owners. Coflyt, available on the Apple App Store for $14/month for up to two airplanes, helps immensely with staying organized. Those questions of, “When is my oil change due?” or “Has the plane had it’s IFR inspections?” are easily answered by checking the app instead of having to dig through maintenance logs.

Not only does Coflyt help keep track of maintenance, but it also houses squawk lists that owner’s can send to maintenance shops as well as keeping track of Airworthiness Directives. If the pilot remembers at the end of flights to put the amount in, it even shows how much fuel is remaining in the airplane.

For flying clubs and partnerships, it provides easy scheduling without having to share calendars. Payments can also be taken and flights tracked. No more paper flight sheets after flights to track down.

As a pilot, it helps immensely to be organized. For $14 a month ($36/month for partnerships or flying clubs), that’s a small price to pay.