Several different manufacturers produced nearly 6,000 Ercoupes between 1940 and 1969, making replacement parts relatively easy to source and relatively inexpensive to purchase. Additionally, the Continental C85 engine sips fuel at a rate of about 5 gallons per hour, helping to minimize operating costs. Vibrant owners groups offer new owners a wealth of knowledge and know-how.  

This particular example has a low airframe time of only 2,871 hours and an even lower engine time of 305 hours since major overhaul. It is configured as new, without rudder pedals, but has been modified with a metalized wing. At the expense of a bit of useful load, this eliminates the need for costly wing fabric replacement, which can easily exceed $10,000. Perhaps best of all, this Ercoupe sports the original canopy design that enables flight with the top and side windows wide open.

• Read more about Ercoupe ownership here.

Pilots interested in a unique vintage aircraft with economical operating costs should consider this 1946 Ercoupe 415D, which is available for $39,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

The post Bargain Buys on AircraftForSale: 1946 Ercoupe 415D appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Rethought from the inside out, the G7 series—including the SR20, SR22, and SR22T—takes cues from the Vision Jet to simplify operation while incorporating added safety and luxury features. All three 2024 models have completed the FAA type certification process and are ready for delivery.

We took an exclusive first series of flights with the striking new G7 in the SR22 version in early December for a We Fly pilot report that will debut in FLYING’s Issue 945/February 2024, reaching subscribers later this month. Till then, we can share a few key details. Further reporting will follow in an upcoming issue of Plane & Pilot.

Central to the updates is the reimagined Perspective Touch+ integrated flight deck with 12- or 14-inch high-resolution displays, and twin GTC touchscreen controllers, to mimic the functionality and redundancy available in the Vision Jet SF50–and the ease of using a smartphone. Engine start has transformed into a push-button interface, preserving the ability to check mags and set mixture while making the process feel similar to that of the SF50. The updated automated flight control system (AFCS) incorporates smart servos and includes an optional yaw damper. 

Updated synoptic pages and streamlined checklists aid the pilot in monitoring both systems and procedures throughout all phases of flight. And the Cirrus IQ app gives the pilot remote viewing and control of certain aircraft functions. Cirrus Global Connect delivers worldwide text messaging, telephone service, and global weather.

It’s telling that Cirrus Aircraft looked up the model line to its Vision Jet to drive out complexity from its core single-engine pistons, sending its engineers on a journey to find ways to make the SRs as straightforward to operate as the jet. While that sounds like a contradiction, perhaps, pilots have opined about the complexity involved in stepping down from a light jet back into the high-performance piston world.  

To this end, Cirrus has introduced a new shallower menu structure in the touchscreen controllers, along with a scroll wheel for turning through the CAS-linked, on-screen checklists smoothly. Still on the ground, Taxiway Routing and a contextualized 3D Safe Taxi guide the pilot around complex airport layouts, decluttering and slewing the PFD imagery to match the airplane’s speed and position on the airport. In the air, the automatic fuel selection system automatically switches between fuel tanks every 5 gallons.

Additional Safety Features

Pilots will also find an improved flight control, incorporating a stick shaker function to piggyback on the other envelope protection features in the Perspective+ series, for enhanced low-speed situational awareness. Both the left and right controls vibrate to warn of an approaching stall condition.


Another new addition to envelope protection is flap airspeed protection. The system monitors airspeed to protect the pilot from accidentally deploying or retracting flaps when the aircraft is traveling too fast or too slow for the given flap configuration change. 

A Stylish and Functional New Interior

In addition to the magic up front, Cirrus also rethought the interior, taking a page from current luxury vehicles to incorporate a host of new features, including redesigned interior panels, dimmable task lights, and ambient accent lighting. 

More rugged cup holders, more pockets, and two center console compartments efficiently store your smartphone and other key things for better cockpit organization and accessibility. Powered headset jacks and lighted high-power USB-C outlets come positioned within easy reach of each seat. 


First SR20 G7 Customer

While only one new TRAC20 (SR20) G7 has been built, it’s already wearing its school colors—those of Western Michigan University College of Aviation in Battle Creek. The Broncos are longtime Cirrus flight training operators and will incorporate the new models into their aviation degree programs. The school will take delivery in the first quarter for integration into the flightline.

Pilots across the board can opt into several training options for the new Cirrus line, including the OEM’s recently released Private Pilot Program—taking a prospective pilot from first flight to certification in their new airplane.

“Our mission is to increase participation in aviation, so more people can benefit from the freedom, productivity, and joy it provides,” said Zean Nielsen, CEO of Cirrus Aircraft. “We have also developed a comprehensive ecosystem, providing global sales, flight training, maintenance, and support to ensure our owners have a seamless ownership experience. Our aircraft are truly designed with people in mind, and the new SR Series G7 is a testament to that philosophy. Our team and our aircraft provide a clear path to enter and advance within the personal aviation community by learning to fly and eventually transition to the Vision Jet with ease.” 

