One advantage to flying an LSA is that they can be flown with a sport pilot certificate, with only a valid driver’s license needed as proof of medical competency. While flight training prices vary throughout the country, it is generally accepted that a sport pilot ticket can be earned for about half the cost of a private pilot certificate.

Let’s take a look at some of the LSAs that are available in the U.S. market today.

The Major Players

For efficient flying that comes with spectacular ramp appeal, Bristell’s Classic LSA is one of the best looking in this category. Owners can see great performance numbers and fuel mileage behind a variety of available Rotax engines, and with a heavy-duty wing spar suitable for flight training and comfortable seating for two, this model makes a great cross-country flyer. 

Tecnam’s Astore looks impressive on the ramp or in the air and is offered with an analog panel at the base price with optional avionics packages, including either a Dynon SV1000 or Garmin G3X panel. A Rotax 912 ULS engine allows the Astore to easily cruise at the 120 knots calibrated airspeed (kcas) LSA limit on about 4.5 gph fuel burn. 

Sling’s LSA is a proven design with numerous world circumnavigation flights completed by a range of pilots, and the model delivers “highly responsive” flight controls that “give it the distinct qualities of a fighter jet,” according to Sling. A range of 750 nm comes from the Rotax 912 ULS or 912 iS powerplant, and a refined interior and avionics from Garmin round out the Sling’s standard equipment list. 

Other best sellers are Flight Design’s F2 and CubCrafter’s Carbon Cub SS. A single 10-inch Dynon SkyView display anchors the glass panel of the F2 and “sport seats” assure a pleasant ride for short hops or long flights. An electric pitch trim system and a full array of Whelen LED exterior lighting has helped fill Flight Design’s order book. 

For serious backcountry fun, the Carbon Cub SS is hard to beat. With a takeoff distance of 60 feet in perfect conditions claimed by the factory and a leisurely 32-knot stall speed, this model will get its lucky owners into the smallest of off-airport strips when STOL performance is required. A Titan CC340 180 hp engine up front delivers where it counts.

Amphibian LSAs

Dominating the light sport amphibian market are two very popular models, the Icon A5 and SeaRey Elite SLSA. Both provide those seeking fun in the air and on the water with well-finished, capable airframes, and the latest in glass avionics. 

Icon’s A5 is perhaps the most dramatic design on the LSA market—with an interior that looks like it was lifted from an exotic automobile built by hand in an Italian hill town. The line between aircraft and automobile is blurred, and with folding wings making the A5 trailerable, this fun ride has become popular in recent years. 

While styled in a more traditional way, SeaRey’s Elite SLSA has been a consistent seller for years and offers lucky owners a well-built airframe and plenty of power to operate in high and hot environments. With a spirited 350-foot water takeoff run and 1,100 fpm rate of climb behind a turbocharged 115 hp Rotax 914 ULS engine, the Elite gets in and out of most any lake or waterway. 

A Few Global Surprises

One of the most important attributes of LSA manufacturers worldwide has always been their ability to innovate. And because this niche of aviation is extremely popular in the European Union where the types are flown as “ultralights,” there are dozens of makers producing beautiful LSAs that are made “across the pond” and imported into the U.S. market. 

Take the Viper SD4 from Czech-Republic maker Tomark Aero. From the slick lines of the all-metal airframe to a seriously well-developed interior, the SD4 could be the best-looking LSA you’ve probably never heard about until now. Another contender for that title is the JMB Aircraft VL3 series, currently certificated under the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regs for ultralights. Certain versions can be operated in the U.S. under the S-LSA rules, or in the experimental/exhibition category. 

Another make/model that will make you say, “Why haven’t I ever heard of this airplane before?” is the Fusion 212 SLSA manufactured by Magnus Aircraft. This Hungarian-built SLSA is as good as it gets in LSA styling, but underneath that sleek skin, a big surprise is waiting. Due to a very strong airframe, the Fusion 212 became the first and only SLSA to be certified by the FAA for upset recovery training, intentional spins, and basic aerobatics (+6/-3 Gs). This adds a valuable layer of training functionality to this fuel-efficient SLSA, making the 212 attractive to flight schools.

Most Affordable LSAs

When the light sport category was created by the FAA in 2004, it was one of the most significant changes to regulations in the agency’s history. One aspect of the then-new “LSA” and “sport pilot” aircraft and pilot certification categories was that there would be a vast number of very affordable new airplanes coming into the marketplace. In reality, most LSAs today are loaded with glass panels and features buyers desire, which has driven base prices up. There are, however, a few models that still carry a base price under $90,000, so let’s take a look at two of them. 

One of the most attractive buys for a new SLSA is the Pipistrel Alpha Trainer, a well-equipped machine with a base price of $88,443. The Alpha Trainer is a great buy at that price, owing to its long list of standard features that include a Rotax 912 UL2 80 hp, four-stroke carbureted engine, Garmin GTR 200 radio with built-in intercom, Garmin GTX 335 transponder with ADS-B out, a Garmin Aera 660 GPS, and a standard ballistic parachute rescue system. 

Because the Alpha Trainer is meant to handle the daily abuse of hard landings thrown at it by new student pilots, the airframe is tough and durable. With its 13.2-gallon fuel tank, owners will see around 380 miles of range (with reserves) at normal cruise speeds of just under 110 knots. 

Also in the sub-$90,000 price range is the BushCat from SkyReach. The BushCat was designed to handle the rugged African bush country with a design made for easy assembly and repair in remote areas. For a very attractive $87,500 base price, the ready-to-fly BushCat SLSA offers a lot of features you might not expect in this price range, including full flight controls, a strong aluminum tubular frame, a 24-gallon “crack safe” fuel tank, and height-adjustable seats. Power for the BushCat comes from either the Rotax 912 UL 80 hp or Rotax 912 ULS 100 hp engine, and with its strong “bush country” pedigree, dropping in next to a pristine stream in Idaho or Montana to catch your dinner suits the BushCat well. 

Build It Yourself

For those pilots who are skilled in engineering—or at least eager to learn—and know their way around a shop full of tools, building an experimental/amateur-built (E/AB) kit airplane that can be flown with a sport pilot certificate might be the best way to reduce base price while receiving maximum performance. 

