Evektor SportStar: Czech Mate

Mostly metal and all fun, the Evektor SportStar brings its own formula to the LSA class

By Bill Cox
Photography By Jessica Ambats

The category is called light-sport aircraft, and one look at the Evektor SportStar suggests that it practically defines the type. A product of the Czech Republic’s largest aircraft manufacturer, Evektor-Aerotechnik of Kunovice, the SportStar is one of many products from a company with a prestigious international client list—Boeing, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Let Aircraft and others.

Evektor was established more than 35 years ago, specifically to build motorgliders and autogyros, and the company’s fortunes have since expanded to include production of a variety of aerospace components. Gross sales in 2004 topped $50 million, and the company has some 450 employees.

Like all the other LSAs, the SportStar mounts two seats and is restricted to 137 mph. Unlike many of the others, however, the airplane has the distinction of having been the first LSA certified in the United States. The Eurostar, Evektor’s European version of essentially the same airplane, has been selling overseas in 30 countries for years, and there’s a fleet of nearly 500 airplanes already in the air.

Little surprise there. The airplane is built hell-for-stout, constructed on a production line in Eastern Europe that also produces fully certified, normal-category aircraft. The SportStar isn’t an aerobatic airplane (though it looks as if it should be), but it’s nevertheless built to withstand acro G loads of +6/-3.

Evektor disdains composites, preferring to build the SportStar primarily from all-metal materials, mostly Alclad 2024 Duralumin alloys. The fuselage, wings and empennage are constructed mostly of aluminum, with the occasional use of other metals—galvanized steel on the firewall, for example. (Inevitably, the airplane does incorporate a limited amount of composites in those areas where they make sense—wheel fairings, wingtips, gear legs, etc.)

The SportStar features riveted, nearly all-metal construction, but despite its use of metal, it’s hardly a conventional machine. The engineers at Evektor were well aware that rivets tend to work and loosen over time, so surfaces and structures are attached with a combination of rivets and bonding. This holds the rivets firmly in place and helps provide a stronger airframe and wing.

The SportStar has a definite look of a sport plane with its low wing and bubble canopy. In this case, “bubble” is definitely the operative term.
The airplane’s most prominent feature on the ground is that large, bulbous expanse of Plexiglas. The canopy actually bulges as it rises from elbow height, providing additional width at shoulder level. The good news is that visibility is excellent in every direction except straight down. The not-so-good news is that the bubble is so all-encompassing that it acts like a greenhouse and heats up in summer. Fly high.

The airplane’s cabin is a surprising 46.5 inches across, wider than most other four-seat singles, much less two-seat sport planes. The glass bubble also is large enough to accommodate pilots as tall as 6’ 2”.

Gross weight is set at 1,212 pounds, and Evektor suggests a standard airplane goes out the door at an empty weight of 668 pounds. That leaves a useful load of 544 pounds. Subtract a full service of fuel, and you’re left with 358 pounds for people and stuff in the baggage area (stuff can weigh up to 50 pounds). A pair of 180-pound pilots will bring the airplane to gross. Fortunately, the SportStar’s configuration provides a CG envelope that’s wide and forgiving.

Pilot and passenger ride high in the SportStar, elevated enough to allow a clear view straight back at the vertical tail. A number of military fighters feature the same seating configuration, actually positioning the pilots above the top fuselage line to help them spot threats from their six. The large, tinted canopy hinges at the front and folds forward via two gas cylinders for entry/egress, so it can’t be opened in flight.

Looking out from the left seat, you’ll note a smooth, simple, functional wing design, nearly rectangular in shape with a single spar at center chord, no taper and no noticeable dihedral. The wing is somewhat reminiscent of a Tiger’s airfoil in appearance, if not in technical description. The wing features split flaps, so the top surface is uninterrupted during flap operation. Standard flaps are manual a la Cherokee with a center-mounted Johnson bar lever, and they provide 15, 30 or 50 degrees of deflection. Electric flaps are an option, with infinite flap positions. Deploy those huge lift enhancers, and stall drops to less than 40 knots.

The trapezoidal empennage is relatively conventional in design and construction. One Evektor option is a tow mechanism directly beneath the tailcone that allows glider or banner towing.

Out on the pointy end of the airplane, the propeller is a two- or three-blade tractor, ground adjustable for cruise, climb or any setting in between. The SportStar’s motive force is a four-cylinder, four-stroke Rotax 912ULS, cranking out 100 hp at the max-rated 5,800 rpm and spinning the prop through a reduction gearing system. METO power (maximum except takeoff) after five minutes is 5,500 rpm, and cruise is recommended at 4,800 rpm, generating about 71 hp. Redline for takeoff is 2,700 prop rpm, and cruise is recommended at 2,150. The Rotax’s cylinder heads are water-cooled, while the cylinders themselves utilize more-conventional air-cooling. TBO is 1,500 hours.

(Incidentally, the SportStar is also available with an 80 hp version of the same engine. Only climb suffers with the derated engine, as it’s approved for operation at the same max cruise setting of 4,800 rpm, again worth 71 hp.)

The aircraft’s ground handling is excellent, with a turn radius of less than 30 feet. If you can drive a Cherokee or Skyhawk around the ramp, you should be right at home in the SportStar.

With its current gross weight of 1,212 pounds and the “big” engine, the SportStar boasts a climb rate of 840 fpm. That’s a reasonable number for only 100 hp. Better still, service ceiling tops 13,000 feet. This is no ultralight. Sometime down the road, SportStar may opt for a higher gross weight, as the LSA limit is 1,320 pounds, still more than 100 pounds away.

Choose to cruise at a typical 6,500 to 7,500 feet, and you’ll see reasonably good speed. Evektor recognizes that cruise is conditional upon a dozen factors that aren’t always controllable, and for that reason, they set the max cruise number at a variable 100 to 110 knots. Economy cruise is pegged at 95 knots.

The SportStar isn’t strictly about speed, however. The cabin is large and comfortable, vibration is minimal, and the noise level is reasonable, so the airplane should make a good platform for cross-country transport. Fuel capacity is 31.5 gallons. Burn is about 5 gph, so you could reasonably plan four- to five-hour trips without stretching reserves. In no-wind conditions, that means you could fly cross-country legs as long as 550 nm—Los Angeles to Albuquerque, Dallas to Denver or Chicago to Atlanta—in one hop.

In-flight handling characteristics are pleasant without being super quick. Roll rate is on the order of 40 degrees per second, and pitch authority is well harmonized. Unlike some other LSAs, the SportStar manifests a reasonable amount of adverse yaw. That means you’ll need to relearn the use of rudder to coordinate turns greater than 10 degrees of bank.

Power-off glide at 50 knots results in a sink rate under 500 fpm. If the Rotax stops unexpectedly and you’re 7,500 feet above near-sea-level terrain, you’ll have about 15 minutes to find an appropriate parking spot. Stalls are fairly benign, with little tendency to spin. Published dirty stall is 39 knots, and in combination with effective brakes, that translates to good short-field characteristics, well under 700 feet for both takeoff and landing.

Landing characteristics don’t present any special challenge. It’s easy to rotate the nose to a comfortable, high angle of attack for touchdown on the mains, then lower the nosewheel to the asphalt. Braking is with standard toe brakes.

The airplane I flew was out of Sport Planes West [www.sport planeswest.com, (951) 765-5020] in Hemet, Calif., one of five American dealers. The folks in Hemet’s suggested base price for the standard SportStar is $104,950 with an operational stack of VFR radios and instruments. Add most of the options the majority of pilots would normally select (including an autopilot), and you’ll have a fully operational cross-country machine for about $113,000.

Light-sport aircraft have become a force in general aviation in the last two years, and as the first certified LSA, Evektor’s SportStar is one of the leaders of the pack. It’s a little more expensive than some other models, but if you’re looking for a big cabin, good performance and economical operation, the SportStar may be an ideal ticket to ride.

2007 Cirrus SR22 Turbo

SPECIFICATIONS

Base price:
$544,295

Engine make/model:
TCM IO-550N

TBO (hrs.):
2000

Horsepower@altitude:
310@SL

Fuel type:
100LL

Propeller type:
Hartzell ACSII/3-blade

Landing gear type:
Fixed/Tri.

Max ramp weight (lbs):
3400

Gross weight (lbs.):
3400

Landing weight (lbs.):
3400

Empty weight, std. (lbs.):
2418

Useful load, std. (lbs.):
982

Useful fuel (gals.):
81

Wingspan:
38 ft. 6 in.

Cabin doors:
2


PERFORMANCE
CRUISE SPEED, 75% power (KTAS):
203


FUEL CONSUMPTION, 75% power (gph):
17.5

Vso (kts.):
61

Best rate of climb SL (fpm.):
1304

Takeoff ground roll (ft.):
1574

Landing ground roll (ft.):
1141

Landing over 50 ft. obstacle (ft.):
2325

Best Aviation Careers!

Which one will you choose?

By Sparky Barnes Sargent

Do you catch yourself gazing skyward when you hear an airplane flying overhead? If you find yourself irresistibly drawn toward aviation, then why not consider making it your career?

The aviation field is increasingly diverse and ripe with opportunities for promising careers, whether you thrive upon being aloft or on the ground. If you love to travel and want to be a professional pilot, you have many exciting choices, including (but certainly not limited to) flying for an airline, corporation, charter company or air-taxi operator—or you might prefer to be a military pilot in the service of your country (although new technology and unmanned aerial vehicles may reduce these positions). Plane & Pilot’s research shows that several regional and cargo airlines are redoubling their hiring efforts and are attracting new pilots by lowering their entry-level requirements and increasing pay and perks. Corporate charter and fractional ownership operations are also hiring; these positions, however, may have higher minimum experience requirements than the airlines.

While some types of careers—such as pilot, mechanic and engineer—continue to be mainstays in the aviation industry, technological advances and sociocultural influences are combining to form new aviation careers. If you like working with people and have keen analytical skills, you might be intrigued by the burgeoning career path in human factors—where you help develop better ways for humans and machines to interact. Or maybe you’re more technically oriented and would be interested in the field of aviation-related global security and intelligence.