The post Cirrus Unveils the G7 Editions of the SR20, SR22, and SR22T appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

PlanePrice uses pricing assessments from a combination of private and public sources using thousands of recent and historical aircraft transactions. The platform utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) that considers each aircraft’s unique features to provide a current market estimate for it. PlanePrice is available only on Aircraft For Sale, FLYING’s aircraft marketplace. 

“PlanePrice marks a revolutionary milestone for both buyers and sellers in the aviation industry,” said Ian Hoyt, FLYING’s director of marketplaces. “PlanePrice harnesses state-of-the-art AI techniques and a vast historical aviation data catalog to develop the fair market price for any aircraft.  Every aircraft is different, so PlanePrice utilizes deep contextual information to determine a fair price for each individual aircraft, taking into account its unique characteristics and history.” 

The platform, using a combination of current market trends and pricing curves, provides transparency to prospective buyers, giving them the valuation range of any specific aircraft listed on Aircraft For Sale. Recent transactions with similar characteristics and current aircraft market activity are heavily weighted in PlanePrice’s model, providing unparalleled transparency.  

“For years, consumers have had access to free car and housing price estimate tools on listing marketplaces,” said Hoyt. “Until now, no aircraft marketplace has provided this information for free in the shopping process, creating anxiety for buyers and sellers alike. Much like Zillow’s Zestimate has become the go-to resource for understanding the current market value of homes, or how CarGurus’ auto listing marketplace has empowered buyers to know if a price is fair or not, PlanePrice aspires to do the same thing in the aircraft market.”  

The post FLYING Media Group Introduces PlanePrice appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

We need to take care of these aviation treasures—their kind will not be seen again. They were developed during America’s post-war boom by designers and marketers who gave pilots what they wanted at a price point within reach of a large percentage of the flying population. In their day, competition encouraged innovation, even while design compromises between performance, cost, and quality provided a variety of choices in the marketplace.

Because of these vast numbers of airplanes placed into service 50 or so years ago, we still have a relatively large pool of legacy equipment available. How long we can keep them flying is anyone’s guess, but the cost of maintaining, equipping, and flying these old birds is much higher than their original builders could ever have envisioned. And yet, they can do the job for a fraction of an equivalent airplane built today—if one even exists.

Attrition is inevitable since some of this elderly fleet disappears from the active register each year. Losses from accidents, neglect, impractical upkeep, and aging structures will eventually take their toll. To preserve what’s left, we must be ready to place increased resources into their preservation and encourage production of parts for overhauling and maintaining continuing airworthiness. And we must be ever more careful in how we operate and store them. This aging fleet is too precious to ignore.

Where Did They All Come From?

The answer is: It depends.

In 1960, a total of 7,588 general aviation aircraft were produced; in 1970, an anomalously similar number, 7,508, were built. An astounding 98,407 airplanes went out the door between those years. After another 10 years, the industry had added another 150,220 aircraft to the fleet. Then, the bubble burst in the ’80s, with only 30,908 airplanes built in that decade. The ’90s saw just 17,665 airplanes produced. The nearly 250,000 general aviation airplanes built in the ’60s and ’70s, therefore, were the origins of our still-existing legacy fleet.

During nearly 65 years of industry observation, I was fortunate to have been around at the birth of many of these legacy airplanes. I remember walking around one of the first Cessna 210s parked at our field in 1960, trying to figure out where the gear went. When a Piper dealer came by to show us a brand-new ’62 Cherokee, we could scarcely believe it was a sibling to our Tri-Pacers. And, compared to the twin Beechcraft Bonanzas on the field, I thought the ’60 Beech Queen Air was the most beautiful mini-airliner I had ever seen when I climbed aboard one of the first, not realizing that in four more years its sister ship would become the turboprop King Air.

A Cessna 336 Skymaster showed up at an airport opening I attended in 1964, attracting all sorts of attention since it was unlike any Cessna we had seen before. By then, Brand C had added the 185, 206, and 320 models, and the cabin-class 411 was coming. Piper’s new 1963 Twin Comanche struck us as cute, compared with the pudgy Apache and Aztec, while the Pawnee was our first look at a purpose-built ag plane. In the mid-’60s, new aircraft models were popping up everywhere. One of my friends bought a brand-new Citabria in 1964, which we thought was a vast improvement over the old Aeronca Champion.

As the years passed, I became associated with airplane dealerships, and then started covering a beat as an industry journalist. I saw Cessna’s abortive attempt to enter the helicopter business with the CH-1 Skyhook in the early ’60s, and later in 1967 we picked up one of the first Cessna Cardinals at the factory. In 1973, I attended Beech’s November sales meeting in Wichita, Kansas, featuring the introduction of the big Super King Air 200. About the same time, Cessna was dropping into our airport with the new Citation jet. Back in 1961, I had seen a mock-up of a civilian version of Cessna’s T-37 jet trainer, perhaps a response to Beech’s short partnership with the Morane-Saulnier Paris jet. The Citation 500’s fanjet engines made all the difference.