Kitfox Aircraft makes several versions of kits for sport pilots such as their Super Sport, Speedster, and STOL STi, which delivers a remarkable 175-foot landing roll. All three can be built for an average build time of about 1,000 hours, according to the factory. Zenith Aircraft also makes some well-proven kits that can be flown by sport pilots, including the CH650, CH701 STOL, and CH750 Cruzer. With a 100-foot takeoff and 125-foot landing, Zenith’s CH750 STOL is popular among builders with eyes on the backcountry. 

The RV-12iS E/AB kit from Van’s Aircraft delivers the builder/owner with a solid performer that is also produced from the factory as a fully built SLSA. Like the entire RV line from Vans, it is not uncommon to see an RV-12iS pilot sporting that famous “RV grin” because of the model’s nimble handling.

MOSAIC: A Question Mark

The FAA is now working on its Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates (MOSAIC) regulations rewrite, and while details remain to be fully spelled out, it is believed that the final rule will open up what makes/models of airplanes could be flown with a sport pilot certificate. If the current weight and speed limits are expanded, it could mean that larger, faster, and more capable four-seat airplanes—like a Cessna 152 or 172, or a Piper Cherokee—could be flown with a sport pilot certificate. The FAA is working towards a December 2023 deadline on MOSAIC, after which the impact to the LSA market will be seen.

The post Light Sport Makes the Mission Fun appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The instrument panel’s shape on early 172s was very similar to the Cessna 170’s, but in 1959 the panel shape began to morph into what we’ve become accustomed to in the 172. However, the control wheel placement remained in a higher position in those days, which disturbed the visual access to the instruments. Therefore, the control wheel later moved to a lower position on the panel, which not only improved the visibility to the instruments but also made its position more ergonomic.

The swept tail was introduced in 1960 and a new cowl design in 1961, creating a sleeker profile for the Cessna 172 and improving engine cooling. However, no performance changes were noted by the tail redesign. During this time, the instrument panel was modified to make the airplane IFR-capable. With all these changes, the premium version of the airplane got a new nickname—the Skyhawk.

Another marketing scheme for Cessna’s single-engine models was the Omni-Vision window. Omni-Vision is a wraparound rear window first introduced on the Cessna 182 and 210 models in 1962. The Cessna 172 fuselage was modified to fit the new window configuration in 1963, and the forward visibility was also improved with the installation of a one-piece windshield.

Like the Cessna 170, the original 172 used the six-cylinder, 145-horsepower Continental O-300 engine. In 1968, the powerplant was replaced with a four-cylinder Lycoming O-320 producing 150 hp. This was the engine originally intended for the 177 Cardinal. Later versions had a 160 hp O-320, and a 180 hp Lycoming O-360 also became a popular option.

• GALLERY: The Evolution in Pictures

After 10 years of suspended production owing to a soft market for new airplanes, and an onerous product liability environment, Cessna resumed production of the Cessna 172 in 1996 with the Cessna 172R model. This was the first time the Cessna factory made a full commitment to a fuel-injected 172 (the R172H XP was produced for a period of four years beginning in 1977 with a fuel-injected, 195 hp Continental engine). The new Skyhawk was originally equipped with a 160 hp Lycoming IO-360.

Many avionics panel modifications were made through the years, but arguably the most significant one happened in 2005 when the 172 was outfitted with an all-glass G1000 avionics suite. The first edition had MFD capabilities such as what is now SiriusXM weather, plus traffic and terrain, and was linked with a Bendix King KAP 140 autopilot. Versions beginning in 2008 feature the fully integrated Garmin GFC 700 autopilot.

As in most years, Cessna introduced a new paint scheme for the current-model Skyhawk. There were some worthy upgrades starting with the 2012 model. The ADS-B capable Garmin GTS 800 TAS provided directional audible alerts for traffic (for example, “traffic, 1 o’clock, high, two miles”) and automatically pulses the landing lights when a traffic target gets close. Customers could also add an EVS system to the 2012 Skyhawk.

Ten years later, for the 2022 model year, the Cessna 172S features the Garmin G1000 NXI integrated flight deck, with ADS-B In and Out, wireless database and flight plan loading, angle of attack indication, and the Garmin GI 275 electronic standby instrument.

The post The Evolution of the Cessna 172 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I had just purchased a bratwurst and was looking for a place to sit down. Spotting an open seat at an occupied picnic table, I asked the folks sitting there if I might join them, and as is always the case at Oshkosh, I was welcomed with smiles all around.

The usual, friendly introductory questions made their way around the table, and I came to learn that the three gentlemen had all flown in from Arkansas—two in a Cirrus SR22 and the other in a 2015 Mooney Ovation. It didn’t take long for them to continue their original conversation centered on the ongoing maintenance and operating expenses for their airplanes, and as a first-time owner myself, I listened with interest.

The Mooney owner was lamenting a recent annual inspection that had turned out to be far more expensive than anticipated, amounting to about $9,000. His maintenance shop had, as it turned out, discovered around 50 discrepancies ranging from worn brakes to a more serious engine issue. He wasn’t whining and wasn’t expressing any regret—he was simply explaining his ownership experience in a resigned, matter-of-fact manner. It was a complex airplane with all-weather IFR capability, he reasoned, and unexpectedly pricey annuals were simply the price of admission.

The Cirrus owner had similar reflections. His seven-figure airplane was new enough that most of his maintenance concerns were still covered under warranty, but he planned to own it for many years and was fully expecting to face similarly high maintenance expenses in the future. The parachute alone, he explained, has to be repacked every 10 years to the tune of about $18,000.

I paused, staring at my now half-eaten brat and considered these numbers. The parachute itself cost $150/month to own and maintain. That’s more than I was paying for hangar rent. The aforementioned $9,000 annual amounted to about a third of the acquisition price of many of the airplanes for which I’d been shopping over the past couple of years.

We may have all been flying single-engine piston airplanes, and we may have been flying them to similar destinations, but when it came to the ownership experience, we were clearly living on completely different planets.

As I stumbled back into my far more humble world of ownership, I’d reflect upon this reality regularly, wondering what it must be like to fly an airplane that was more than 60 years newer and an order of magnitude more expensive to own and maintain than my trusty old Cessna 170.

As it turned out, I would only have to wait a few months to find out. Through a connection separate from FLYING, I was invited to take a demo flight in a brand-new Beechcraft Bonanza G36 at the Textron headquarters in Wichita, Kansas.