If your passion for flight simply embraces recreational flying, as opposed to professional flying, yet you’d still like to be involved in some aspect of aviation on a daily, hands-on basis, then perhaps a career in air-traffic management or in aircraft-maintenance science would intrigue you. Or how about devoting your mathematical and design abilities to the challenging career of an aerodynamic, structural or propulsion engineer?

Whichever aviation career path you choose, this is an excellent time to prepare yourself to enter this wide-ranging job market, which is predicted to grow at a healthy rate as baby boomers begin retiring in droves, leaving a looming void that employers will be eager to fill with highly motivated, energetic self-starters. To better understand this impinging deficit in the workforce, consider this: around 77 million babies were born in the United States from 1946 to 1964, and the first of these boomers turned 60 in 2006. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000, boomers comprised 28% of the U.S. population. Translated into occupational opportunities, 43% of aerospace engineers who are 45 or older will leave their professions during the period between 1998 and 2008, along with 47.9% of airline pilots (Monthly Labor Review, July 2000). In addition to those figures, Aviation Information Resources, Incorporated, predicted in a February 2007 news release that “…approximately 8,500 new airline pilot jobs will be created in 2007; 2006 yielded 8,256 new jobs.”

An advanced degree from an aviation university will help open the door to your new career—not only through coursework, but also through industry internships and networking. The National Association of Colleges and Employers’ Job Outlook 2007 Fall Preview reports, “For the fourth straight year, employers are reporting a double-digit percentage increase in college hiring…employers are predicting an overall increase in college hiring of 17.4 percent.”

Ken Polovitz, a private pilot who has been involved with collegiate aviation for more than 20 years, is Assistant Dean of Student Services at the University of North Dakota—Aerospace. Polovitz declares, “In our 40-year history, it’s just unbelievable—we’ve never seen it like this, as far as job opportunities. There’s never been a better time to look at careers in aviation, whether you’re looking at professional flight, management opportunities or air traffic control. And it’ll only get better, as far as the salaries and benefits, because it’ll have to—there’s always a lag time, but I think we’re really embarking on some interesting times in this industry. Along with that comes a cautionary ‘however;’ you still have to take the steps, do well, work hard and, at this point, if you’re looking to make a lot of money fast in this industry, it’s not there—that’s the reality of today; but it will get better.”

Lisa Scott Kollar graduated from Embry-Riddle’s professional four-year pilot program, Aeronautical Science, and is now Executive Director of Career Services for Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. She agrees that the outlook is positive for aviation and aerospace careers, and shares these encouraging words: “Employers are looking for very bright, well-rounded individuals who can take a leadership role and also contribute as a team member. They want students who maintain good GPAs, who gain practical work experience through cooperative education and internships. Young people need to take ownership and responsibility for their career paths and demonstrate personal initiative by taking advantage of self-assessments and all available resources. In addition, students need to conduct their own research so they can get the best education and training and earn the certifications that they need to obtain their goals. And based on my experience, I would like to see more women interested in having a career in aviation and aerospace—there are wonderful opportunities available, and it’s exciting to go out and accomplish things that people don’t get to do on a regular basis!”

Plane & Pilot recently surveyed schools throughout the country with aviation-related programs, and has compiled a list of the “Top 10 Aviation Careers.” These careers soared to the top of our list because they represent lucrative salaries, good working schedules, stimulating challenges, potential growth opportunities and an interesting variety of positions and geographical locations—all with a projected increase in the number of positions becoming available during the next decade. We’ve also considered the time and financial resources required for entry into these positions, which are as follows:

1. Pilot (airline, corporate, charter, fractional ownership, air taxi, flight instructor, military, test pilot)
Airline pilots begin their careers with the regionals and may move on to the majors; commercial pilots usually have a lower experience threshold before hiring—and commercial opportunities are growing; and flight instructors often build time to qualify for another pilot career. Military pilots may see fewer opportunities in the future if unmanned aerial vehicles become prevalent in military operations.
Salary range: $15,000–$200,000

2. Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic
Mechanics must be federally certified and are responsible for maintaining aircraft in airworthy and safe operating condition. They may work with jet or reciprocating engines and airframes constructed from sheet metal or composite materials.
Salary range: $25,000–$80,000

3. Air Traffic Controller
An air traffic controller may work in a high-pressure environment and specialize in ground, departure or en route control as they direct the flow of air traffic. A controller must be federally certified, know federal regulations and be able to quickly implement emergency procedures if necessary.
Salary range: $58,000–$139,000

4. Avionics Technician
An avionics technician repairs, tests and installs aviation equipment. Such technicians must have a knowledge of electronics, computers and math, and they must possess analytical skills to diagnose equipment problems. Vocational school or two years’ training/education is typically required.
Salary range: $36,000–$56,000

5. Airline Dispatcher
Dispatchers normally have the authority to dispatch and direct/divert airline flight operations, monitor the progress of flights, and advise flight crews of conditions affecting the safety of flights.
Salary range: $20,000–$150,000

6. Meteorologist
A meteorologist needs a strong background in advanced math and physics, and an ability to interpret and analyze atmospheric data effectively in order to create forecasts for flight operations. A college degree is typically required.
Salary range: $34,000–$106,000

7. Structural Engineer
These engineers develop technical solutions for complex structural problems. They must understand engineering principles, interpret drawings and analyze aircraft structures. A college degree is typically required.
Salary range: $50,000–$80,000

8. Electrical Engineer
These engineers design and integrate electrical components and systems. They must understand electrical theory and schematics and possess solid science, math, analytical and trouble-shooting skills. A college degree is typically required.
Salary range: $50,000–$100,000

9. Propulsion Engineer
These engineers work with installation, testing and analysis of aircraft engines and must have knowledge of fuel, exhaust, combustion and other engine systems, as well as science, math and analytical skills. A college degree is typically required.
Salary range: $50,000–$100,000

10. Human Factors & Industrial Design
Individuals in these positions must be able to combine their knowledge of engineering and technology with elements of psychology in order to develop smooth-working interfaces between machines and humans, with a focus on usability, ergonomics and aesthetic product design. A college degree is typically required.
Salary range: $43,000–$134,000

Imagine how fulfilling it would be to keep your passion for aviation alive by waking up every morning to go to a financially rewarding job that impacts the aviation industry in a positive way.

Greasing It On

Smooth handling: some advice on how to make every landing a squeaker.

By Norm Goyer

On any given flight, the landing is the maneuver that concerns pilots the most. It concerns the pilot because, when it comes to aircraft handling, the takeoff is pretty simple, and once in the air, controlling the aircraft is far less complicated than driving a car in traffic. Nevertheless, at the end of every flight is the dreaded landing. Every professional pilot has found his or her techniques for a smooth landing. A perfect landing every time under all ground and wind conditions isn’t easily obtainable or necessary for a safe flight.

The almost universally accepted tricycle-gear aircraft have the two main wheels attached to the airplane (a short distance aft of the CG) and a nosewheel under the nose of the aircraft. Taking off and landing tricycle aircraft using hard-top runways are far easier than grass runways. But why is that, and why aren’t they prone to groundloops like taildraggers? The reason is the location of the main landing gear in relation to the location of the CG. Anyone who has ever taken gymnastics or competitive diving knows that the rest of your body will follow where you move your head. That’s because your head is the heaviest mass on your body. Substitute the fuselage of your airplane for your head and you’ll see that when the nose of the aircraft moves off the centerline, the rest of the aircraft, which is behind the CG, will follow. Because it’s located behind the CG, the fuselage will rotate behind the wheels, resulting in a groundloop. Tricycle aircraft have the heaviest part of the aircraft in front of the CG so the fuselage resists pivoting. Also, taildraggers sit on the runway with a positive angle of attack and tend to rise into the air because of gusts or excess landing speed. Most tricycle-gear aircraft at rest can have a neutral or negative angle of attack and tend to remain on the ground while moving on their three wheels.

All of the most popular modern GA aircraft are tricycle-gear, and many of the newest designs are also nonretractable, with the exception of Mooney and Beechcraft. So let’s talk about the planes that you probably fly. These aircraft are divided into high wings and low wings, most with tricycle gear. Low-wing aircraft usually land easier because of the cushioning compressed air of ground effect—because of the wings’ close proximity to the ground. High-wing aircraft also have some ground effect but not as much as low-wings do. Low-wing Pipers are easy to land also because of a good dihedral angle, strong ground effect, plus hydraulic landing-gear struts set far apart. Cessnas use the patented Land-O-Matic landing-gear system with tapered steel-tube landing-gear legs.

For landing in strong crosswinds, it’s suggested to use minimum or no flap deflection. And fully deploying Cessna-type flaps will most likely make a go-around difficult during those first few moments after powering up since the nose will want to rise dramatically.

Most aircraft will benefit from proper use of flaps during landings. Keep the nose over the centerline and start your flare as you near the pavement, keeping that nose up until rubber meets runway. Don’t relax your attention until the aircraft is stopped on the ramp. Heavier aircraft may need increased force to raise the nose, so be prepared to use trim to ease your workload

But what qualifies as a squeaker? An aircraft shouldn’t touch the wheels to the ground until it’s no longer flying. When the horns, whistles and croakers are sounding, the plane should be only inches, or at most a foot or two, off the runway. With power at idle, the plane will eventually stall and stop flying. Because the plane still has about 40 to 50 knots of forward speed, the wheels start to spin and you have a greaser.

10 Ways To Improve Your Landings

1. A runway is a runway. Don’t establish turn points for entering, downwind to base or base to final by objects on the ground—use your position in relation to the runway. And learn to judge your distance and height above the runway.

2. Have benchmark pattern speeds for downwind, base, final and short final, but be flexible and know how to modify them when necessary for weather conditions and varying aircraft weights.

3. The majority of landing accidents are caused by either being too high or too low on final. Combine that with the wrong speed on final for the conditions, and a landing can be difficult and even unsafe. Always pick a spot and try for a spot landing.

4. The preferred pattern should place your aircraft at a distance and height where, if you experience power failure, you can still land on the runway.