All through the ’70s and early ’80s, we news hounds were kept busy attending rollouts and first flights of new models. Airplane companies were in full production and eager to expand their market, trying out every novelty and adding improvements. Mooney stretched and muscled up its M20 series, Maule constantly reworked its Rocket models, Rockwell added more Commander types, and Grumman gave us “cats” of every size, Lynx to Cougar.

It All Started in the Late 1950s

In my earliest flying years at the end of the 1950s, Piper was producing only the Apache, Comanche, Tri-Pacer and Super Cub models. Cessna had the 310, 182, and 172, and was just adding the 175 and 150. Beech built the Model 18 Twin Beech, V-tail and twin Bonanzas, and a new Travel Air light twin. Mooney basically sold one model, as did Bellanca, and Aero Commander competed solely in the twin market. As the industry and I matured during the ’60s, dozens of new designs and variations appeared in the marketplace.

This era’s fertile incubator brought forth steady innovations. Piper adopted touches from the Comanche, such as the swept tailfin and stabilator pitch control, for its Aztec and Cherokee models introduced in the early ’60s. Cessna not only swept the tail on most models in 1960, it copied Detroit automotive marketing by introducing “deluxe” versions loaded with standard options—all-over paint instead of partially bare aluminum, gyros and radios in the panel, landing gear fairings, and showy interiors. Beech, on the other hand, expanded its line downward, first with a Debonair economy version of the Bonanza and later the entry-level Musketeer singles with (gasp!) fixed landing gear. The Baron was introduced in 1961 for buyers needing something smaller than the hulking twin Bonanza but more capable than the Travel Air.

The secret sauce enlivening this banquet of expansion in the ’60s and ’70s was the involvement of ownership and management dedicated to personal aviation. William T. Piper and his sons, Bill Jr., Thomas (“Tony”), and Howard (“Pug”), made the decisions at Piper Aircraft. Mrs. O.A. Beech and her nephew Frank Hedrick held the reins at Beech Aircraft. Dwane Wallace, Clyde Cessna’s nephew, would walk the factory floor at Cessna. Rather than being subject to a corporate board of bean counters and legal advisers, these leaders had grown their companies with a vision of what little airplanes could do and took risks based on the love of the game.

Amazing products resulted, not from committee decisions but because of a guiding hand at the top who was likely a pilot and aircraft enthusiast. At the industry press conferences and sales meetings back then, one could sense the devotion and dreams in the presentations. All of this changed in the last quarter of the 20th century, as the old general aviation firms were sold and wrapped under conglomerate, non-aviation management. This brought cautious decision-making and design compromise by consensus, with legal, sales, engineering, and bookkeeping departments making sure all interests were represented. Lockheed engineer Kelly Johnson once said, “From now on, there will be no more great airplanes, just adequate ones.”

The Sizzling ’70s

The 1960s had seen heady expansion of product lines. By 1970, Piper had largely made the switch from building fabric-covered airplanes at its old plant in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, to all-metal designs streaming from a bright new complex in Florida. Labor problems and a disastrous flood in 1972 ended the Lock Haven era and the Comanche line, although the Aztec and Navajo twins continued. However, there were plenty of other options in the product line. The Piper Cherokee, also known as the PA-28 platform, had been expanded to at least eight variants, being added to six twins and the Pawnee ag planes. Cessna was building half of the world’s GA airplanes in its Kansas facilities, offering no less than a dozen singles, eight twins, and a new bizjet on the horizon. Beech, meanwhile, now had 12 single-engine models, seven twins, and three turboprops in its fleet. And the 1970s were just starting.

Vertical integration seemed to be important, in that each major manufacturer wanted to offer a two-seat trainer, four-seat family airplane, higher-powered business cruiser, and complex retract. Twins were similarly ranked—as light, medium, and cabin class—with pressurization and turbine engines being the ultimate goal. Piper took the Cherokee Six heavy-single into a Seneca twin in ’72, followed by the Lance retractable in ’76. Tapered wings and stretched fuselages improved the smaller Cherokees, and a true two-seater, the Tomahawk, came along in ’78, followed by the Seminole light twin. At the top, the Navajo cabin twin became stretched, pressurized, and turbine-ized.

Over at Cessna, a plethora of preferences had been promulgated by 1970. Tubular landing gear legs replaced older flat springs, manual flaps were changed to electric, the 210 Centurion’s wing struts had been removed, and by the mid-1960s stylish back windows had been installed in nearly all models. Engine turbochargers became an option, starting in ’62 with the 320 twin, then in ’66 for the 206 and 210. Cessna joined Piper in the ag plane business that year, and in ’69 the 206 was stretched into the 207. By the end of 1970s, there were three models of the 210—normal, turbo, and pressurized—the Skylane RG joined the fixed-gear 182, and even the Skyhawk went retractable with the Cutlass RG. On the twin side, the “push-pull” centerline-thrust Skymaster was available in three performance categories, the 310/340 was similarly outfitted, and the 400-series twins offered models with utility, executive, and pressurized cabins. It took until the late 1970s for Cessna to move into the turboprop business since it was occupied with the Citation jets earlier in that decade.