Newness Unveils Another World

I’d flown an old, 1960s-era Bonanza before, and as the general, overall design of the Bonanza hadn’t appreciably changed since its introduction, I wasn’t expecting a vastly different experience. And while the performance numbers and handling did indeed feel very similar to what I’d remembered, I didn’t anticipate how the small details and refinement would all add up to completely change the overall experience.

Up until that demo flight, all of my flying had taken place in well-used, but well-loved airplanes. Everywhere you looked in these modest mounts, various levels of wear were evident—door jambs were scratched up, interior trim was cracked, paint was faded, ashtrays were stuck open, and so on. Similarly, everything you touched reminded you of the decades of use incurred by the airplane. Seat tracks required some jostling to click into place, door handles needed some muscle to operate, and one look at the upholstery reminded you of the multiple generations that had flown the airplane over the years.

• READ MORE: Previous editions of ‘The New Owner’

The result was a constant reminder that—while perfectly airworthy—these were tired airplanes. Consciously or subconsciously, you’d never stop scrutinizing each mechanical component with a bit of skepticism, confident in your preflight inspection but never forgetting that you were only ever one part failure away from having to consult an emergency checklist.

Sliding into the new Bonanza was like sliding into another world. Unlike all the previous airplanes I’d flown, every touchpoint reinforced the feeling of flawless mechanical perfection. The solid metal toggle switches clicked into place with satisfying precision and an audible clack. The doors opened and closed smoothly and easily. The carpet and headliner fabric was perfectly trimmed and fitted, the new windows provided flawless outward vision, and there was a total lack of squeaks and creaks as we taxied over any broken, uneven pavement.

In the air, the airplane flew as I’d expected, with no big surprises—predictably pleasant, with stable, responsive handling. But the aforementioned fit and finish exuded a feeling of precision I’d never felt before. I was enveloped in a sense of security and peace of mind, and I came to realize that this aspect—despite not being quantifiable or showing up on a spreadsheet—was much of what those well-to-do owners were paying for when they bought their new aircraft.

Additionally, I considered how this impression would be particularly noticeable by non-pilot passengers. Those not familiar with the meticulous nature of regular aircraft maintenance might be disproportionately put off by an older airplane that is mechanically sound but visually and tactilely shabby. They would certainly be much more at ease in an example with exquisite fit and finish and a quieter cabin.

• DON’T MISS OUT: Subscribe to FLYING Magazine

I came away from the demo flight with a new appreciation for factory-new aircraft. With a price tag that starts out at nearly $1 million, I was no closer to being able to afford the Bonanza, but I had a much better understanding of the value they provide to pilots fortunate enough to own them. Without an aging airframe and components constantly lurking in the back of their minds, those owners could enjoy piece of mind while focusing their attention on the flight itself.

How Did This Change Me?

On the airline flight home, I wondered whether the factory-new experience might have spoiled me, and whether I’d become less enamored by my humble 170 that looked as though it had served in multiple wars. Fortunately, my fondness for it remained. 

Although I had a new respect for the gleaming new machines, flying one also gave me a new appreciation for the experience of owning a vintage example…and indeed, for being an owner at all. 

Just as the factory-new benefits of confidence and peace of mind are difficult to quantify on a spreadsheet, so too is the satisfaction of serving as a caretaker of a vintage airplane. Becoming intimately familiar with the condition and age of each system and providing the necessary care to ensure the airplane is passed on to the next owner in as good or better condition as when I acquired it is immensely rewarding. It’s a hobby in and of itself, and provided you go into ownership with properly calibrated expectations, it’s a darned enjoyable one.

The post A Glimpse Into ‘The Good Life’ Provides Reflection appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The moment in time showcases just how the past and the present connect in such a way to illuminate how far we’ve come in technology and innovation, yet remain grounded in designs that still resonate with pilots today. Textron Aviation announced the 75th anniversary edition of the Beechcraft Bonanza during the 2021 Sun ‘n Fun Aerospace Expo while it presented its first virtual exhibit in light of lingering concerns over the coronavirus pandemic.

For those who knew Olive Ann Beech, the decision to style the new G36 Bonanza after her aesthetic makes perfect sense. Beech was an aviation pioneer who founded Beechcraft alongside her husband Walter, and who carried on leadership of the company following his death in 1950. As the first woman to lead a major aviation OEM, Beech’s career spanned 50 years prior to her retirement in 1982—and her personal elegance was as legendary as her steady hand at the controls. She developed a signature color, “Mrs. Beech Blue,” with designer Oleg Cassini, and this color has been translated into the modern era in the exterior and interior of the 75th anniversary Bonanza.

After 75 years, the model 36 series has seen significant change, but the design’s stately handling qualities and reputation as a rock-solid IFR platform continue. The 2022 edition carries on innovation on the flight deck, with the Garmin G1000 NXi up front, and it’s powered by the Continental IO-550-B six-cylinder engine, demonstrating a maximum cruise speed of 176 knots. Its 920-nm range and 1,060-lb payload target the owner-pilot who wants to carry their family or colleagues on cross-country trips.

Textron Aviation showed off the new edition along with other happenings at the company in a series of video interviews on display on its new mobile virtual exhibit at Sun ‘n Fun. The modified trailer/container allowed for a peek behind the scenes with folks from around the company, and gave some life to an otherwise static display with a single Cessna Caravan available for socially distant viewing. The utility of such equipment in light of the ongoing pandemic concerns makes sense—and it illustrates the gray area we still occupy as companies determine the best path for their businesses, and the health and safety of their teams.

The post Textron Aviation Presents 75th Bonanza, Virtual Exhibit at Sun ‘n Fun appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

While the data just released from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) showed trends that weren’t unexpected, the degree of downturn for the industry points to a more significant slump than most people prepared for. The total number of aircraft shipped to date in 2020 declined 21.5 percent from the same period last year. Billings were also down just over 20 percent. The helicopter side of the industry received an even tougher blow, with deliveries down nearly 40 percent with billings declining 35.5 percent. On the airplane side of the business, turboprops took the biggest hit with deliveries down slightly more than 34 percent. Piston helicopters saw the greatest decline amongst the rotorcraft fleet, down 45.2 percent.