5. It’s essential to maintain proper speed control on final.

6. Make every landing as if you were flying a taildragger—control your drift. If applicable to your plane, stall it on at the slowest possible speed. Current instructors teaching in high-performance aircraft, such as the Cirrus and Columbia, and in light twins now give lessons on “landing attitude” (see number 8).

7. If something about your approach feels wrong, abort, go around and set up again.

8. Your plane isn’t a car. Don’t drive it onto the runway. The accepted method for landing heavier aircraft is attitude landing. The nose is positioned in a positive angle of attack, and this angle of descent is held by using power to maintain the correct altitude—if the plane goes below the glidepath, power up; if it goes above, power back.
9If conditions permit, hold the nosewheel off the runway as long as you can. This attitude helps slow the plane down without brakes and minimizes wear on the nosegear, tire and wheel.

10. Don’t just know the theory of crosswind, short-field and soft-field landings; practice them under controlled conditions or with an instructor. They’re fun and will increase your landing ability.

Landings can be fun when done properly. Practice approaches and landings at various types of airports, but include some controlled fields to stay current with tower practices. Keep in mind that though a perfect and safe landing should be your goal, it’s not always easily otainable. If you continue making the same types of landing errors, fly with an instructor who can help solve any problems you may be experiencing. Above all else, remember that flying—and, yes, even landings—should be fun.

The Evolution Of Epic

Epic is planning a whole family of high-performance turboprops and jets, starting with the Dynasty and Elite

By Bill Cox
Photography By Mike Shore

At a time when very light jets are all the rage, turboprops might seem “old school” or out of step with the times. After all, the new VLJs will fly higher and faster for the same or less money.

Well, not exactly. Regular readers of Pilot Journal may recall that we flew the homebuilt Epic LT turboprop out of Las Vegas a few years ago, and even in those early days before the first VLJ had flown, the big turboprop showed all the signs of competing with the VLJs head-to-head in practically every area.

Rick Schrameck, CEO of Epic Air in Bend, Ore., believes his homebuilt airplane will nearly match the performance of most VLJs, and the price for both acquisition and operation will be considerably lower. The trouble with a homebuilt is that you do have to build it. As much as we may love the performance and concept of a homebuilt over a production airplane, most of us don’t have the time, the talent or the inclination to construct one, especially a sophisticated, pressurized six-seat jetprop.

In fact, the folks at Epic have turned that perceived downside on its head. Epic Air is in the process of certifying a version of the 1,200 shp Epic LT homebuilt, and the company may actually benefit from its shared experience with the homebuilt. “We’re doing something that’s relatively new in aviation,” says Schrameck. “We’re using the homebuilt program to help verify the market and the engineering on the production Dynasty certification effort. We’re benefiting from the experience of the homebuilders in our development program on the certified airplane. By using the feedback we receive from those homebuilt customers, we may be able to shortstop problems in the certification program, and that translates directly to savings of both time and money. We’re also using revenue from the homebuilt program to help fund the Dynasty production airplane.”

In this case, “we” refers to three aggressive entrepreneurs who’ve made their fortunes in various aspects of high-tech industries. Rick Schrameck has earned his money primarily in the computer and communications business. For the last 20 years, Schrameck has rescued and managed companies in trouble. He’s also an expert on auto emissions and standards and aircraft turbocharging. Mike Shealy is general manager of Intel’s Integrated Access Division, another product of the high-tech world, and has been a CEO and senior vice president of several major computer and technology companies. Jeff Sanders has started and sold 10 companies in the last 20 years and is now involved in land acquisition, primarily along the California coast. (Sanders also built and flies his own Epic LT.)

Epic operates a 100,000-square-foot facility in Bend, Ore., producing components for the Epic LT and providing builder assistance in the actual construction of the aircraft. The company currently employs 150 people at Bend, and nine Epic LT homebuilts have flown away at this writing. The backlog on the world’s most impressive experimental aircraft is nearly 30 airplanes, which means 40 pilots so far have written checks for more than $1 million dollars for an airplane they know they’ll still have to build. With a 4,000 fpm climb rate, 335-knot cruise speed and full six-seat payload, the Epic LT is probably the most exotic homebuilt ever offered. It’s also the most expensive, but that doesn’t seem to have inhibited sales.

Epic’s Dynasty certification effort is also a little different in that it’s being launched in Canada. Just as motion pictures and television productions are finding Canada to be a friendly and economical environment, aircraft manufacturers are discovering that Canada is an easy place to work. Diamond Aircraft produces all its North American products from a plant in London, Ontario. Airplanes certified under Canadian regulations are automatically approved for U.S. operation under a reciprocal agreement.

Rick Schrameck emphasizes that’s not because of a lack of trying on the FAA’s part. “They have some very talented people at the FAA, but they’re simply overwhelmed,” says the CEO. “The extreme amount of time and money necessary to get an airplane certified in the United States isn’t a result of any malevolent government obstructionist plot. Those folks simply have far more work than they can handle.”

When Epic went shopping for a place to build the Dynasty a few years ago, they investigated a number of alternatives. “We looked at business possibilities in several European countries, Brazil and a number of Canadian provinces. In the end, Canada won out,” says Schrameck. “The Canadian government is eager to foster investment, and they offered us some major incentives to locate north of the border.”

As a result, the Canadian division of Epic Air is building a 100,000-square-foot manufacturing facility outside Calgary, Alberta. Additionally, Epic Air is working with the newly formed Canadian Centre for Aircraft Certification to build a 50,000-square-foot certification facility. Epic Air will be the first manufacturer to utilize the CCAC facility, but the CCAC hopes to attract other companies to certify aircraft north of the border. In two to three years, as the program spools up, Epic Air hopes to expand its Calgary production facility to 200,000 square feet, and Epic hopes to be building Dynasty propjets in Calgary with a workforce of between 500 and 600. According to Schrameck, the Dynasty is expected to be certified sometime in the fourth quarter of 2008 and should sell for about $2 million in early 2009.

When we talked to Schrameck in late February, he commented that there were “more than 20 orders” for the Dynasty. He strongly implied there were a lot more, but settled for 20 for now.

The Dynasty won’t be Epic Air’s only product. The company is currently flight-testing a twin jet based on the Dynasty. It’s called the Elite and will be introduced as a homebuilt in late 2007, then be certified and produced at the CCAC in Calgary starting in 2009. Preliminary specs include Williams FJ-33 engines rated for 1,550 pounds of thrust apiece. Max cruise will be more than 400 knots and max altitude will be 41,000 feet. With luck, we’ll be seeing the Elite prototype at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh.

As if all that wasn’t enough, Schrameck says the company will also be offering two 90%-scaled models based on the Epic fuselage and wing, project code name Mini-Me 1 and 2. One will be a slightly downsized version of the current turboprop, and the second will be a single-engine jet similar to the Diamond Jet, only stretched 14 inches to allow more cabin room.

If this program sounds aggressive, consider that Rick Schrameck, Mike Shealy and Jeff Sanders are very successful businessmen. This isn’t a lark for them. The Epic/Dynasty trio have studied the market, they understand exactly what they’re doing, and they’re convinced the models they’re planning will be well received.

If performance of the prototype Dynasty is any indication, they very well may be correct.

Eclipse Concept Jet Debuts At Oshkosh AirVenture 2007

Commanding center stage at the expansive Eclipse Aviation booth, the Eclipse Concept Jet drew a large crowd as it was introduced to the world.

The ECJ (Eclipse Concept Jet) is a single-engine turbofan-powered, V-tail beauty of sleek composite construction. It’s very much in the same genre as a Detroit concept car in that it will be used to help Eclipse figure out the depth and breadth of the burgeoning single-engine jet market in the coming months and years.

The super-secret project reads like a World War II drama: the entire program went from first design to first test flight in just six months. The ECJ has already logged 30 flight-test hours at speeds to 250 knots and altitudes up to 25,000 feet.

Company President and CEO Vern Raburn insists the jet is meant purely for market research and no production date has been set. “The ECJ will allow us to obtain real, quantifiable data (to help in) evaluating markets for future Eclipse products...to reveal the potential of this emerging category, and our opportunity to add real value to it.”

Projected performance specs are impressive: max cruise speed of 345 knots at FL350 and a service ceiling of 41,000 feet, for starters. For more information, visit www.eclipseaviation.com, or call (505) 245-7555.

Eclipse Concept Jet (ECJ)
Range (nm): 1250
Stall speed (KEAS): 61
Takeoff distance to 50 feet at sea level (ft.): 2200
Landing distance max landing weight at sea level (ft.): 1800
Time to climb to FL250 (min.): 12
Time to climb to FL410 (min.): 27
Max takeoff weight (lbs.): 4480
Empty weight (lbs.): 2480
Useful load (lbs.): 2000
Fuel capacity (lbs.): 1261 (186 gal)
External length (ft.): 29
External height (ft.): 8.8
Wingspan (ft.): 36
Seating capacity: 4

Cirrus SRS Debuts At Oshkosh 2007

Under a beautiful Wisconsin summer sky, Cirrus Design CEO Alan Klapmeier unveiled his company’s latest design before an enthusiastic audience of media and aviation lovers. A green parachute canopy covered the Cirrus SRS right up until Klapmeier finished his comments.

With a flourish, the Cirrus crew pulled the billowing chute aside to reveal a beautiful, streamlined composite LSA airplane that isn’t yet in production.

“We’re working some things out,” said Klapmeier with a laugh, “such as how to get it a little slower. It’s too fast. But that’s an easier problem than the other way around!”

The LSA design spec calls for a maximum speed of 120 KCAS. The low-wing two-seater has a useful load of 400-pound minimum, burns premium mogas or avgas (100LL) and has the Cirrus hallmark CAPS airframe parachute system. For more information, visit http://www.cirrusdesign.com/, or call (866) 379-5830.

Cirrus SRS (SR Sport)
Height (ft.): 6.9
Length (ft.): 18.7
Wingspan (ft.): 29.8
Interior Width (in.): 45

All-composite construction
4-point safety harness
Low stall speed (unspecified)
Large baggage compartment
Electric flaps
Trailerable

Cessna Announces Light-Sport Aircraft Details!

