Uncategorized

In American business, Donald Trump is variously regarded as a helmet-haired blowhard or the most audacious businessman on the face of planet. But when it comes to audacity, compared to Christian Dries, the CEO of Diamond Industries, Trump is a painfully shy Girl Scout in a pink party dress. This is the only rational conclusion you can make after reading a recent press release explaining the certification of the new Austro diesel engine under Dries guidance in Austria. In a crash 42-month program, Dries spent-according to the press release-the princely sum of $62 million (48 million Euro) to develop the Austro and set up a factory to produce it. Lets run the playhead back to 2002, when Diamond announced its audacious plans to build a new twin in a market where twin values were practically in free fall. And, oh, by the way, it would have diesel engines which hadnt been certified yet. Fast forward to 2008: The Thielert engine economics made security-backed mortgages look like a lead-pipe cinch and by last spring, Thielert was in bankruptcy. That meant 500 or so Twin Stars were suddenly without a long-term viable engine. It also created a corps of angry customers.

Given the number of product recalls, airworthiness directives and service bulletins floating like confetti on New Years, the phrase “quality control” has a certain hollow ring in general aviation. Owners have become understandably cynical that few companies in the industry are capable of-or at least committed to-building quality parts, none more so than some recent buyers of Engine Component Inc.s Titan cylinder line. As much as any single component line, Titan cylinders from ECI have allowed field shops to remain competitive against Lycoming and Continental, who would otherwise own the market and could set prices accordingly. (They may be about to do that-see the sidebar on opposite page.) But the Titan product line ran into a snag last year and both the FAAs and ECIs response has left some owners steamed. The FAA contends that a serial-number-defined range of Titan jugs is sufficiently at risk for barrel-to-head separation to require an AD calling for 50-hour compression test inspections. But ECI demurs on this, claiming there’s nothing wrong with the Titan line, while conceding there have been at least 45 head-to-barrel separations in a population of about 16,000 cylinders. If the cylinders were defective-as the FAA seems to claim-ECI would presumably be on the hook for making customers whole in some way. But ECI disagrees with the AD and says there’s nothing wrong with the Titan line. Customers are caught in the middle-most get no help from ECI, but have to pay for compression checks at 50-hour intervals. Thats not a trivial cost, by the way. Forty AD checks are required over the 2000-hour life of a typical engine and at $150 per, that adds $6000 to the TBO run. Its essentially the equivalent of paying twice as much for the cylinders. One owner recently contacted us to point out aircraft equipped with the affected Titans have reduced market appeal-if not value-compared to those equipped with other cylinders.

Amazingly, even the latest speed champions from Kerrville-the Mooney Type S Acclaim-trace their heritage to the original Mooney type certificate. The basic airframe has evolved over the years, but the concept of a semi-monocoque rear fuselage mated to a metal-skinned steel-tube cabin, a long and slender tapered wing and distinctive reverse tail has endured. The J-model evolved most directly from the F-model, which was itself descended from the short-body C-models of the mid-1970s. The first J-model or 201-the number derives from its supposed top cruising speed in MPH-appeared in 1977. It sported a 200-HP Lycoming four-banger-the IO-360-improved landing gear and a sloping windshield, among other changes. All of these were the product of a concerted effort by Mooney to kick the model line up a couple of notches. The 201 is, to the surprise of many, very much the work of the late LeRoy LoPresti. LoPresti had a long aeronautical background, including a stint on the Apollo lunar program at Grumman. He became a near legend for his ability to get the utmost from an airplane through aerodynamic cleanups, which hed done with success on the Grumman Tiger. Applying his magic to the M20F model, LoPresti and the Mooney team created the M20J. A number of changes were made, the most visible being a new cowling and a more aerodynamic windshield. The interior was addressed, too, with adjustable seats and a contemporary flat panel with organized electricals and circuit breakers rather than the typical dogs breakfast arrangement of the 1960s and 1970s.