GAMA’s president and CEO Pete Bunce said in a news release, “It should come as no surprise to anyone that the COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted the general aviation industry and its global operations in the second quarter. During those months, while the global aerospace supply chain was significantly degraded and national, state and local pandemic restrictions changed routinely on both sides of the Atlantic, many companies supplemented their activities to support the health care response with the manufacture and distribution of personal protective equipment. With facilities conducting operations in a ‘new normal’ work environment, what has been very encouraging is that the supply chain has begun to stabilize and robust screening procedures and innovative work station COVID-19 mitigation protocols have resulted in very few virus transmission incidents.”

Bunce did offer some good news despite the grim delivery numbers. “While continued mandated and voluntary restrictions on international business travel are producing stiff headwinds,” Bunce continued, “flight activity for business aviation has appeared to return to around 85 percent of pre-pandemic levels in US domestic airspace, while piston, turboprop and rotorcraft flight activity has actually increased. Many travelers have also opted to explore the utility of general and business aviation for the first time, which we hope will translate into future customers for the incredible and versatile products and services our industry has to offer.” GAMA’s complete 2020 second quarter report can be found at gama.aero.

The post GAMA’s Q2 Delivery Report Shows Declines Across the Board appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On Thursday, June 25, Diamond Aircraft Industries announced the latest update to its single-engine piston airplane line, the DA50 RG—the five-seat version of the DA50 in a retract formulation. Like others in its family, the airplane will be powered by a diesel powerplant, the Continental CD-300 turbocharged, fadec engine, with a max power output of 300 hp (270 hp maximum continuous power).

The latest DA50 is projected to make a top speed of 181 knots (at ISA, 16,000 feet msl, and 1,700-kgs weight), climb to a maximum operating altitude of 20,000 feet, and boast a useful load of 1,232 pounds. Its max range will be around 750 nm (with a 30-minute reserve), and fuel consumption while in those parameters will be about 9 gph. With a takeoff distance (at sea level, over a 50-foot obstacle) of 2,427 feet and a landing distance of 2,100 feet (also at sea level, over a 50-foot obstacle), the 4,407-lb airplane can find a home in a number of applications.

Through its social media channels, the company said, “We’d like to say thank you to everyone who was involved in the development of our DA50 RG—especially to our Production and Design department. Your dedication and hard work have left everyone in utter amazement in our company. Our special thanks also go out to Kirk Smith, the winner of the DA50 Design Competition, who came up with this stunning paint scheme and to Knud Tiroch who supported us with the execution of Kirk’s design. Thank you all for inspiring us.”

The post Diamond Debuts DA50 Retract Single appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Universal Flight Concepts, based in Waco, Texas, has delivered its current Part 141-approved training programs using 10 Tecnam aircraft. On January 28, Universal announced that it has agreed to purchase an additional 18 Tecnam aircraft over the course of 2020, bringing its fleet to 28 total airplanes. The flight training organization has served Baylor University’s aviation sciences program since fall 2019.

The success of the program from the outset has led Universal to invest in the dramatic increase in its fleet. Students begin training in the two-place P2008, moving to the P2010 to pursue instrument training, and then onto to the multiengine P2006T for advanced training. The breakdown of the models on the purchase agreement mirror that progression: 13 P2008s, 13 P2010s, and 2 P2006Ts. The school also utilizes Tecnam-specific flight training devices in its courses as well.

Gordon Jiroux, president and CEO of Universal, noted, “We share in Baylor’s belief that all student training must be innovative and comprehensive, with complete dedication to safety. The selection of a modern, efficient, all-Tecnam fleet maintains a continuity for the students which also benefits our drive for quality, safety, efficient learning, maintenance and dispatch.” Universal’s facilities at the Waco Regional Airport include 9,000 square feet of training areas, and 32,000 square feet of hangar space.

The post Universal Flight Concepts Adds To Tecnam Fleet appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

More than 72 years have passed since the Cessna 172 first appeared on engineering drawing boards in Kansas, and the airplane still figures into the training plan for many pilots who learn to fly around the world. While the powerplant options continue to evolve, with the JT-A burning Jet-A, and an electric-powered version in the works, the Skyhawk flies on floating the same planform across the sky as it did in the 1950s.

Thirty-five years ago the running joke about the Cessna 172 was that pilot reports on the latest model could be cribbed from the previous year’s article with updated references to the new paint scheme and fabric options. For many years, it wasn’t far from the truth. It wasn’t that Cessna was resting on its laurels, though it could be excused if it were — even back in the 1960s, the 172 was the undisputed king of light aircraft. It achieved its popularity through an unbeatable formula. It was an affordable, economical, utilitarian, safe and easy-flying airplane that could fill a variety of roles.

The Cessna 172 was arguably the most elegant compromise in the history of aviation. It might not have been the best airplane at doing any one thing, but it was clearly the best at giving its owners a satisfying taste of everything they wanted in a personal airplane. For many of those owners, the 172 was the airplane of a lifetime. Why not? It was and is a great, fun flyer; a good-short-haul, modest-payload cross-country machine; a wonderful trainer and a solid IFR platform.

For other owners, the 172 served as a steppingstone. After getting their feet wet with what was often the first airplane of their own, buyers would often move up to something bigger, faster and more capable. For decades that natural step-up airplane was another Cessna product, the 182 Skylane. Others moved beyond that to higher-performance models; there was even a retractable version of the 172, which was a popular choice with flight schools to serve as a complex trainer.

Today, the Cessna 172 stands as the most popular airplane ever, with around 43,000 produced, according to Cessna’s numbers, including variants. And 55 years down the line it’s still adding to that total. While the price tag of a new 172 puts it in a different league than its early predecessors’, the things that made the 172 an attractive model to begin with are all still there, and then some.

The 2012 model added some nice standard and optional touches, including available enhanced vision and ADS-B (automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast) upgradable traffic, along with new styling and lighting options. The 180 hp 172S, referred to by Cessna as the 172-SP, goes for $307,500; the 160 hp 172R sells for $274,900.

Newer models still aren’t cheap. You may ask, how much is a new Cessna 172 today? The Skyhawk goes out the door with pricing (from 2018) in the range from $369,000 to $438,000, depending on options—like the Garmin G1000 NXi. Then again, these airplanes, despite their rivets shining in the sun, are thoroughly modern, highly evolved examples of the four-seat, entry-level general aviation airplane.