At a press conference at the opening of the annual EAA AirVenture Convention, Cessna Aircraft Company announced details and rolled out a full-scale mock-up of its highly anticipated light-sport aircraft (LSA)—the Model 162 SkyCatcher.

First flight of the prototype Model 162 is set for the first half of 2008 and deliveries are expected to begin in 2009. Cessna expects to produce up to 700 a year at full-rate production.

At an introductory price of $109,500, the 162 will be powered by a Continental O-200D 100 hp, air-cooled, carbureted engine and a fixed-pitch composite propeller. The aircraft will cruise at speeds up to 118 knots and will have a maximum range of 470 nautical miles.

“For the past year, we’ve been soliciting feedback from the market on our proof-of-concept aircraft, and the result is an airplane that we believe is the most advanced and innovative in its class,” said Cessna Chairman, President and CEO Jack J. Pelton.

The Cessna 162 SkyCatcher will feature a Garmin G300 avionics system. Information is presented in a single, split-screen PFD and MFD, or as two full-screen displays with an optional second screen. The SkyCatcher will be capable of VFR/day/night operations.

Orders are being taken at Oshkosh with a $10,000 deposit. The introductory price will hold for the first 1,000 orders, and then increase to $111,500.

The SkyCatcher has a maximum gross weight of 1,320 pounds, a service ceiling of 15,500 feet, a useful load of 490 pounds and a usable fuel load of 24 gallons. It has a cabin width at shoulder height of 44.25 inches. It features two cabin entry doors and forward pivoting seats giving access to a 12.5 cubic-foot baggage compartment. The aircraft will be aluminum and will meet ASTM standard F2245 for LSAs

The aircraft will have tricycle landing gear with a castering nosewheel and standard dual toe-actuated disc brakes.

Based on unit sales, Cessna is the world’s largest manufacturer of general aviation airplanes. In 2006, Cessna delivered 1,239 aircraft, including 307 Citation business jets, and reported revenues of about $4.2 billion and a backlog of $8.5 billion. Since the company was originally established in 1927, more than 189,000 Cessna airplanes have been delivered to nearly every country in the world. The global fleet of almost 5,000 Citations is the largest fleet of business jets in the world. More information about Cessna Aircraft Company is available at www.cessna.com.

Note from Lizzy:

Which one of my pilot friends wants to stick thier necks out and buy one of these? You won't eat for the next three years, but you will be able to fly the latest gadget from Cessna!

From The Editor

User Fees: Be heard! Here’s how.

By Jeff Berlin

Last summer, I flew a factory-fresh TBM 850 from the Socata factory in Tarbes, France, to White Plains Airport just north of New York City. That flight had me and Christian Briand, Socata’s chief pilot, hopscotching across the North Atlantic from our departure point in southwest France to New York with intermediate stops in Wick, Scotland; Reykjavik, Iceland; Sondre Stromfjord, Greenland; Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada; and Bangor, Maine. It was quite a flight—and after attending a forum on user fees last week at the Aircraft Electronics Association show in Reno, Nev., I reflected again on that transatlantic flight, but instead of reminiscing about how beautiful the luminescent turquoise icebergs were as we sailed into Greenland, or how supremely otherworldly the craggy and densely colored mountains of Iceland appeared as we descended toward Reykjavik, I thought about how much it must have cost for the rather involved ATC services we required to make such a flight. The image I get is like this—I’m sitting in a yellow cab in stop-and-go New York City traffic. We’re not moving, and I’m watching the meter click higher and higher. I’m running late, and the money’s flying out of my pocket.

An ex of mine used to say, when something wasn’t quite right, “You know, it’s not all rainbows and butterflies…” Well, right now, when I think about the reality of user fees looming like a dense marine layer rolling over a sunny, coastal airport, and the stifling effect it’ll have on much recreational and business flying, it’s surely not the puppies and ice cream (tailwinds and low fuel flows?) that the legacy airlines and FAA would like us to believe.

The reality, according to the alphabet groups that advocate for general aviation, is that user fees, also known as the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007, is a tax shift onto general aviation and not the modernization bill that they’re portraying it as.

Word is, according to NBAA and GAMA, that if this plan is ratified, FAA funding will be cut by $600 million in 2008. This FAA plan diverts money that could be invested in ATC modernization and runway and control-tower construction, and shifts it into fee assessment and collection—it funnels money that can actually improve infrastructure over to bureaucracy. This bill authorizes the FAA to go up to $5 billion in debt starting in 2013, and nowhere does this FAA proposal detail the technologies, timelines or costs of the next phase of modernization.

On that TBM flight, Christian and I spoke to weather briefers and filed IFR flight plans. We flew thousands of miles along airways under positive ATC control, and shot approaches to runways in Wick, Reykjavik and Sondre Stromfjord. And as we approached the New York area, I cancelled IFR and requested with center the Hudson corridor and then the La Guardia Transition at 1,500 feet. It’s one of my favorite ways to see the city. Bumping down and up the Hudson River corridor, we trundled by the Empire State Building and Ground Zero, and then cut east across Central Park and flew over the city, over La Guardia, and then, once past the Throgs Neck Bridge, we turned north toward White Plains.

Remember that meter visual I drew a bit earlier? Well, I can only imagine the disincentive many pilots will feel each time they might have the inclination to key the mic and make a request with ATC like the one I did for the above routing. If, like in Europe, a briefing costs X, a departure from an airport costs Y and VFR flight-following or ATC services for an IFR flight costs Z, will pilots opt to watch the Weather Channel, hold their fingers to the wind, look around, call that a briefing, and then say, “Yep, we’re good to go”? To save the few bucks that will be incurred under this plan, some undoubtedly will. Will some pilots opt to try to scud run below an overcast to save the ATC service cost of an instrument approach? I bet some will.

And then there’s the proposed increase in the tax on avgas; from about 20 cents a gallon to 70 cents. I shudder to think what this will mean to those who operate light-piston twins. And no matter what airplane one flies, that $100 hamburger at your local greasy spoon will inflate to a price commensurate with that of the Kobe burger with caviar and truffles at the 21 Club—we’ll be flying across the county for the hundreds-of-dollars hamburger. Or more likely, we’ll be flying much less, like in Australia, which has seen a 28% decline in general aviation activity in the past 20 years since their “user pays” system was put in place. I’d hate to see this happen here.

We live in a representative republic—exercise your right to be heard. Call or write your congressman and senators. Let them know this plan isn’t a good one, and if they want your vote, they’ll vote against this bill.

1979 Grumman American AA5b Tiger

SPECIFICATIONS

Base/used price:
$61,000 (1979)

Engine make/model:
Lycoming O-360-A4K

TBO (hrs.):
2000

Horsepower@altitude:
180@SL

Fuel type:
100/100LL

Propeller type:
FP/2-blade

Landing gear type:
Tri./Fixed

Max ramp weight (lbs.):
2400

Gross weight (lbs.):
2400

Landing weight (lbs.):
2400

Empty weight, std. (lbs.):
1360

Useful load, std. (lbs.):
1040

Useful fuel, std. (gals.):
51

Payload, full std. fuel (lbs.):
734

Wingspan:
31 ft. 6 in.

Overall length:
22 ft.

Height:
8 ft.

Wing area (sq. ft.):
140

Wing loading (lbs./sq.ft.):
17.1

Power loading (lbs./hp):
13.3

Seating capacity:
4

Cabin width (in.):
41

Cabin height (in.):
48

PERFORMANCE

CRUISE SPEED, 75% power (kts):
139

FUEL CONSUMPTION, 75% power (gph):
9.8*

MAX RANGE, 75% power (nm):
500

Vso (kts.):
53

Best rate of climb, SL (fpm.):
850

Service ceiling (ft.):
13,800

Takeoff ground roll (ft.):
865

Takeoff over 50 ft. obstacle (ft.):
1550

Landing ground roll (ft.):
410

Landing over 50 ft. obstacle (ft.):
1120

Diamond Twin Star: 21st Century Multi

Diamond Aircraft, the world’s third-largest manufacturer of GA, fixed-wing aircraft, is betting that the diesel-powered Twin Star will be the multi trainer of the future

By Bill Cox

Photography By Jessica Ambats

Perched in the catbird seat of Jerry Barto’s Diamond Twin Star, 11,500 feet above Palm Springs, I can’t help reflecting that this truly is a new-generation airplane. Calling any flying machine 21st century has a nice ring to it, but the DA42 truly deserves that accolade. From concept to power to configuration, it has about as much similarity to the old light/light twins as does a new Infiniti G35 to a ’57 Chevy.

Using max cruise power, my flying Infiniti is tripping along at three times the freeway speed; meanwhile, it’s sipping a mere 12 gph total, surprising economy for a twin (and not bad for a single, as well). While Diamond Aircraft didn’t conceive the Twin Star design primarily as a cross-country machine, the airplane is capable of range well beyond the province of most standard singles and twins.

As if to prove the point, one Diamond pilot demonstrated exactly what the Twin Star was capable of during his return flight from Oshkosh AirVenture to Wiener Neustadt, Austria, in August 2004. The pilot supplemented the airplane’s 76-gallon wing tanks with a 26-gallon ferry tank and flew 1,900 nm from St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, to Porto, Portugal, in 12.5 hours, using 42% power. The Twin Star burned only 72 gallons of jet fuel, averaging a mere 2.85 gals./engine/hr. for the trip, meanwhile clocking a groundspeed of 152 knots.

Admittedly, the Diamond pilot had help from average 30-knot tailwinds, but the flight was an excellent example of what’s possible with the Twin Star’s remarkably efficient, Thielert, diesel engines. The eastbound ferry flight represented the first nonstop Atlantic crossing by a diesel-powered aircraft.

If economical cross-country travel is one of the Twin Star’s major talents, it was only one of the airplane’s original missions. The Austrian company foresaw a large market for a light/light multi, and that’s not a surprise, considering the relative dearth of new minimum multis in the last quarter-century. New light twins temporarily disappeared from general aviation with the demise of the Duchess in 1982.

Prior to that time, there had been a half-dozen attempts to market entry-level twins, only one of which (the Piper Seminole) was modestly successful. Even the Seminole was discontinued in 1982, then revived from 1989 to 1991, and finally brought back into continuous production in 1995.