Beech was busy introducing the stretched King Air 100 in 1970 and the flagship Super King Air 200 for ’74, adding the longer Baron 58 in ’70, a pressurized Baron 58P, in ’76 and the Duchess light twin in ’78, while continuing to build piston-engine Queen Airs and Dukes. Still, Beech found time to put retractable gear on the Musketeer and add an extra cabin door to the light airplanes, and to develop the two-place Skipper trainer at the end of the decade.

By no means was all the action in the ’70s limited to the “Big Three” airplane manufacturers. Mooney was innovating like crazy in that time frame, with the introduction of the cleaned-up 201 and the turbo 231. Other short-line manufacturers like Bellanca/Champion, Maule, and Grumman American enlarged their offerings, and Rockwell jumped into its own single-engine Commander business after first trying to acquire smaller companies in the 1960s. The ’70s were full of enthusiasm for aviation, despite an oil embargo setback in 1973-74 and a disrupting air traffic controller strike in 1981. By the mid-’80s, it was all over.

Did CAR 3 Play a Role?

What may have made all these developments of new airplane types possible was the continuing use of Civil Air Regulation Part 3 certification, a holdover from the Civil Aeronautics Authority, predecessor to the Federal Aviation Administration’s creation in 1958. With the changeover to the FAA’s Federal Air Regulations, FAR Part 23 became the new certification basis for light aircraft, gradually evolving into a fresh start with some new requirements added to the old CAR 3 rules. As this regulatory meshing took some time to accomplish, established airplane companies rushed to certify as many new models as possible under CAR 3, filing applications that could grandfather them into existing rules while product development continued into the ’60s.

Using these old CAR 3 certifications as basis, most of our legacy fleet was built using amendments to the original type certificate, even though the airplanes were marketed as “new” models. Hence, the 1968-introduced Beech Bonanza 36 was certified as an addition to the CAR 3-basis TC #3A15, which was originally issued for the Bonanza H35 of 1957. Cessna’s Bonanza competitors, beginning with the model 210 certified on April 20, 1959, were also certified under CAR 3 except for the pressurized P210 because its original application was dated August 13, 1956. Even the ’64 Cessna 206 was certified as a CAR Part 3 airplane, as the original application was dated November 9, 1962, continuing right up through the end of legacy 206 production in ’86.

For its part, Piper introduced the PA-28 Cherokee in ’61 under CAR 3 certification basis from an application dated February 14, 1958. Even the PA-32 Cherokee Six was born as a CAR 3 airplane in ’65 with an application dated ’64. Similar modifications to original CAR 3 certifications took place at Mooney, Champion, Rockwell Commander, Lake, and Maule. To be fair, subsequent model changes through the ’70s frequently complied with FAR Part 23 amendments applicable to their dates of certification, even though they were built as CAR 3-certified airplanes. On the other hand, the four-seat Grumman AA-5 airplanes were certified under FAR Part 23 with an original application dated July 2, 1970.

As is typical of the mission creep inherent in any administrative law, FAR Part 23 certification grew in complexity from the boilerplate inherited from CAR 3. Much of this was inevitable as new construction methods and materials were developed, and equipment unanticipated in CAR 3 was placed on airplanes. However, grandfathering in earlier type certification, rather than pursuing entirely new FAR 23 approval, meant less time and money was required to produce a new aircraft.

Are FAA Part 23-certified airplanes any better? It depends on which level of amendments they complied with. Certification under Part 23 in the ’60s was quite similar to the CAR 3 certification of a decade earlier, but Part 23 amendments of the ’80s had evolved to a greater degree. When it comes to engineering small unpressurized general aviation aircraft, however, structures are typically overbuilt simply for durability and manufacturing ease. The basic criteria for CAR Part 3 and FAR Part 23 remain much the same. CAR 3’s stipulation that stall speed for single-engine airplanes shall not exceed
70 mph is simply restated in FAR 23 as “61 knots.” However, as mentioned, there have been multitudinous minutia added in FAR 23, often in response to newer materials and devices never contemplated in CAR 3 days. Each of these must be given consideration when developing entirely new designs, taking up engineering time and documentation.

Most significantly, this prodigious adaptation and modification of basic CAR 3 aircraft designs, along with introduction of entirely new FAR 23 ones, continued through the ’60s and ’70s. Each of the major manufacturers wanted to make sure customers were able to remain loyal as they upgraded into higher-performance airplanes. They accomplished this by increasing the number of types offered and seeing that any small opening into an unserved need was met with a new model.
And so it was that fixed-gear models received retractable landing gear. The fuselage stretched to accommodate extra seats. Four-cylinder engines became six-cylinder powerplants. Turbocharged models complemented normally aspirated offerings. Even twin engines were grafted onto single-engine airframes. Pressurization, turbine engines, tip tanks, cargo pods: if you wanted it, engineering and marketing departments made sure you could get it.

Market saturation eventually brought down the number of aircraft types, and production rates plummeted in the ’80s to match the lack of buyers. Contributing to the collapse of the ’80s was a lingering economic malaise from double-digit interest rates and inflation, and the increasing cost of product liability insurance against the growth industry of tort suits, divided by the fewer and fewer units sold.