Modest Beginnings For A Classic

When one thinks of an archetypal product, one that captures the essence of its market and demonstrates that with unprecedented sales success, it’s natural to assume that the product was the result of a flash of inspiration.

The opposite is true for the Cessna Skyhawk. The airplane is the very essence of derivation. It sprang from the taildragger four-seat 170, which was developed from the two-seat 140, which, as far as I know, was a new design — a new design that came about in 1946, that is.

The introduction of the Cessna 172 was controversial in a way that might be hard to understand today. The 170 was a much-loved airplane, and the switch to tricycle gear was seen by some as a betrayal of a tradition — around the same time, Cessna also discontinued the taildragger 140 in favor of the all-metal tricycle gear 150.

It was a gamble for Cessna, ending production of popular, proven designs, but it was a gamble that paid off. The company’s new consumer airplanes, the 172 and 182, were tricycle gear designs that had long lives and prodigious production numbers while boasting two of the best safety records in light GA. Their production numbers speak for how well that equation worked for the flying public.

Metal: Still Controversial?

It’s interesting that Cessna’s choice of using sheet-metal construction on its airplanes was controversial from the company’s first use of the material in the late 1930s, as it is today around 80 years later.At the time that the 172 was launched, traditionalists were critical of Cessna’s move away from fabric-covered welded steel construction, the classic “tube-and-rag” design, and some of their concerns, including metal’s susceptibility to corrosion and its more difficult reparability, has some basis in fact. Still, if ever there has been a case of a design choice being validated by the marketplace, such is the case with Cessna’s decisions to go with sheet metal and tricycle gear.

Today, of course, Cessna still faces criticism of its choice to continue with all-metal construction on its piston singles in lieu of switching to a carbon fiber design.

There are good arguments to be made for both sides of the materials coin, so good that Cessna, you might remember, was developing its own composite design, code-named the NGP for Next Generation Piston, which was to be a family of composite airplanes that included a 172 replacement. The work progressed to the point that the company actually flew a prototype into Oshkosh in 2006. Shortly after the introduction of the concept airplane, Cessna went quiet on the subject. In 2007 it purchased the assets of Columbia Aircraft and started producing the Columbia 350 and 400, later renamed the Corvalis and Corvalis TT. Cessna never made a formal announcement that it was discontinuing its NGP development, but it did in fact abandon the project at some point.

Cessna also briefly explored whether its light-sport aircraft entrant would be a composite design. It settled on an all-metal model, which became the Skycatcher. To date, the Corvalis TTX is the only composite aircraft from Cessna. Jodi Noah, who was vice president in charge of propeller airplanes at Cessna, did suggest at a press conference at Cessna’s headquarters that year that the company was leaving no design options for its single-engine airplanes off the table. Noah gave no indication, however, that this statement was anything more than the company’s philosophical position on materials. I’d be surprised to see the Skyhawk go away any time soon.

For many the choice of metal still makes a lot of sense. The costs and processes are well known for Cessna; the tooling is paid for; its workers are trained. The costs of designing and developing composite versions of its singles, even if they could be made to match the well-known and time-tested capabilities of Cessna’s current singles, would be difficult for the company to recoup.

On the consumer side, metal has many advantages. Repairs are easy, inspections are routine, and the material conducts electricity, so it requires no special materials to make components lightning-strike tolerant, as composite airplanes do.

New Cessna Skyhawks

It’s well known that Cessna took its piston singles out of production for a decade starting in the mid-1980s at the height of another epic sales downturn. Along with the 172, the company also shelved the 182, 206, 210 and 185 around the same time period. When Cessna resumed production in the mid-1990s, it relaunched production of just three of the previous designs, the Skyhawk, Skylane and Stationair.

You might remember that Cessna took a lot of heat at the time (though not from us) for reintroducing three legacy airframes instead of starting from scratch with all-new models. One of the criticisms was that the new airplanes were no better than the old ones. It wasn’t true.

While the performance and capabilities of the new Skyhawk were substantially similar to those of the airplane that Cessna shelved in 1986, there were improvements everywhere you looked. The airframe was better corrosion-proofed, weak points had been beefed up, the glass was better, the paint was more durable, the lighting — both inside and out — was improved, and the panel was redesigned.

Very significantly, Cessna completely re-engineered the interior. Old Skyhawks were notorious for having shabby interiors, with plastic panels separating, paint fading and fabric wearing out, even after relatively few years in the field. New 172s boasted better-looking interiors, which added to the value of the airplane at both ends of the sales equation, when customers took delivery and when they went to sell the airplane.

The engine of choice early on in the Cessna 172 — “Skyhawk,” by the way, was used early on, though not consistently, to describe a premium model; today, it’s simply a well-known nickname — was a smooth-running Continental opposed six-cylinder O-300 model. By the late 1960s Cessna had swapped out the six-banger for a four-cylinder Lycoming O-320. Remarkably, the standard 172 didn’t get a fuel-injected engine until the company reintroduced the model in 1996. Newer Skyhawks, both the 160-hp R model and the 180-hp S model, feature fuel-injected engines.

Another significant improvement is the quality of the seats, seat tracks and restraints. The seats on older 172s feel minimal, and they are, and not in a good way. The new seats are extremely strong, solid feeling, nicely adjustable and durable. The seat belts attach with a single snap and feature built-in AmSafe Airbags.

Avionics today are a huge improvement over earlier 172s too. Standard today is the Garmin G1000 suite, and the 172S has as standard the GFC 700 dual-digital autopilot. We’ve gotten jaded about flat-panel avionics in light airplanes, but it’s important to get some perspective on the 172, an airplane that started out as a bare-bones VFR flyer. Today, the stripped down model lacks only the three-axis digital autopilot, and standard features include moving map, TIS traffic, electronic engine gauges and much more. Options include synthetic vision, EVS and the Garmin GTS 800 ADS-B upgradable active traffic advisory system.

Flying the Cessna Skyhawk

I wonder how many Flying readers have flown a Cessna 172 of some variety. I’m guessing the percentage is very high. Many of our readers doubtless learned to fly in a 172. I had a few hours in one while doing my private pilot training, because the chief instructor, Si Campbell, a former Air Force instructor and L-19 Forward Air Controller in Vietnam, felt it was important for students like me who were training primarily in the Piper Warrior to get a few hours in a high-wing airplane. That way, he explained, when you got your ticket and chanced to fly a high-wing model once you had your certificate, you wouldn’t be surprised by the differences. I’m not sure how much benefit I got from the experience, but it was fun, which might have been Si’s intention all along.