Now, Diamond has a whole new take on the light/light-multi formula, offering an innovative, turbo-diesel-powered, FADEC-controlled, multi-engine trainer with all the advantages of the mini twins, plus a larger cabin, better range and significantly simplified operating systems.

Considering the source, the choice of a diesel powerplant was only logical. While German engineer Rudolf Diesel’s late-19th-century engines are among the world’s oldest form of mechanical propulsion, and have been employed sparingly on military airplanes and dirigibles since the 1920s, they’re a relatively new phenomenon in general aviation. SMA of France and Thielert of Germany have been the pioneers in aircraft diesel development for the little guy.

In fact, the Thielert 1.7 Centurion turbo-diesel is based on an automotive engine design by DaimlerChrysler. It’s extremely similar to a mill used by Mercedes in one of its diesel automobiles, though geared down in the aviation application from 3,900 engine rpm to 2,300 prop rpm. Diamond Aircraft currently offers two Thielert, diesel-powered airplanes: the dedicated diesel Twin Star and the single-engine Star with your choice of a conventional avgas or diesel mill. The Twin Star was originally slated for Thielerts, with Lycomings as an option, but the diesel version has been so successful, Diamond dropped plans for the avgas model.

So why would anyone want a diesel-powered airplane in the first place? One reason is the aforementioned efficiency. Most avgas engines score a specific fuel consumption (SFC) of about 0.44 lbs./hp/hr. The Thielert 1.7 Centurion manages an SFC of more like 0.36 lbs./hp/hr., 20% better. Obviously, diesels can legally burn road diesel, but you’re not liable to find that at most airports, so the alternative is Jet A1, still usually less expensive than avgas and, perhaps equally important, almost universally available at all but the smallest strips.

Avgas is rapidly disappearing at many international destinations. Back in the early ’90s, I delivered a primo Cessna 421C to Subic Bay, Philippines, for a hospital management company. Two years later, the company called and said avgas was becoming so scarce in much of the Far East, they’d been forced to replace the Golden Eagle with a King Air C90. I picked up the 421 in Manila and returned it to the United States by way of Guam, Majuro and Honolulu. (Coincidentally, I had to have avgas shipped in to Majuro, as the airport no longer offers anything except Jet A1.)

The reduced hourly cost of operating a diesel is one reason the type has been so eagerly embraced overseas where avgas has long cost $5 per gallon or more. Jet fuel often sells for as much as $1 per gallon less. The bottom line is a dramatic savings for operators of airplanes that burn jet fuel.

If there’s any bad news, it may be that the American FAA has dictated that the current Mercedes-built Thielert 1.7 Centurion engines must be replaced after only 1,000 hours. On the plus side, the all-Thielert-manufactured 2.0 engines that will supplant the 1.7 will be rated for 2,400 hours or 12 years, whichever comes first. Robert Stewart, of Diamond dealer U.S. Aero in Long Beach, Calif., says the new engines will likely sell for $24,500 in today’s dollars, but that’s for a firewall-forward new powerplant, and it’s prorated to allow for the 1,000 hours already flown. In other words, the owner will pay more like $12,000 per engine. Multiply that by two, and it’s about what you’d pay for a single factory overhaul on an IO-360 Lycoming.

If you learned to fly twins in a comparative antique, such as a Travel Air or Apache, as I did, the Twin Star will come as a revelation. These days, Diamond’s glass is more than half full, and those who allege there’s been no innovation in general aviation need only take a ride in a Twin Star to understand the error of their position.

Take FADEC, for instance. Full Authority Digital Engine Control regulates every parameter of engine operation except manifold pressure, expressed as percent of horsepower on the Twin Star. From startup to shutdown, FADEC samples air temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity and throttle position to manage electronic fuel injection, rpm, mixture and timing, and deliver optimum performance and fuel efficiency for any conditions through a single lever for each engine.

Whether you’re flying a max gross takeoff out of Leadville, Colo. (elevation 9,927 feet MSL), or merely cruising at 6,500 feet over Cape Cod, the Engine Control Unit reads the engine environment, optimizes power and fuel burn, turns the electric fuel pump on and off as necessary, regulates ignition timing and minimizes the possibility of out-of-limit cylinder and exhaust gas temperatures. In short, FADEC diagnoses and automates all engine functions.

This simplifies the pilot’s job and allows him or her to concentrate on navigation, communication and simply enjoying the trip. The standard avionics suite for the Twin Star is the Garmin G1000–integrated, two-screen, flat-panel display. Once you learn the operating principles, the G1000 automates communication and navigation functions nearly as much as FADEC does engine operation.

The bottom line is simplicity that initially threatened one of the Twin Star’s primary missions. The FAA originally questioned whether FADEC’s automation and the lack of prop and mixture controls compromised the airplane’s ability to train pilots for the multi-engine rating. The question was whether the airplane was truly a “complex” design, since the props weren’t traditionally controllable. Eventually, the FAA concluded that the props were controllable, even if controlling them required only moving the throttle. In the event of a failure, the pilot still needed to identify the sick engine and shut it down, feathering the prop, even if that process was as simple as flipping a single switch.

Indeed, single-engine operation is about as uncomplicated as it can be without incorporating an auto-feather system. During the air-to-air formation session that produced Jessica Ambats’ photos, I shut down the left engine and chased the Cessna Skylane photo ship around the clouds above Catalina Island with the left prop caged. The shutdown and restart process consisted of merely turning off the appropriate ECU, then switching it back on when it was time to restart. Uncommanded yaw was mild, and the Twin Star remained docile while in single-engine formation.

Whatever the mission, Diamond configured the DA42 to offer super-simple operation, a large, comfortable cabin and something no other manufacturer has—a back door. Both the single-engine Star and Twin Star feature a fold-up door at aft left, allowing independent access to the rear two seats. Pilot and copilot board through an overhead hatch that hinges at the front and rotates up and forward. The cabin measures 46 inches across, nearly as wide as a cabin-class Piper Navajo.

Standard fuel is 50 gallons, but practically everyone opts for the long-range, 76-gallon tanks. Climb is excellent; the turbos’ critical altitude is 8,000 feet, so as long as your body can take it, there’s no reason not to fly at 10,000 to 12,500 feet on practically every flight. Incidentally, single-engine service ceiling is 10,000 feet.

When level at 12,500 feet with 80% power dialed in, you can expect about a 160-knot cruise speed on 12.5 gph. Extrapolate that over five hours, and you could reasonably expect to transit 800 nm at one sitting. If you have the inclination and the time, you can pull back to 50%, endure for more like 9.5 hours and range out nearly 1,200 nautical miles.

At this writing, Twin Stars are fully assembled and certified in Austria, then disassembled and shipped to Diamond’s London, Ontario, Canada, facility where they’re reassembled and ferried to the various North American dealers. Within a year, the Canadian plant will begin producing its own Twin Stars.

Current base price of the Twin Star is $527,313, including FADEC and the G1000. TKS known icing and a number of other options can elevate that figure well above $550,000. Air-conditioning, the ultimate luxury, is expected to be available sometime in 2008.

Initial sales of the Twin Star have been encouraging. Lufthansa has ordered 40 for its European training facility and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona, Fla., has contracted for 10 more, and current deliveries and orders total more than 700.

Since designers began mounting a second engine on airplanes in search of redundancy, the industry has struggled with the problem of asymmetric thrust and twin-engine safety. The Diamond Twin Star doesn’t totally solve the problem, but its unusual combination of automatic systems and easy handling may make it one of the simplest—and safest—twins in the sky.

Flight Level Fliers

How to stay safe at high altitudes

By Scott Perdue

We live in the best of times and the worst of times. Imagine flying with glass panels that allow you to visualize terrain, position, weather and traffic all at the same time. Fly coast-to-coast with only a nod to weather. Anytime, anywhere, faster than ever before.

Now with the Mooney Acclaim, the Columbia 400 and the Turbo Cirrus, the flight levels—normally reserved for more complex airplanes—are within reach of single-engine pilots. These and other such unpressurized, turbocharged airplanes are capable of leaping large portions of the continental United States in single bounds, all with the latest glass panels. The promise of speed and comfort and the elimination of long lines and wait times at large airports have arrived just as fuel prices have started to pinch us in the pocket book.

Of course, flying in the flight levels isn’t new, even for general aviation airplanes. Two major issues—engine performance and pilot capacity to survive at high altitudes—remain perennial problems. Until recently, these issues have restricted flight levels to the domain of pressurized twins.

To compensate for the drop in engine performance that occurs with increased altitude, engineers began developing various versions of the supercharger in the 1930s, and turbocharged designs became somewhat common in general aviation in the 1960s. Using such a supercharged engine, Howard Hughes set a coast-to-coast speed record of seven hours and 28 minutes in 1937.

Pilots became aware of oxygen problems and began using supplemental oxygen as early as 1913; the pipe-stems WWI aviators held in their mouths were common until the 1920s. Oxygen masks, continuous flow and pressure breathing were the watchwords for high-altitude survival. The vast majority of general aviation, however, remains well below oxygen altitudes; for most of us it’s a situation of “better safe than sorry.” Hypoxia is a killer that sidles up to you slowly and with little warning. With the introduction of new technology and designs, however, piston aircraft in the flight levels are about to become more commonplace.

Many issues must be overcome on the road to making the flight levels widely accessible to general aviation. Engine performance has always been a limiting factor, and turbocharging the typical GA engine has had less than desirable success in terms of longevity. Generally speaking, an imperfect understanding of heat transfer has produced turbocharged engines that run hot and require significant maintenance more often than normally aspirated engines. Reliability issues have impeded a wider acceptance of turbocharging.

Fairly recently, the advent of the turbonormalizer has changed all this. A turbocharger uses exhaust gases to spin a turbine, which in turn compresses the intake air that’s being fed to the engine. The compressed air allows the engine to produce rated horsepower at higher altitudes. A turbonormalizer, known as a TN system, compresses the air in a similar fashion, but limits the compression to sea-level pressure. Unlike a standard turbocharger, which compresses air 12% to 40% higher than sea level, the TN introduces no extra stress on the engine beyond that experienced in normal operations.