Why can’t we just make new old ones?

Challenges on several fronts make reviving old type-certificated aircraft difficult. Small production rates mean handcrafting what was once mass-produced, so each unit costs more. Rebuilding the market requires making enough people want what you have to offer. The numbers of active pilots and qualified, motivated buyers are down compared to the bustling days, and consumer expectations are much higher now, requiring airframes to be bloated with quality accessories. Back in the day, comfort and ease of use took a back seat to the thrill of flight. We didn’t expect to have air conditioning in our airplane because it weighed half as much as a passenger and it wasn’t needed aloft. Plush seating, Wi-Fi, sound deadening, single-lever power control, and wall-to-wall glass instrument panels weren’t a priority or even dreamed about 50 years ago. We were just glad to have an engine, wings, and freedom to fly. Legacy airplanes today need considerable upgrading to bring them up to speed with current buyer desires.

Airports were social communities during the last third of the 1900s. Security was almost nonexistent, perceived threats being remote, so coming and going was less restricted and hurried. Pilots spent time at the airport. Airport lounges were often untidy but welcoming places that encouraged hanging out, not polished palaces to pass through. If you parked outside with your new 1970 Mooney, someone would come out to admire it, not shepherd it away to piston-engine row. Today’s aircraft owners are far different. Many are users of airplanes, not flyers for the sake of flying. They are more satisfied to possess their flying machines—less so to be companions with them.

That said, the great fleet of general aviation aircraft built in the two decades of the mid-’60s to mid-’80s still represents a wonderful opportunity for acquisition and preservation. We must not underestimate the continuing rise in maintenance and operation costs. But these remarkable old birds serve their purpose as well as they ever did, if we’ll just take care of them.
Let us rise to the challenge. 

Editor’s note: This story originally appeared in the July 2023 issue of Plane & Pilot. 

The post Sustaining Our Fleet appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

You know the expression: “What goes up, must…”

What goes up must come down and after it does, something needs to stop it. Here’s where one company has staked its claim. France’s Beringer left the high-speed action of motorcycles for even faster aerial machines …yet slowing them to a gentle stop is a matter the company takes very seriously.

Judging from all the easily-recognized Beringer hardware gripping the wheels of our favorite aircraft, the company appears to be doing remarkably well.

Happy Birthday, Beringer!

In the rolling hills of Woodruff, South Carolina, at Triple Tree Aerodrome, Beringer Aero USA celebrated its 10-year anniversary in the fall of 2022.

Beringer and its team of 32 employees has progressively moved up in the ranks of widely-used wheel and brake systems, distinguishing themselves by the safety, reliability, and innovation of its distinctively-colored products.

At Beringer in France, a team of 25 designs, certificates, and manufactures its products while their seven-person USA division “focuses on retail and warehousing for the North-American market, providing customer support and local contact to its customers.”

The leaders of Beringer reported, “We did not set out to create ‘good enough’ wheels and brakes. We sought to create exceptional wheels and brakes, with the goal of providing peace of mind to pilots during the most critical phases of flight.” Smart, because while pilots love to go fast, they definitely appreciate a strong set of brakes at the end of the flight.

With its roots in wheel and brake systems, Beringer expanded into landing gear with the Alaskan Landing Gear for Cub-type airframes featuring 12 inches of oleo-pneumatic absorption. Their Shock Wheel system for LSA and ultralights equipped with spring gear gives 8 inches of absorption. Most recently, an innovative three-piece aluminum spring gear called B’Flex was added to the product line.

Established in 2012, Beringer Aero USA relocated from Chicago, Illinois to Greenville, South Carolina. Their newly-acquired facility adjacent to the Greenville Downtown Airport (KGMU) is the North American outlet for the French manufacturer operated for 37 years by the Beringer family. Initially specializing in motorcycle wheels, forks, and brakes, the company turned to aviation in 2009. Through almost four decades, Beringer has never stopped innovating.

Introducing Aerotec+

The French company’s newest product is a new patented braking technology called Aerotec+.

“Representing a culmination of decades of production, testing, and experience, Aerotec+ offers a fundamentally new package designed for safety and increased performance,” said Beringer.

Two floating brake pads provide cooling from all sides, therefore lowering operating temperature for reduced pad wear and better caliper protection. Furthermore, the brake pad back plate has cooling fins to increase surface area and is made of a special steel alloy rated for higher temperatures that provides 20 percent more torque.

Aerotec+’s brake disc has been redesigned with a special steel alloy to increase the coefficient of friction while also handling higher temperatures while the brake caliper has been redesigned to increase rigidity for higher piston loads and incorporates new cooling fins to help dissipate heat. Beringer said Aerotec+’s 20 percent added torque translates into 15 to 30 percent greater kinetic energy meaning reduced landing distances.

What goes up must eventually stop and Beringer is determined to slow you down easily.

European Manufacturers Meeting

LAMA, the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association, will host, at Aero Friedrichshafen, an event for airframe producers and developers to provide more information about the U.S. market.