My first impression of the 172 was not far from my current impression. The harmony of the flight controls is just about perfect. How Cessna created such a stable and light platform still astounds me. If you want to teach a student about how trim works, the 172 is a great platform. If you want to teach crosswind landings, the 172 is a great platform. If you want to teach ground reference maneuvers … you get the idea.

The silky-smooth flying manners of the type help explain why the airplane, despite its rising price, remains such a popular trainer. It was thought that the Skycatcher or one of its LSA rivals might make the Skyhawk obsolete, but it hasn’t happened. Despite the cost, it remains in demand for flight training here and abroad. At a Cessna Pilot Center event at which I spoke, another speaker referred to the 172 as the best trainer in the world and got a huge ovation from the roughly 300 Cessna instructors in the crowd. They were almost evangelical about the Skyhawk, and it’s not hard to see why. It’s solid, reliable, durable and predictable. It can handle stiff winds, take a little abuse in the touch-and-go circuit, carry two considerable souls aboard with full fuel under almost any conditions and do it with style. And today’s Skyhawks have flat-panel avionics, luxurious interiors and pretty paint jobs. It’s hard to overestimate the value of that kind of platform to a flight school.

Their payload capability is decent too. You can fly with two big guys with full fuel or three big guys with some fuel left off. Try that in a Skycatcher. Skyhawks climb pretty well too, about 700 fpm at sea level at max weight. These two things, payload and climbing ability, are a huge differentiator between the 172 and most two-seat trainers. They are, indeed, the two biggest reasons named by flight schools that choose to pay a premium to operate 172s instead of smaller airplanes.

I’ve flown dozens of 172s of various vintages over the years, but the one I remember best was an old, beat-up article that I could rent for cheap from the local flight school in the desert. It was in sad shape, with faded, chipping brown-and-orange paint, cracked plastic interior pieces, gaping holes in the panel and threadbare seats. My lasting memory of it, however, is just how great it flew. It was the fastest 150 hp 172 I’ve ever flown. When I shared that impression with the flight school’s proprietor, she simply agreed and then shared a secret with me. The airplane, which she’d taken in trade the year before, was creeping up on 12,000 hours. It looked it but didn’t fly like it.

The new model is different in a hundred ways from that early 1970s-era airplane, except that it too flies like a Skyhawk.

Skyhawks aren’t fast. The SP in the model designation probably doesn’t stand for “speedy.” It’s a 125-knot airplane. And its range, at around 600 nm with reserves, is nothing to write home about either. Then again, for a lot of popular trips, say Wichita, Kansas, to Kansas City, Missouri, which at around 200 statute miles is a 3½-hour drive, is little more than 1½ hours in a Skyhawk. In general, a 172 cuts the drive time in half, and in some places where traffic is a big factor, like Atlanta or Los Angeles, for instance, the airplane makes even more sense. It’s not that the typical Skyhawk customer buys it for cross-country travel, but it is a surprisingly workable machine for shorter trips.

In a number of Flying feature articles over the past decades, Richard Collins analyzed the safety record of the Skyhawk and found it to be the safest single, with a fatal accident rate nearly three times better than the GA average. The things that make a Skyhawk safe — its slow landing speed thanks to its generous and well-designed flaps, its predictable and stable flying manners, and its solid construction — all factor in. The addition of far better restraint systems; better, more reliable avionics with new safety utilities, like traffic and TAWS; improved seats and seat tracks; and better training standards than ever have all contributed to making the Cessna 172 a safer airplane than ever.

So, Still Relevant?

So, is the Skyhawk still a relevant design? In almost every way, it’s clear that the answer is yes. The two most persuasive arguments that it isn’t are that it is made from old materials and that it costs too much. I dismiss the materials argument out of hand. For an airplane like the Skyhawk, all-metal construction is not only still justifiable but arguably the better option.

The cost of the airplane is harder to dismiss, though it’s surely not Cessna’s fault that it costs what it does. A couple of folks in high places at Cessna have told me that the company is committed to the single-engine lineup, but the airplanes need to pull their own weight. I’m not sure how anyone could argue either that Cessna is secretly getting rich off its piston singles — it’s not — or that the company should subsidize their production. They cost what they cost. The bottom line is that today’s Skyhawk is the best Skyhawk the company has ever made and by a good margin. Is it still a relevant design starting at nearly $400,000 for a 180-hp model? I’ll let the market continue to speak on that subject. Once the economy recovers, I think we all know what the answer will be.

The post Cessna 172: Still Relevant Today? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

There’s a theory floating around in aviation circles that says the only way to beat Cirrus in the high-performance GA piston-single market it to build a better SR22. The new LX7 from RDD Enterprises in Redmond, Oregon, sure looks a lot like a Cirrus SR22 or Lancair clone—with far better performance and, apparently, a sky-high price tag to match.

Making an appearance later this month at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the LX7, a substanitlly improved version of the original Lancair IV-P, aims to outclass the Cirrus SR22 in nearly every way imaginable, but the question remains whether buyers will be willing to pay $900,000 for an airplane that will initially be offered in the Experimental category.

A certified version is said to be forthcoming, and the projected performance of this beast is certainly impressive: RDD claims the LX7 will boast a 260-ktas max cruise speed at FL 250 with a an eye-popping max range of 2,250 nm at the LX7’s economy cruise speed of 250 ktas.

It’s got a full airframe parachute, will be certified for flight in known icing and—drum roll, please—it’s pressurized.

Powered by a brawny Continental TSIO-550E engine, the secret to the LX7’s long range is its massive fuel tanks that can hold 180 gallons of avgas—twice as much as an SR22. Payload with full fuel is 320 pounds, but owners can easily carry more by adding less fuel. Empty weight is said to be 2,350 pounds and max gross weight 3,750 pounds.

The four-place composite construction aircraft would also be offered with a 550-hp engine, and a turbine version is undergoing testing as well. Avionics are said to be Garmin’s G3X system.