Two of the three new entries in the flight-level race use a TN system. The Mooney Acclaim utilizes a twin-turbo TN system developed by Teledyne on its 280 hp IO-550G engine. It’s capable of 237 KTAS at 25,000 feet. The Cirrus SR22 uses a twin turbonormalizer design developed by Tornado Alley Turbo on its 310 hp IO-550N, which pushes the Cirrus to 211 knots. Columbia’s 400 uses a twin-turbo system in the standard 310 hp TIO-550C engine to achieve 235 knots at altitude.

Engine design, technology and management techniques have eased flight-level propulsion problems and are no longer primary concerns. For the pilot and passengers, however, high-altitude flight still requires close attention to several physiological details. The most important detail hinges on the ability to stay awake and function. Simply put: it requires supplemental oxygen.

Just what is supplemental oxygen and why do we need it anyway? As aviators, we’re familiar with the fact that the atmosphere becomes less dense with altitude. What’s less widely known is that, as the pressure falls off, the human body is less efficient at extracting oxygen and transporting it. The partial pressure of oxygen at sea level is 159 mmHG; at 19,000 feet, that drops to 70 mmHG. Oxygen is still approximately 21% of the atmosphere, but our body’s ability to transport it across the alveoli in the lungs and transport it to the cells drops significantly.

Without enough oxygen, we experience hypoxia, which shows it’s hand with symptoms like confusion, vertigo, heat flashes, tingling fingers, headache, unconsciousness and even death. None of these things make flying an airplane easier. We need extra, supplemental oxygen in order to function, much less survive, in the less-dense upper air.

The symptoms and onset of hypoxia differ from person to person, and a trip to a high-altitude pressure chamber is a good way to figure out what your personal symptoms are—not to mention a fun and safe way to see the silly things you might do when hypoxic. As a rule of thumb, there are some numbers—commonly referred to as “time of useful consciousness” (TUC)—that we can hang our hats on as a guide to how long we can functionally stay awake at higher altitudes.

Without supplemental oxygen, the average person at rest will experience hypoxia symptoms at the following time periods:

Altitude (ft.) TUC

18,000 20–30 minutes

22,000 10 minutes

25,000 3–5 minutes

30,000 1–2 minutes

35,000 30–60 seconds

40,000 15–20 seconds

From the chart, you can see why the FAA advises, as a rule of thumb, against more than 30 minutes at high altitudes without supplemental oxygen. Of course, we can trust our friendly government agency to chart our path through the dangerous shoals of oxygen use. If you operate between the altitudes of 12,500 and 14,000 feet for more than 30 minutes, the crewmembers must use oxygen. Above 14,000 feet, crewmembers must use oxygen the entire time, and passengers must use oxygen above 15,000 feet.

Some airplanes have oxygen systems installed, or you can use portable units. There are several different systems and delivery methods available. The simplest are the continuous-flow models that regulate oxygen flow at a constant rate. This system is the cheapest and also the most wasteful. Manually adjusted flow systems use the same principle, but allow the user to regulate the flow based on a graduated scale that’s dependent on altitude. Automatic systems use an aneroid barometer to adjust the oxygen flow rate. There are more modern systems that regulate the flow based on a combination of altitude requirements and user demand. These systems are the most efficient and also the most expensive.

Two basic delivery methods—a mask or a cannula—get the oxygen from the bottle to the user. Masks generally fit over the user’s mouth and nose; they mix oxygen with exhaled air, but for some, the fit can be uncomfortable. A mask is required above 18,000 feet. A cannula, which injects oxygen directly into the users nostrils, is the most efficient delivery method and is commonly found in hospitals. Whatever delivery method is used—pipe-stem, mask or cannula—the idea is to keep the oxygen-saturation levels in your blood at near normal levels. A normal value is 97% to 99% oxygen saturation.

Four nominal types of oxygen are commercially available: aviation, medical, welding and research. In the “old days,” the specification for oxygen allowed for different levels of water vapor, impurities and humidity. Oxygen was extracted from the atmosphere using various filters to remove water, particles and other gases. Welding gas had loose requirements, while medical oxygen required purity and some moisture to prevent dehydration. Aviator’s oxygen requirements were the most stringent because an aviator couldn’t afford to have an oxygen line freeze up because of excessive concentrations of water vapor. Today, all oxygen is manufactured the same way. Ambient air is filtered and then chilled to the point where the liquid nitrogen and oxygen can be separated. All oxygen is pure and moisture free. In fact, nowadays, welding oxygen has the most stringent purity requirements to meet modern process techniques.

Breathing isn’t the only physiological issue that comes into play during high-altitude flight in unpressurized airplanes. Nitrogen comprises 78% of the earth’s atmosphere, and it’s naturally found in our bloodstream consistent with pressure. Decompression sickness, or aeroembolism, is an affliction known to affect divers as “the bends.” You can experiment yourself with the bends by shaking a soda bottle and then opening it, the carbon dioxide will come out of solution very quickly, a similar process can happen with your body. Not a good thing at cruise altitude.

Pilots and passengers who climb to high altitudes quickly can also experience the bends. If the body experiences a rapid reduction in pressure, the nitrogen absorbed in the blood and tissue recombines into gas before the body has a chance to exhale it through the lungs. These bubbles create a painful sensation throughout the body that causes itchy skin, joint pain, paralysis and, in the worst cases, death. The FARs limit when we can go flying after scuba diving for just this reason, but decompression sickness can affect flyers who climb at a rate as slow as 2,000 fpm. Prebreathing pure oxygen, or climbing at a slower rate, will prevent the outgassing of nitrogen into the body. Other physiological aspects of high-altitude flight can affect us, but the good news is that these all come under the heading of uncomfortable and not life threatening.

Flying at high altitudes provides undeniable advantages: you get above the majority of the weather, find smooth, cool air and take advantage of significant winds. With education and preparation, any pilot can achieve flight in the flight levels. Of course, it helps to have an Acclaim, a Columbia or a Turbo Cirrus.

I Need A Price Check On Runway 6, Please

User fees have the potential to significantly change the way we fly.

By Harry Daniels, CPA, CFP, PFS

On February 5, 2007, President Bush released his 2008 fiscal year budget. Fears of how the budget would affect aviation came to fruition with a proposed budget cut of $1 billion off of the present funding level of $14.3 billion. A week later, the government declared that they’d be looking for a closer matching of costs to benefits; additionally, they recommended increases in the fuel tax and the implementation of several user fees. To make matters worse, if the budget goes through as presented, general aviation will be at war with commercial aviation about who and how much each side will have to pay for the right and privilege to fly. And the clock is tickling—funding for the FAA expires on September 30, 2007.

At stake is the cost to run a branch of the government, the FAA, which has approximately 14,500 air traffic controllers watching over almost 3,400 airports in 316 ATC facilities throughout the United States. As a side note, our ATC force is beginning to age. By the year 2015, approximately 75% of the controllers will be eligible for retirement. This creates a demand for 11,500 new hires over the next 10 years, which equates to an average of 1,150 new jobs per year. If a career as an air traffic controller is in your blood, now is a good time to submit your employment application.

The proposed 2008 federal budget has the potential to stymie general aviation with expenses and fees in much the same way the issue of product liability affected aviation in the 1980s and 1990s. If you remember, aircraft manufacturers pretty much ceased to produce single-engine aircraft because of the exorbitant product liability insurance costs that were tacked on to the cost of producing an airplane. So, we went through a period of several years when we were flying around in airplanes that were beginning to age, and there were no replacement airplanes on the production line.

Presently, the FAA gets funding from two sources: excise taxes from aviation taxpayers and a general fund that’s supported by all taxpayers. President Bush is expecting the users of aviation services to pay for the cost of those services. But just who are the users of aviation services? We’d all agree that pilots are users. Commercial passengers are users. But what about the economic impact to a community in the form of businesses and jobs that are generated by the aviation industry? If you remove pilots from the equation, then you’ll rapidly remove aviation from the community.

The FAA projections of this budget indicate that piston-engine pilots will see a tax increase of $100 million, or a 344% increase. Turbine aircraft are projected to see a tax increase of $868 million, or a 333% increase.

Fuel taxes are being targeted as an additional source of funds. Under the proposal, the current tax of 19 or 22 cents per gallon would be raised to more than 70 cents per gallon. This doesn’t sound like much—only 50 cents a gallon—until you start computing the gallons consumed on an hourly basis. Keep in mind that the average GA flight is between one and two hours. Then you have to get back home. Businesses will reflect this extra cost of doing business in the price of their products. To me, this sounds like the inflation that the government says it wants to keep in check.

But what about nonbusiness pilots who fly for pleasure? Many of these pilots may be wealthy, by someone’s standard, but there are other pilots with “normal” levels of income who spend their disposable income on flying. That $100 hamburger is going to cost a whole lot more. These pilots are the heart and soul of general aviation. They’re the pilots who generate an economic impact to their community by using aviation goods and services provided by local aviation businesses.

The proposed 2008 budget doesn’t stop with just increasing the fuel taxes. When you cross into Class B airspace, what’s the first thing that happens? You link up with a controller. Under the proposed budget, a user fee for this service will be charged to the pilot. How it will be charged and how it will be collected is anybody’s guess at this moment. And that’s a problem with the proposed budget. Nobody has given us an answer as to who will determine fees on certain services and how those fees will be collected.

User fees could be charged to the pilot when the FAA issues a private-pilot certificate. Registering your aircraft with the FAA would also be a service for which the FAA could charge a user fee. Preflight services and landing fees are other targeted areas that would likely be provided for a charge.

When you look at how much other countries charge pilots for these services, U.S. pilots have had a nice deal. Some countries even charge for the administration of the private written exam. But I’m not sure how long this advantage will last.

These are all fees that could potentially meet the goal of revenue neutrality for the budget, along with the excise taxes charged to passengers flying on commercial airlines. I once set up a 19-day business trip. During those 19 days, I went from Orlando to New York to Brussels to Madrid to Singapore to Sydney to San Francisco and back home to Orlando. The cost of the flight itself was just under $10,000. The excise taxes were another $350 or 3.5%. Who’s paying this excise tax? Is it the airlines or is it me? The bottom line is it’s me. I wrote the check. All the airline did was collect the tax and remit my money to the government. Who knows how much my excise tax will increase if the proposed budget passes. These numbers aren’t known at this time.