Heres my definition of hell: Being marched at gunpoint into a small, windowless room with a laptop and being forced to write about lean-of-peak flying for eternity. Such is my fatigue with the subject, that where you have dreams about flying above sun-warmed cloud tops and landing on seaside runways, I have nightmares about peak pressure traces and runaway CHTs. The reason this is so is because 15 years ago, I got caught up in the thick of the leaning debate, wrote reams about it and figured it was time for the world to move on. But it hasnt moved on. Comes this note from a reader: “My crusty, dinosaur belt-and-suspenders-old-school mechanic disabused me of lean of peak when I suggested it for my O-550. Instead, per his instructions, I cruise at 20 inches with 2300 RPM, 50 to 75 degrees ROP and burn an astounding 15.6 GPH…the engine went for 1500 hours before needing a top and in 20 years with two O-470s, Ive had to overhaul only one jug. Using this anecdotal evidence, I suspect that its the overhaul companies that are advertising the fuel savings by pushing LOP procedures…Ol Crusty wins this one.”

In in-flight fire is most pilots greatest fear, surpassing even a mid-air collision. Although relatively rare, the unique combination of combustible materials and ignition sources available in the typical personal airplane means an in-flight fire must be dealt with quickly and decisively. Doing so usually means disabling systems to deprive the fire of its fuel or ignition sources and employing a fire extinguisher to smother it. A quick landing, even if off-airport, may be necessary. There are lots of extinguishers on the market, products both designed for aviation use and those marketed as “all-purpose” units. How do they differ? And-most important-how do they work on the materials found in a typical aircraft fire? To find out, we gathered up current examples of aviation-specific and all-purpose extinguishers, lit a few fires and evaluated the results. All the extinguishers we tested thwarted our efforts at arson. But we were surprised at how quickly we used up extinguishing agent. and the premium we had to pay for an extinguisher designed for the cockpit. We also discovered, however, that there are real differences between household, automotive and aviation-grade extinguishers. Three things must exist for any fire to start: An ignition source, fuel (for the fire, not 100LL) and oxygen. These three items make the “fire triangle.” Remove any one of them and the fire either doesnt start or is extinguished. Our cockpits feature an abundance of materials capable of sustaining a fire. Carpeting, insulation, upholstery and paper charts are present in almost every airplane.

Part of every piston-pilots preflight ritual is sumping the fuel tanks to check for water. Given that a modern Cessna has 13 of these fuel drains, wouldnt it be better just to keep the water out? Thats what Stay-Sealed attempts with a fuel cap to put in place over your existing fuel cap. The company offers covers that fit most single-engine Cessnas and Pipers. The covers arent interchangeable, so order the right type for your airplane. The cap is applied by pressing down and physically locking over the existing fuel cap. You need to pull up on the ring at the center to make sure its really in place. It shouldnt pop off. The company claims it will stay on in an 80 mph wind. It comes off with a slight pop when you pull from the corner with no scuffing to the paint. We tested the Stay-Sealed cover on two high-wing Cessnas by smearing a paste that changes color in the presence of water just inside the filler neck, closing the cap and then drenching the wing until there was standing water. We tried it with an unprotected fuel cap, a canvas aircraft cover and the Stay Sealed cover. (A big thanks to the folks at Cumberland and York Aviation in Biddeford, Maine, for their help with this.)

Sizzle sells. If that sizzle is an all-composite fixed-gear single with a modern panel thats faster than most retractables, it sells well. Just ask Cirrus. That sizzle is the premise behind the Columbia (ne Lancair) 300/350, normally aspirated versions of the companys subsequent flagship, the turbocharged Columbia 400. The 300/350s slippery airframe and the large-displacement Continental up front combined for 185 KTAS at 10,500 feet MSL when we first flew an early 300 10 years ago. A lot has happened since then. Speed was important when the Lancair/Columbia first hit the market, but the airplanes greatest initial appeal probably had more to do with not being made of metal or wearing a Beechcraft, Cessna, Mooney or Piper label. It was one of the new-generation singles, spawned by NASAs AGATE (advanced general aviation transport experiments) program and promised growing small aircraft use in inter-city transportation. The concept also brought forth the Cirrus SR20 and SR22, which proved more popular. The good news is a 300 or 350 will still outrun an SR22 by 10 knots or so, and theyre still rare enough to attract a crowd on many ramps. The bad news is-although both the Columbia 300 and SR22 have identical empty and maximum gross takeoff weights, according to the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest-the 300 gives up 150 pounds in full-fuel payload to the SR22, because its tanks are larger. Its a little more sensitive in loading, too, and lacks the Cirrus airframe parachute system. More on weight and balance issues in a moment. And, of course, Columbia is no more, having been acquired by Cessna during Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

Its accepted wisdom that your engine will last longer if you change the oil frequently. If thats true-and were as guilty as anyone for supporting whatever mythology applies-isn’t changing it more frequently even better? And what the heck does “frequently” really mean?Engine manufacturers have their own recommendations, which are sometimes hard to find and even harder to follow. But as far as we can tell, these are determined less by actual research-based findings than they are textbook recommendations from engineering manuals. So for this report, we set out to find out what the piston-engine aviation oil professionals who manufacture and sell the oil and the people who analyze the dirty stuff have to say. What do they recommend for the typical aircraft owner?