Van’s Aircraft chief engineer Rian Johnson—who also serves as the chair of the ASTM F37 committee that creates LSA consensus standards—will present information about FAA’s upcoming Mosaic regulation in the United States.

A panel of experts will answer as many questions as possible in the time available.

Attendees will also be introduced to an organization that may be able to assist companies that wish to make their initial entry to the U.S. market.

Rotax Aircraft Engines will provide catering for those manufacturers in attendance. This is an invitation-only event.

The post Aero Friedrichshafen Opens Wednesday — Intriguing Aircraft, Flying Gear of All Kinds appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

In 2023, many of the aircraft on display are known to Americans. However, Europe tends to produce more proof-of-concept projects than we see in America. This is partly as European governments subsidize certain developments, such as when a designer engages a national university. The builder gets technical assistance. The students get real-life experience.

Help with these costs yields many interesting designs but few make it to market. However, novel ideas can find their way into other marketed designs.

Other projects are carried, just like in America, by entrepreneurs that simply will not stop until they reach their goal. Jörg Hollmann of JH Aircraft is a driven engineer who has steadily developed and improved his super-light Corsair lookalike. For Aero 2023, he has something new… again!

Part 103-Eligible Corsair

When Jörg first introduced his carbon-fiber-tube-primary-structure Corsair, lot of us had to pick up our jaws from the floor. Corsair was so distinctive in its shape and so unique in its construction that most initially refused to believe it could fit Germany 120-Kilogram Class (empty weight allowed is within a couple pounds of Part 103).

Then he finished the aircraft, flew it, and proved it could make weight. Later Jörg worked with a three-cylinder internal combustion engine that seemed to fit the era well. He wasn’t done as you’ll see below.

Corsair is “a microlight single seater fulfilling different national regulations such as England’s SSDR or the U.S. Part 103, yet it is capable of +6 and -4 g without compromises on safety,” explained Jörg.

Designed and built in Germany, Corsair has an extremely strong carbon primary structure composed of laboriously-assembled carbon tube. “Furthermore,” Jörg added, “the complete cockpit area is constructed as a Kevlar reinforced safety cell.” Of course, this being a German design, an aircraft rescue system with a ballistic parachute is available as well. Germany requires such equipment.

“If you want to start your own project and build an aircraft on your own,” Jörg observed, “Corsair is not only available ready-to-fly but also as a kit.”

Get e-Motional!

If an aircraft is good, is an electric-powered one even better? Maybe, and those keen on this propulsion now have that choice on Corsair.

“With electric propulsion, Corsair e-Motion is nearly maintenance-free, thus it is less complicated and leaves more time for the pure pleasure of flying,” believes Jörg. “Especially with open canopy in nice weather you can directly feel the freedom of flying.”

Different types of batteries are available with up to 14 kWh, allowing up to two hours of flight time. Batteries can be recharged in approximately 4.5 hours at a standard wall outlet or in just 1.5 hours using a quick charger, reported JH Aircraft.

Those attending Aero Friedrichshafen 2023 are warmly invited to examine Corsair at Aero (April 19th – 22nd) in Hall 5, stand 305.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
JH Aircraft Corsair eMotion
all specification provided by the manufacturer

• Wing span (folded wings) — 24.6 feet (9.0 feet)
• Length — 20.7 feet
• Wing area — 108 square feet
• Empty Weight (without batteries) — 187 pounds
• Payload — 364 pounds
• Load Factors — +6g / -4g
• Engine — Electric motor HPD16 or HPD20
• Power — 16 kWc / 20 kWpeak or 20 kWc / 30 kWpeak
• Batteries — 7. 1 or 14 kWh / max 136 pounds
• Flight time — Up to 2 hours (14 kWh)
• Take off roll distanc — < 130 feet
• Take off over 50 ft obstacle — < 400 feet
• Stall speed — 30 knots
• Cruise speed — 86 knots
• Maximum speed — 108 knots
• Best climb — 1200 fpm

Story originally published on bydanjohnson.com

The post Aero Friedrichshafen 2023 — JH Aircraft’s Popular Corsair Debuts e-Motion at Europe’s Best Show appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

If you plan an altitude where the temperature aloft is zero degrees Celsius or less, airframe icing becomes exceedingly more likely while flying in visible moisture. Therefore, the freezing level is one key variable that you need to determine during your preflight analysis to better quantify your risk of airframe ice.

Let’s clarify something right from the beginning. The FAA likes to use the term “freezing level” in all of its documentation. This is kind of a misnomer, given that water in the liquid state doesn’t necessarily freeze just because the static air temperature is below freezing. We must be concerned about the presence of supercooled water, which leads to airframe icing. On the contrary, water in the solid state (i.e., snow) must melt even if the static air temperature is a hair warmer than zero degrees Celsius. Meteorologists prefer to use the more accurate term of “melting level.” But pilots are stuck with “freezing level” for the foreseeable future.