This is where the airlines take exception with GA pilots. The airlines are trying to hold passenger ticket prices as low as possible to maintain a competitive advantage. In their view, an increase in passenger excise taxes gives the appearance of an increase in the cost of a passenger ticket. But in reality, I have paid the excise tax even though it’s included in the cost of my ticket. The airline is only a collection agency for the excise tax. The airlines argue that they pay more than their share of the costs while receiving less than their proportionate share of the FAA services.

I think this 2008 budget is putting us on the verge of privatizing the FAA. If this happens, then who knows what the fees would be and what services will be charged. This has the potential to remove congressional oversight of the FAA. Whatever the user fees are and on what services they’ll be applied is to be determined by a “board.” With all of the lobbying that has been done by the airlines over the past year, I suspect that the airlines will be able to get several representatives on this “board.” Take the pie that’s composed of general and commercial aviation; if one side wins, then the other side must loose.

General aviation has its hands full with the budget battle with Congress. If the budget stays on course, general aviation may also have its hands full with a battle with the airlines that could last through 2017. If airlines are able to gain control of this board, then without congressional oversight, this board will be able to set fees and charges according to what they think is in everybody’s best interest.

Congress is saying that they need additional sources of revenue of the Next Generation Air Transportation System. This new system is needed to handle the growing demand for airspace. But as you read the transcripts, there are conflicting opinions on what those financial needs are. Some agencies are saying that the existing funding methods will be adequate, while others argue that there’s a shortfall of resources.

There are a lot of members in Congress who support the proposed budget. There’s also a lot of support in Congress for general aviation. Supporters of the proposed budget are holding to the premise of “pay for the service consumed.” If you use a service, then you should pay for it. The FAA shouldn’t be subsidized by the general-public taxpayer. If the general public takes a flight, then they should pay for their proportionate share of the expense in the fees and excise taxes. But again, who will determine these costs and how will they be allocated? That is a major concern for which I haven’t seen an answer.

Other members in Congress argue that all of America benefits from aviation, and if the costs exceed the revenue, then the general public should pay the difference. These members look at the economic benefit that the aviation industry generates. All companies have to operate at a profit to stay in business. Opponents of the proposed budget fear that the airlines will seek to divert their proportionate share of the expenses over to general aviation. We all know about airlines that have come and gone while trying to compete and remain profitable.

If you have an opinion regarding the 2008 proposed budget, I encourage you to contact your congressman/congresswoman or your senator. There will be a lot of debate over the budget during the next couple of months, but September 30, 2007, is the drop date. Otherwise, I’m afraid that none of us will be in the air without the services of the FAA.

Note from Lizzy: Congrats to a pilot friend of mine who recently passed his Instrument Rating with flying colors! We were praying!

From The Editor: The End Of Oil

Bio-based alternatives are in the pipeline.

By Jeff Berlin

I first met Max Shauck, a mathematics professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, in 1993 at the Paris Air Show, or rather, Le Salon International de L’Aeronautiqe et de L’Espace, Paris Le Bourget. I was living in Paris at the time and just had to see the air show when it came to town.

The day I went to the show, the Paris sky dawned slate gray, swept with clouds textured as though they were applied with an Impressionist’s brush. As I wandered the grounds of Le Bourget airport and perused the abundance of military hardware, I hoped the weather would hold and I’d see some flying. Having been in Paris for months on end, I was starting to crave the United States just a bit. So when I saw a little red Pitts S2B sitting quietly on the flight-line, my heart skipped a beat as I felt a tinge of “home.” A few months before, I had done spin training in a Pitts just like this one with a terrific aerobatic instructor named Randy Gagne, who’s unfortunately no longer with us. This Pitts belonged to Max, I found out, and had “ETHANOL POWERED” emblazoned on its flank and wings in big blue letters. Max was preparing to fly a demonstration, during which he strung together a series of loops, rolls, torque rolls and hammerheads into an aerial, alcohol-fueled dance. (Kind of like me on Saturday nights.)

The next night, over steak frites and vin rouge with Max and his wife Grazia (who’s also a pilot) at a little bistro on the Ile St. Louis in the center of Paris, I learned what ethanol is, and why it was fueling his passion for flight and his little red Pitts. I also learned, for the first time, about how some forward thinkers are researching ways to keep our aircraft flying after 100 low lead stops flowing.

They have a saying in Saudi Arabia: “My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son rides in a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel.”

Ever hear of the Hubbert Peak Theory? This well-accepted concept states that for any geographical area, rates of oil discovery, production and cumulative production will follow a bell-shaped curve, with a point of maximum production, after which, since the amount of oil under the ground is finite, production will decline due to depletion of resources.

In late March of this year, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released a document called, “Crude Oil—Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes it Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing Peak and Decline in Oil Production,” (GAO-07-283). It states that oil production will peak sometime between now and 2040. That peak will be known as Hubbert’s Peak, and will signal the terminal decline of the world’s oil production. According to David Strahan, author of The Last Oil Shock, “There are currently 98 oil-producing countries in the world, of which 64 are thought to have passed their geologically imposed production peak, and of those, 60 are in terminal production decline.” This kind of makes ethanol, in the long term, seem like an interesting alternative. Nevertheless, for the short term, while we’re still burning petroleum-based 100LL, not only do we have to contend with the toxicity and endangered status of tetraethyl lead (TEL), we have to recognize the fact that, even for the cars or SUVs we drive, the days of dollar-a-gallon, $20 fill-ups, are gone. TEL’s tenuous future has also influenced certain airframe manufacturers to produce turbocharged piston aircraft that can be reverted to nonturbo, which will have an easier time burning an unleaded petrol or alternative bio-based fuel.

So while environmental concerns and global warming are concurrently of paramount import, our voracious appetite for petroleum and petroleum-based products also must be staunched. I don’t expect to see hybrid- or hydrogen-engined aircraft anytime soon, but we as a community do need to start thinking about what we’ll be filling our wings with in the near or not-too-distant future.

In Brazil, there are more planes powered by sugarcane-based hydrous ethanol than anywhere in the world. Brazil is, by far, the world’s largest sugarcane producer, so it’s extraordinarily efficient and practical that an Embraer-built agricultural aircraft, the Ipanema, is thusly powered. And in Brazil, it’s not just the airplanes that are ethanol powered: Brazil is energy independent and has no reliance on oil imports. The sugarcane ethanol they produce is up to seven times more potent than corn ethanol, and 3⁄4 of all new cars in Brazil are Flex Fuel cars. In the states, we produce more corn than anywhere else in the world, though here the market penetration of E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) is miniscule compared to Brazil, where they offer 100% ethanol and an ethanol/gasoline blend. Indeed, only about 500 of 170,000 U.S. gas stations carry E85, and the number of planes powered by ethanol can probably be counted on fingers and toes. As we discuss in this issue, what I like to call our “Green Issue,” the wider adaptation of renewable, bio-based alternative fuels, right here at home, can yield manifest benefits to the environment, and the larger geopolitical and “petropolitical” sphere. It’s time to break our addiction to oil. If we don’t, I can only imagine what our withdrawal symptoms will be.

You can start to do your part by balancing your carbon output when you fly. Surf over to www.carbonneutralplane.com and get green.

From The Editor:Humbled By A Hummingbird

By Jeff Berlin

Just outside my living room window, I’ve got this flowering tree with gatherings of yellow, buttercup-like trumpets capping its branches. I don’t know what the tree’s called, but the Anna’s hummingbird flitting from branch to branch sure had its number. Never, ever, in my life, have I seen such precision in flight. We humans are rank amateurs, I thought, as I watched this cute little fire-red and mallard-green hummingbird hover from cup to cup, feeding on what must be a heavenly nectar. The way it would crisply retreat from one bloom and perfectly spear another reminded me of the precision we pilots strive for when flying an instrument approach. It also reminded me of a military fighter pulling up to a tanker for a midair top-off, but we’ll talk military in a second. What applies right now, to you and me, is how this little hummingbird sets the bar for precision flying.

In instrument flying, which is really just using whatever instruments the plane is equipped with (glass or steam, doesn’t matter) to position the plane at a certain point in space at a certain time (usually at a certain speed), precision is paramount. Now with WAAS-enabled flight-management systems, we pilots have another feather in our quiver for flying more precisely, both en route and on approach. John Ruley’s article, “WAAS UP?!,” on page 62, gives us the lowdown on getting low with WAAS. And I’ll tell you what, though I’ll never even approach the fancy flying of that cute and sprightly little hummingbird, I can always dream, and fly by WAAS—then, at least ATC will think I’m a pretty fancy flier.

The other day, Michael Dorn, who played the Klingon Worf in Star Trek: The Next Generation, and I flew to an airport north of the L.A. Basin to get out of the city and grab a bite. I had the Continental warp reactor in the Cirrus SR22 putting out max power, and we were averaging warp factor 185 over the ground. Michael loves speed, and though the ’22 is surely impressive for a piston single, the military iron that Michael has become accustomed to flying scoot along at speeds more akin to the Enterprise than the Cirrus. Michael wanted to see what the Cirrus could do. We were already doing it. “Aye Laddie, I’m pushing her as hard as I can, Captain. She can’t take any more,” I said in my best attempt at a Scottish brogue. A Klingon can be very persuasive, believe me, and once we arrived at the restaurant on the field at San Luis Obispo, I was relieved that the menu listed no Klingon dishes; I’m not a big fan of Durani lizard skins.

Meyers 200A

SPECIFICATIONS

Used price (1959):
$69,000

Engine make/model:
Continental IO-520-A

TBO (hrs.):
1700

Horsepower@altitude:
285@SL

Fuel type:
100/100LL

Propeller type:
CS/2-blade

Landing gear type:
Tri./Retr.