As Special Light Sport Aircraft (S-LSAs) begin to occupy more hangars and flight-school flight lines, attention is shifting to aftermarket avionics upgrades. Some owners take delivery with little more than a handheld transceiver, which will hardly cut it in the real world. For others, their checkbooks are simply tempted by a smorgasbord of gee-whiz gadgetry. Retrofitting LSAs is uncharted territory for most avionics shops and most of these lightweights might have unfamiliar engines and, in many cases, minimal electrical systems. LSAs are small, so available space and weight restrictions need to be considered. The rules for return-to-service following an upgrade are different for modern S-LSAs than whats required of Part 23 aircraft or even a legacy aircraft LSA. Whats fine for your SportStar might not be legal for that vintage Ercoupe. Here are a handful of avionics retrofits suitable for the average S-LSA. Also, were talking mainly VFR missions here, while occasionally toying with light IFR if the airplane even has such approval. To be clear: While these machines are considered “little airplanes” by most standards, its futile to expect a light invoice for avionics work, even if the equipment is bargain-priced.

Just when youve got a few decades of aviation experience under your slightly expanding belt, and have lost that wide-eyed rookie look … things start to look blurry and hazy. Every day. And then your doctor drops the hammer: Youve got cataracts. But the news isn’t as bad as it could have been 30 years ago. Cataracts are fixable. A cataract occurs when the normal clarity of the lens of the eye is reduced, resulting in blurred, cloudy vision. These chemical changes are frequently caused by normal aging, but can also be caused by medications, injury, diseases, or environmental factors such as UV exposure or smoking. Cataracts usually occur in people 55 and older, and usually develop in both eyes, although at different rates. They impair your visual acuity in dim light, and also create light sensitivity and glare. Vision with a cataract is similar to looking through a steamy window. In addition to cloudy vision, cataracts also cause a number of other symptoms, such as dark shadows that seem to move with the eye (similar to “floaters,” or loose cells within the fluid of the eyeball), the need to use more light to read, double vision, a loss of color vision, as we’ll as increased nearsightedness as the lens becomes denser.

Climb into your WABAC machine and set the dials for the mid-1990s. Once the whirring sounds and flashing lights stop, get out and glance around at what was then your local airport. Very different from today, huh? A lot of all-metal airplane designs, which hadnt changed much in 40 or so years, right? If youre lucky-or if you mis-set the machines controls for a couple of years later-you might see a curiosity: A T-tailed, all-composite, canopied two-seater with sailplane-like wings pulling duty as a trainer. Thats Diamond Aircrafts DA20-A1 Katana, a sleek little machine with unmistakable European roots. The early, 81-HP Rotax-powered A1 Katanas at takeoff sounded like a sport motorcycle with a stuck throttle. Transitioning students steeped in Cessnas carried way too much speed into the flare. Good times. Since then, the DA20-in its C1 version-has evolved into what some might consider a more serious contender, thanks in part to a Continental IO-240B sporting 125 HP. Today, the DA20 soldiers on, training the next crop of pilots in fleet situations and in the traditional FBO/flight school environment. Gone is the Rotax, which on hot days made climbing to altitude a time-building experience, although you can still find A1 versions powered by it. On the used market, its years of service and by-now well-known maintenance and pilot requirements make it a worthy contender among the two-seat, tricycle-gear competition for a personal airplane.

Every year about this time, we like to fill our figurative pipe with tobacco-the real one got tossed long ago-and ruminate on the products and services weve examined during the past year. As there always are in any field of comparison, during a year of testing, prodding and experimenting, we find standout products in which the manufacturer has gone the extra distance to provide exceptional quality or value. Presented here in summary, are our picks for 2008.