A Rarely Standard Lapse Rate

One approach that some instructors teach is to use the standard lapse rate to calculate or estimate the lowest freezing level. That is, they use the current surface temperature at the airport and then subtract 2 degrees Celsius for every 1,000-foot gain in altitude. For example, if the surface temperature is 10 degrees Celsius and you are departing from an airport at sea level elevation, then the freezing level should be 5,000 feet. That method seems easy enough, but it’s a bad idea to do this. The standard lapse rate should only be applied to performance tables in the pilot operating handbook as a method to determine the departure from standard.

When Mother Nature is at her worst behavior, the atmosphere is rarely standard. In fact, during the late morning and afternoon, the environmental lapse rate is more often than not greater than standard near the surface. This is the layer of air that is directly influenced by the presence of the earth’s surface and, therefore, is what meteorologists refer to as the planetary boundary layer (PBL). The lapse rate in the PBL is often closer to the dry adiabatic rate (DALR) of 3 degrees Celsius for every 1,000-foot gain in altitude. Under these more typical conditions, using the standard lapse rate will cause you to calculate a freezing level that is higher than the actual lapse rate suggests. Therefore, if you expected the freezing level to be at 5,000 feet, you might be surprised during your climb to encounter supercooled liquid water beginning at 3,500 feet instead of 5,000 feet.

You might say, “That’s crazy—no sane pilot would do this.” Well, even the FAA fell into this line of thinking. In 2005, a student and a flight instructor ended up with a hard landing at Paine Field (KPAE) in Everett, Washington, after accreting airframe ice in a Cessna 172. They departed a nearby airport, Boeing Field (KBFI), to go out and shoot a few practice approaches in actual instrument conditions. This is certainly a noble effort when it is safe to do so. After the first missed approach, the instructor noticed ice accreting on the airframe and directed the student to return to Paine Field to land. During this landing, the aircraft ran off the runway, which resulted in an accident and subsequent FAA and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation.

The FAA later determined the instructor, who was pilot in command, busted FAR 91.9 (a), which prohibits pilots from operating an aircraft without complying with its operating limitations. In this case, there’s a placard in the aircraft that states: “Flight into known icing conditions is prohibited.” The instructor was also cited with careless or reckless operation under FAR 91.13 (a). So, a certificate action was taken that included a 90-day suspension. The instructor requested an evidentiary hearing and later appealed the ruling to the NTSB. However, the NTSB agreed with the case the FAA presented.

I certainly don’t take issue with the outcome of this judgment, but one thing struck me as being a bit strange. The FAA argued that the instructor should have been aware of the lowest freezing level and, therefore, the potential for airframe ice at higher altitudes. To my chagrin, they suggested the instructor should have been aware of the surface temperature at the airport of 2 degrees Celsius—based on their briefing prior to departure—and then, they should have used the standard lapse rate to determine that the temperature would be at or below freezing in the clouds aloft. Ugh! Well, this just happened to be convenient for the FAA since the lapse rate near the surface was close to standard on that day and time. Therefore, it worked out, coincidentally, to favor the FAA’s case against this instructor. The lapse rate, as stated previously, varies and may not be the accurate measure to use when figuring the altitudes where icing might be likely.

Temperature Inversions

At the other extreme is a common situation when there is a formidable surface-based temperature inversion. In this situation, the surface temperature can be a chilly 7 degrees Celsius (45 degrees Fahrenheit) with a freezing level at more than 12,000 feet msl. This is quite common in regions around a warm front. As warm air overruns cold air at the surface, this creates a negative lapse rate (called an inversion) or a scenario where the temperature increases along with altitude before it begins to resume a more normal positive lapse rate in the free atmosphere aloft. When such an inversion exists, using the standard lapse rate may leave you with the impression that the freezing level is quite low when, in fact, it might be a very reasonable day to fly from an icing perspective if you remain below 12,000 feet.

In this scenario, it is quite common when an aviation accident occurs for the casual observer to quickly conclude that the aircraft encountered icing conditions. If it’s that chilly at the surface, then the freezing level must be just a few thousand feet up, right? That’s what pilots generally thought when a Beechcraft B58 Baron went down after departing the Spirit of St. Louis Airport (KSUS) on the winter evening of January 8, 2022. The flight departed at 7:10 p.m. CST headed westbound toward Denver. They were on an IFR flight plan and were cleared to climb to a cruise altitude of 8,000 feet. Shortly after reaching cruise, the Baron appeared to depart controlled flight with a rapid descent under unknown circumstances. It subsequently impacted the terrain 2.5 miles south of New Melle, Missouri (12 miles west of the Spirit of St. Louis Airport), killing the pilot and another occupant.

The temperature at the surface was 7 degrees Celsius with a dew point temperature of 6 degrees Celsius. There was much speculation and debate within the internet aviation community that airframe icing may have played a role in this fatal accident. This is certainly understandable. The elevation of KSUS is 463 feet msl, and using a standard lapse rate, the altitude of the lowest freezing level should be approximately 4,000 feet as shown here.