Max ramp weight (lbs.):
3000

Gross weight (lbs.):
3000

Landing weight (lbs.):
3000

Empty weight, std. (lbs.):
1940

Useful load, std. (lbs.):
1060

Useful fuel, std. (gals.):
76

Payload, full std. fuel (lbs.):
604

Wingspan:
30 ft. 6 in.

Overall length:
24 ft. 4 in.

Height:
7 ft. 4 in.

Wing area (sq. ft.):
161.5

Wing loading (lbs./sq.ft.):
18.6

Power loading (lbs./hp):
10.5

Seating capacity:
4

Cabin doors:
1

Cabin width (in.):
44

Cabin height (in.):
48

PERFORMANCE

Cruise speed, 75% power (kts.):
183

Fuel consumption, 75% power (gph):
15.5

Max range, 55% power (nm):
746

Vso (kts.):
47

Best rate of climb, SL (fpm):
1450

Service ceiling (ft.):
18,500

Takeoff ground roll (ft.):
900

Takeoff over 50-ft. obstacle (ft.):
1150

Landing ground roll (ft.):
850

Landing over 50 ft. obstacle (ft.):
1150

Cessna Turbo Stationair: Escalade For The Jeep Trail

An acknowledged workhorse for nearly 40 years, the Cessna Stationair adds major avionics sophistication and uncommon comfort to its credentials.

By Bill Cox

Photos By Jessica Ambats

Somehow, the very idea of motoring along a mile above the tallest mountain in the contiguous 48 states in a Cessna Stationair seems almost a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron (a moron on oxygen). Most pilots simply don’t associate the tough 206 with operation in the flight levels. The airplane’s image is more utility station wagon than high-performance, turbocharged SUV.

Yet, here we are luxuriating at FL200, relaxing, warm and comfy, in spacious leather luxury, breathing oxygen, looking down on the spine of California’s Sierra Nevada and Mt. Whitney. We’re flying today with the help of one of the most sophisticated avionics suites in general aviation. The panel includes a two-tube, flat-panel Garmin G1000 Integrated Flight Deck for navigation, communication and monitoring engine/flight instruments, plus a Garmin GFC 700 Automatic Flight Control System, which helps keep the whole package pointed in the right direction.

Today, that direction is Reno, Nev., a quick day-tripper to check out the latest 2007 iteration of the Turbo Stationair. Owner Barry Brand of Oxnard, Calif., rides in the right seat to make certain we don’t break anything, and two friends complete the manifest in the middle seats. True airspeed at this height is 160 knots—not bad for a fully grossed utiliplane with wheels and struts hanging in the wind. If need be, we could ascend another mile to a dizzying 25,000 feet, not a big deal for a Piper Mirage or Mooney Acclaim, but hardly what you’d expect from a flying sport-truck.

To be honest, today’s basic 206 is little changed from the airplane Cessna revived in 1998, and that machine in turn was similar to the Stationair we all knew and loved a dozen years before that. In this case, Cessna got so much right the first time around that there was little need to reinvent the wing.

The Stationair was one of three models taken down off the shelf when Congress passed the 1993 General Aviation Revitalization Act. That bit of legislation established an 18-year statute of repose, which forbad lawsuits against manufacturers of aircraft older than 18. Cessna CEO Russ Meyer, true to his promise, announced that Cessna would restart the piston line. The Skyhawk was an obvious first choice for reintroduction, and the Skylane was another given. Interestingly, the third and most expensive model, the Stationair, was in equal or greater demand than the other two.

Power on the Cessna Turbo Stationair is provided by a Lycoming TIO-540-AJ1A, rated for 310 hp and recommended for overhaul at 2,000 hours. All six of Cessna’s post-1996 models now feature injected Lycoming engines with power ranging from 160 to 310 hp. At a gross weight of 3,600 pounds, the big Lycoming provides a power loading under 12 pounds per horsepower, an important consideration for a bush plane.

Cessna’s 206 has long been regarded as among the very best of the piston, heavy haulers. Fly to any of the world’s hinterlands—e.g. the tundra of Canada and Alaska, the African veldt, the jungles of Borneo—and 206s are among the most popular weapons of choice. While it’s true the old 180/185 easily wins the rough-/short-field competition, the Stationair’s large, double, aft cargo doors and huge cabin make it easy to load with bulky people or cargo. When the 206 is fitted with the big 8.00 x 6 tires, it can sneak into places where lesser machines would fear to roll a tread. (As if to verify the airplane’s appeal, the California Highway Patrol replaced its entire fleet of 185s a few years back with 17 new Turbo Stationairs.)

When the original line of Stationairs went out of production in 1986, after two decades of winning friends and influencing pilots, the existing fleet became some of the most in-demand airplanes on the planet. If someone wrecked a 206 after 1986, the airplane was nearly always rebuilt, as there were no replacements available, and few other models could do the Stationair’s job. Piper’s Saratoga, the modern version of the Cherokee Six, was capable competition, but it also went out of production in 1990, so switching to the low-wing Piper wasn’t an option. (The Saratogas were revived in 2004 as the Piper 6X and 6XT.)

Both the Stationair and the new Piper 6X are probably more popular outside the United States than here at home. Fly to the Far North or overseas on a regular basis, and you’ll see both types doing jobs that practically nothing else can, flying into short or unimproved strips or even operating totally off airport. The Stationair may have a slight edge over the Piper because of the former’s high wing, a feature that eases loading and makes the airplane more adaptable to nonairports in high brush. That’s one reason the value of Stationairs has remained strong. Nowadays, many early 206s, even those that have been flown hard and put away wet, demand as much as three times their new list prices.

Today’s test airplane is a fairly representative example of the new Turbo Stationairs coming off Cessna’s production line in Independence, Kans. The $514,500 base price includes all the goodies listed, plus terrain and obstacle mapping, Traffic Information Service, XM Weather provisions and Stormscope—virtually everything you’d need for pretty much year-round IFR operation. This airplane also includes floatplane provisions and the aforementioned oversized tires and wheel fairings, adding about $7,500 to the total.

Garmin’s revolutionary AHRS-based (Attitude Heading Reference System) GFC 700 autopilot is standard on the 2007 Stationair and Skylane, and it’s a major step forward for a general aviation autopilot. Garmin has incorporated a variety of features normally found only in high-end corporate jets and airliners. Autopilots have offered rate of climb and altitude preselect for decades, but the new Garmin features airspeed hold, an important benefit in the airline world where airplanes must maintain precise separation. Airspeed hold means you can lock in best- rate-of-climb speed or a predetermined cruise climb velocity.

The 700 also offers overspeed protection, pitch hold and coupled VNAV, so the pilot can now control every aspect of descent as well as climb and straight-and-level flight. When preloaded with the appropriate approach, the GFC 700 incorporates the ability to make automatic approaches and fly the published miss-and-accept vectors for another attempt. It can perform holding patterns, procedure turns and DME arcs. The autopilot is WAAS-enabled for vertical guidance, providing ILS-like cues on GPS approaches.

If there’s a catch, it may be that the new level of sophistication isn’t without a considerable level of complexity. Pilots new to both the G1000 Integrated Flight Deck and the GFC 700 Automatic Flight Control System will find the avionics far more of a technical challenge than the airplane itself. Pilots require at least several days of training to learn to program the new avionics systems.

Despite its add-on complexity, a Stationair is an inherently simple machine. Over an intermittent four decades of production, the type has earned a reputation as a utility airplane par excellence, but a 206 also serves well as a six-seat commuter. If hauling people isn’t necessarily the Stationair’s normal mission, the airplane does the job better than you’d imagine. The front cockpit is 44 inches wide, and because the cabin is essentially a tapered box, fully 42 inches of that width holds to the rear seats. That’s the same dimension as the front pit of a model 36 Bonanza, generally regarded as a paragon of comfort.

Incidentally, that rear seat has been modified in 2007 to fold down flush against the floor to make room for cargo. Previous models required that you remove the seat in order to transport bulky items. Now, you have the option of flying one way with all people and the other way with people and stuff or all stuff.

Despite every manufacturer’s best efforts, most aircraft wind up a little heavier than book. Four-seaters often can transport only two or three people, and six seaters are sometimes limited to four. Our test T206H was typical. Fully equipped empty weight was 2,423 pounds against a max ramp weight of 3,617 pounds. After all the math, the big Stationair wound up with a 655-pound payload, basically four folks’ worth. It’s important to remember, however, that Stationair missions are often more about flexibility than range, so downloading fuel by 30 to 40 gallons would still provide two hours of endurance and allow you to increase the paying pounds to nearly 900.

The Turbo Stationair is at its best as a freight elevator. The optional, belly-mounted, external cargo pod allows for carrying 300 pounds outside the aircraft, and the cabin will accommodate 127 cubic feet of whatever. Remove all seats except the pilot’s, and you can load large items through the aft cargo doors.

While Cessna’s most exotic piston single is obviously capable of doing what we did on the way to Reno, the turbocharged Stationair typically flies its missions at altitudes below 12,000 feet. The blower allows the airplane to operate in the mountains at tall density altitudes. Climb from sea level tops 1,000 fpm, but equally important, the T206 manages better than 800 fpm at 10,000 feet.

Utility airplanes often must possess unusual talents, and to that end, the 206 may be adapted in a number of ways for better speed, range and flexibility. Cessna offers a 16,000 BTU Keith air conditioner, Flint Aero extends the wings and installs a pair of 15-gallon fuel tanks to boost gross and range and improve high-altitude climb. Wipaire, best known for its line of amphibious floats, whittles out the right front cabin to accommodate a forward side door, not surprising since Wipaire also produces amphibious floats for the 206. You can also install flap gap seals from Knots 2U to improve speed, modify the airplane with Aerospace Systems TKS anti/deice system and mount floats by PK DeVore or Wipaire. (Perhaps the most extreme STC available is an upgrade to Rolls Royce turbine power with Soloy Corporation.)

Whatever the level of mods, the Stationair remains what it has always been, one of the best jack-of-all-trades airplanes in general aviation, willing to haul pretty much anything you can close the doors on to practically anywhere at just about any time. The 206 definitely isn’t the fastest or the most modern design, but for operators who need a comfortable, talented airplane that still must work for a living, Cessna’s durable Stationair can pay its own way.