The post LX7 High-Performance Single Set To Make Oshkosh Debut appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Over the years I’ve flown around a dozen varieties of the Cessna 182, from the latest glass-panel turbo models to impeccably restored early birds, but I’d never experienced anything like this. As I advanced the single black lever in Cessna’s new 182 JT-A to roll around the corner onto 19L at Wichita’s iconic Mid-Continent Airport, I felt a smooth surge of power.

If I hadn’t known that there were four big pistons up front, beating their way up and down inside a beefy metal case, I’d have thought this thing was jet powered. I advanced the short-throw power lever smoothly and reveled in the smooth rush of power, and we were off. At 55 knots we were flying; I stowed the flaps, pointed the nose upward and just listened.

As we climbed out through the impossibly clear and hot Kansas day, I couldn’t help but think of all those Cessna 182s, those tens of thousands of sheet metal birds that had rolled off the line these past 50-odd years, and I knew I was hearing something different, a sound that would very likely be the future of light GA. It’s the sound of a piston compression engine. That’s right: a diesel.

Jet-A Future
In Oshkosh, Wisconsin, in late July, Cessna announced that it would replace its T182T turbo Skylane in favor of a model that burned jet-A. The new model, at first dubbed the 182 NXT but now referred to as the 182 JT-A, is on track for certification early next year with deliveries by the middle of the year.

The decision by Cessna to not only introduce a diesel model but also to discontinue the turbocharged gas piston version speaks volumes about the confidence that the Wichita manufacturer has in the new engine and its new partner, SMA. It was a bold business decision, but that confidence seems to have already begun to pay off in orders from North American and overseas customers.

Why Diesels, Why Now?
For the past couple of decades, there have been high hopes for the future of aviation diesel-engine technology. Today, the technology’s future seems especially bright, in part because everyone agrees that the future of 100LL, our current avgas, looks so dim. The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates contaminants (but not airplanes, luckily), hasn’t announced just when it will pull the plug on 100LL, but it could happen at any time, and there’s no telling how long the agency would give us to make the transition.

Diesel engines, which historically have been regarded as dirty, loud, sooty and inefficient, are getting better in just about every way imaginable. Today’s automotive diesel engines are clean, powerful and remarkably fuel-efficient. A couple of engine manufacturers, Thielert (now Centurion Engines) and Austro (a sister company of Diamond Aircraft), have leveraged automotive diesel engine technology into aviation diesels that are certified and flying on hundreds of airplanes, though all has not gone smoothly. The Thielert engines famously suffered from early and severe reliability woes, largely due to issues with their accessories, mainly their gear box.

While the search is on for an unleaded avgas alternative, it doesn’t look like a short process. There are no early favorites and no clear timeframe for the adoption of a new standard avgas. Cost issues, moreover, are complicating the matter. While in North America 100LL is easy to find and no more expensive than jet-A, in some parts of the world, low-lead avgas is difficult or impossible to find; we’ve heard reports of 100LL costing as much as $20 per gallon. Jet-A, on the other hand, is available worldwide.

While it’s not realistic to expect that owners are going to replace their gas piston engines en masse with ­diesels, new-production airplanes outfitted with diesel-technology engines are a natural next step and will doubtless achieve great popularity in many parts of the world where it’s hard to get or afford 100LL but where jet-A is at nearly every airport.

Diesel engines bring a number of additional benefits beside that of simply not using 100LL. In terms of emissions, diesels emit fewer harmful emissions (for the most part) while being able to drive the prop at low rpm (for substantially lower noise levels). They have the huge additional advantage of being extremely fuel-efficient at the altitudes where small airplanes mostly operate. In theory, a well-designed, powerful ­diesel engine (or a pair of them?) would be a tough matchup for any other comparably powerful engine technology — piston, turbofan or turboprop — up through the low 20s.

SMA
SMA is not a brand-new company, and some of our readers might recall an SMA diesel aero engine from the recent past. Indeed, French company SMA, which began as a joint venture between Socata and Renault, launched a diesel engine, the SR305-230, in 1997. First flight was in 1998 in a Socata TB-20 Trinidad. That engine, which was not a big seller, was a ­purpose-built 230 hp engine with direct drive (no prop-reduction gear box), modest turbocharger capabilities and low rpm. It earned European certification in 2001 and FAA approval a year later. The engine was initially marketed toward the retrofit market, and an STC was awarded for the installation in some existing models of Cessna 182s.

Last year the company, which is today part of the Safran group, earned certification from the European Aviation Safety Agency and the FAA for a greatly enhanced model, the SR305-230E. A close variant of this engine, the SR305-230E-C1, is the model that Cessna will install in the Skylane.

The new engine is based on the original 305 design but features a few game-changing improvements. First, its turbocharger is bigger and more powerful, resulting in greatly enhanced performance and operating envelope. As installed via STC in existing Cessna 182s, the original engine had a ceiling of just 12,500 feet and a critical altitude of sea level. The critical altitude is the altitude at which the turbo will no longer bring the power up to a sea level value. Thus, even though the former engine was technically turbocharged, it behaved for all intents and purposes like a normally aspirated model.

The new version boasts a critical altitude of 10,000 feet and gives the Cessna 182 JT-A a ceiling of 20,000 feet. There is, not surprisingly, a new, larger intercooler too, to keep up with the hotter-running turbo. There’s also a feature that automatically adjusts the timing to allow for optimum performance at idle, at low power and for starting. Indeed, the new engine starts more easily when it’s cold, and it restarts more readily at altitude (in the case of a flameout). It also boasts improved temperature margins for better reliability, as well as a backup fuel pump for smoother operations at altitudes above 15,000 feet. Cessna is going to try to certify the JT-A for operation without anti-icing additives as well. TBO stands at 2,400 hours, and there are indications that it could climb even higher. All things considered, the E-model engine represents a quantum leap for SMA.

While the name SMA is not well known to most North American pilots, the company has solid roots. Its sister company Snecma is a global manufacturer of commercial aircraft engines, engines for military applications and rocket motors, among other products. It employs nearly 60,000 people, has 35 locations around the world and had sales of around $14.5 billion last year. Snecma manufactures the Silvercrest engine that Cessna announced would be on the new large-body Longitude jet it unveiled at EBACE (European Business Aviation Convention and Exhibition) earlier this year.

The missing ingredient in the relationship was service. While SMA has headquarters in France and its parent Safran has facilities in Grand Prairie, Texas, Cessna decided to make sure that there were adequate service options for future 182 JT-A operators, so it reached an agreement with sister Textron company and engine manufacturer Lycoming to provide service for the SMA engine at any one of the dozens of Lycoming service centers around the country. Lycoming, which has no production diesel product line of its own, will work with SMA to get up to speed by the time the engine enters service, a process that Cessna JT-A project manager Brian Cozine said was already under way by the time the new model launched at Oshkosh.

Jet Powered Skylane
For whatever reasons it might have, Cessna prefers to refer to the new Skylane as a jet-A powered airplane and will go out of its way to avoid using the “D” word. For some folks ­diesel technology conjures up images of Soviet-era truck motors. Today, though, diesel technology has gone upscale. Turbo­diesels from Mercedes, Volks­wagen and Renault (the original co-developer of the 305 engine) are clean, powerful, quiet and sophisticated.

When it comes to the new Skylane, that’s the image Cessna is hoping to project, and based on my experience flying the new model, it is on track.

There was remarkably little that had to be done to the Cessna 182 to accept diesel power. There’s a new engine mount, of course, as well as a new squared-off cowling, which gives the JT-A an aggressively modern air. Very importantly, there’s no gear box to reduce the rpm of the prop, as there are on two existing diesel engines from Austro and Centurion (the former Thielert), both of which are derived from automotive products. The Cessna installation also did not require a fuel radiator. Such a device is sometimes necessary to cool off bypass fuel (fuel that gets pressurized for injection but is not needed and, so, is returned to the fuel tanks). Because the Skylane’s wings are sheet metal — the fuel tanks are of the wet wing variety — there’s not the same Thermos effect as on some composite airplanes. The wing of the Cessna is, in essence, an effective enough fuel cooler.

There’s also a new carbon fiber Hartzell three-blade prop that is light and responsive, turning at just 2,200 rpm. There’s no prop control. The computer keeps it at an optimum setting for the conditions and the power commanded by the pilot. The new prop helps keep the entire weight penalty for the diesel at just 15 pounds.

Flying the JT-A
After departing from KICT with Cessna test pilot Charles Wilcox, we flew the 182 JT-A throughout its performance envelope.

Climbing out from ­Mid-Continent, I put the airspeed on best rate of climb, which is 82 knots, and watched as the airplane climbed surely and steadily. Because the SMA model in the new Skylane is a true turbocharged engine, we saw 100 percent power up through 10,000 feet while burning just 12.1 gph, this compared with between 28 and 20 gph in the climb for the gas piston model. As great as the low fuel burn is, the engine management is at least as important an improvement. For climb you set power at 100 percent simply by pushing the lever all the way forward. The computer takes care of setting the rest of the variables to give you that percentage of power.

Fuel flow is a big deal, because it’s such a little deal. At 90 percent power — set the power using the Garmin G1000 MFD, coming soon to the JT-A — you’ll see a fuel flow of right around 11 gph, which gives you around eight hours of endurance. At 150 knots true airspeed, that will give you around 1,200 nautical miles of no-wind range. Pull the power back even more and you can go at reasonable speeds for extremely long distances. Trips of 1,500 nm are quite possible, though you won’t get there quickly at that fuel burn. The optimum scenario will be at 10,000 to 12,000 feet msl, where an 1,100 nm range at high power with reserves is likely.

Payload figures will improve too. Because of the huge range of the airplane, you can leave off fuel and take along what people and bags you want to load aboard. Cozine commented that the Cessna 182 JT-A “uses so much less fuel that you can always take more payload than [on a] gas piston 182.” This will allow pilots to fill the seats while leaving off fuel, while still having plenty for long legs with good reserves.

As I said, power management is simpler than it is on a turboprop — set it and forget it. The power is controlled electronically — there is no mechanical linkage. The engine control unit (ECU) has a backup mechanical system (should some extremely unlikely system failure take out the ECU). The SMA engine, thanks in part to Cessna’s modifications to the system to help it run cooler and with better margins, ran so far within the limits despite the hot day (ISA+12) that it looked as though the needles were painted on the temperature gauges no matter what abuse we dished out.

That abuse included several scenarios not discussed in the POH, including extended slow flight, full power cruise at 12,000 feet and an engine shutdown in flight.

That last point is key, since one of the FAA’s big concerns about diesels is their stubbornness about getting back to business once they’ve been shut down for a time. In our case, we were loitering over a conveniently quiet and out-of-the-way Kansas airport, Kingman, when Charles gave me the OK to shut down the engine. Now, unlike with gas piston engines, which become immediately quiet after a shutdown, with a diesel engine the shutdown can seem like a gray area. To ensure the engine had indeed stopped doing its thing, I raised the nose and watched the rpm degrade, a good sign (or a bad sign, depending on whether you wanted to shut down or not). After a two-minute glide (it didn’t seem as long as that sounds), I tried the restart. I wish I could say it was a harrowing experience that will live with me forever, but the truth is far more pedestrian. The four-cylinder diesel immediately sprang to life and we were under power again. Ho-hum.

With 230 horses again at our disposal, we circled down to Kingman to do a couple of touch-and-goes. The first one, with full flaps, was uneventful. The speeds and feel were nothing different from what you’d experience in any Cessna 182. Such was not the case with minimum or no-flap approaches. The engine and Hartzell prop combination doesn’t yet have the same aerodynamic braking characteristics as in existing Skylane power plants. The result for now is that you need the flaps to get down to landing speeds. Cessna is working to reconfigure the details of the system (prop, software and power lever) to allow finer pitch for greater prop braking while on approach. Once that’s been done, it’s safe to say that the landing performance of the JT-A will be hard to discern from that of the gas piston Skylane, which is to say, excellent.

That might be the big lesson of the new model for Cessna. With a well-designed power plant, thoughtful integration of that engine into the new model, and patient development, even a legendary light airplane like the gas piston Cessna 182 can start using jet-A and can do so while enjoying the benefits of high fuel efficiency, single-lever power, readily available fuel and higher payloads, all features that are difficult or impossible to get with conventional light airplane power-plant technology.

View our Cessna 182 JT-A photo gallery.

Like what you’ve read? Receive exclusive online content from your favorite Flying editors by signing up for our free weekly enewsletter.

The post Cessna 182 JT-A appeared first on FLYING Magazine.