1,463 feet –> +5 degrees Celsius
2,463 feet –> +3 degrees Celsius
3,463 feet –> +1 degrees Celsius
4,463 feet –> -1 degree Celsius

Using the standard lapse rate in this way leads to an incorrect freezing level. This is echoed in the one-hour forecast (above), which suggests the lowest freezing level west of the Spirit of St. Louis Airport was between 11,000 feet and 13,000 feet. Using the standard lapse rate instead of the low freezing level forecast cre-ates an error of 7,000 to 9,000 feet in this case.

Shortly after the accident, the NTSB was quick to point out in a press conference that the freezing level was 12,000 feet and icing was unlikely since the aircraft remained below this level. But that didn’t make the internet community all that happy. Some still concluded that the NTSB was premature in its comments and that the causal factor would ultimately be associated with airframe icing, citing the standard lapse rate in their argument.

In fact, one YouTube personality suggested this flight likely encountered freezing drizzle, although no precipitation was reported at KSUS at the time of the accident. The NTSB will release its findings very soon, but the temperature profile on that evening included a healthy surface-based inversion and clearly the standard lapse rate would lead to a much lower freezing level.

Warm Air Overrun

With a little weather forensics, it was easy to discover that this was the classic case of warm air overrunning cold air—the result of the northerly movement of a warm front through the accident area as shown above. In fact, the temperature at approximately 5,000 feet msl was 9 degrees Celsius as shown below. It is not possible to accrete ice at those static air temperatures. Yes, there was freezing rain reported at the surface about 100 nm to the north-northeast at the Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport (KSPI) in Springfield, Illinois, where it was much colder, and the surface temperature was a chilly 1 degree Celsius.

Even so, there was a massive temperature inversion aloft over Springfield such that the temperature at 3,100 feet msl was 8 degrees Celsius. That’s an increase of 7 degrees Celsius at 2,500 feet above the surface. The temperature didn’t go negative over Springfield until roughly 9,000 feet msl. Whether in St. Louis or Springfield, this would have created a warm-soaked aircraft in the climb.

Where There’s Freezing Rain

In a freezing rain scenario, it is common to have two (or more) freezing levels. One way this occurs is in the presence of deep saturated conditions with cold cloud top temperatures. This allows ice crystal growth and creates snow which falls into a melting layer to create rain. These drops then fall into a subfreezing layer near the surface to create supercooled large droplet (SLD) icing called freezing rain. All of this is courtesy of a surface-based temperature inversion with multiple freezing levels aloft. This is the classical freezing rain temperature profile.

But there’s also a more common case where clouds aloft are dominated by liquid when the cloud top temperature is much warmer. In this non-classical case, there may be two or more freezing levels, or the entire temperature profile may be below zero degrees Celsius. In this non-classical case, the saturated layer has a depth usually less than about 10,000 feet. This places the temperature of the cloud top to be warmer than negative-12 degrees Celsius. Warm-topped precipitation events like this—even when the entire temperature profile is below freezing—are dominated by water in the liquid state and often produce drizzle-sized drops with little or no ice crystals that are needed to develop the growth of snowflakes. This kind of non-classical temperature profile produces most of the cases of freezing rain and freezing drizzle.

If you want to avoid making a bad judgment, understand the big weather picture and then use the lowest freezing level forecast, like the one depicted above, which is found on the Aviation Weather Center’s website. This includes an analysis along with hourly forecasts up to 18 hours from the time they are issued.

This forecast is automated but is updated hourly and is generated from the Rapid Refresh (RAP) numerical weather prediction model. The vertical resolution is quite reasonable at 2,000 feet.

The official freezing level forecast is found on the same website at aviationweather.gov/gairmet. This graphical AIRMET (G-AIRMET) forecast is issued by aviation meteorologists and depicts the freezing level at 4,000-foot intervals. It also indicates where multiple freezing levels may exist, including their height. Its spatial and temporal resolution is not as good as the automated forecast, however.

If you are a weather nerd, you might try learning how to use a Skew-T log (p) diagram like the one above. One of the most interactive websites for these is found at rucsoundings.noaa.gov. The Op40 input data source used here is the same RAP model that is used to produce the lowest freezing level chart forecast. With such a diagram, you can precisely pinpoint the forecast freezing level over a particular location at a particular time or determine for yourself if multiple freezing levels exist.

And if you are a bit lazy, you can use a vertical route profile or vertical cross section that depicts the freezing level along your proposed route of flight. Many of the heavyweight apps have such a depiction, including my progressive web app, EZWxBrief. With a profile view, as shown above, it’s painless to see how the freezing level changes across your route of flight so you can quickly compare this to your proposed altitude. In fact, in addition to lines of constant temperature that include the zero-degree isotherm, you can overlay other key elements, such as clouds, icing severity, or even turbulence.

From the December 2022/January 2023 Issue 933 of FLYING

The post Rising Above the Freezing Level appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Back in 1929, Transcontinental Air Transport (TAT) inaugurated the first coast-to-coast air service by combining both rail and air travel. Passengers boarded the train in New York’s Grand Central Station, traveled on to Ohio and then boarded a Ford Trimotor for the daytime flight to Oklahoma. At nightfall, they were back on the train, in sleeper service, to Clovis, New Mexico, where they again boarded a Trimotor for the rest of the trip to California. Two trains, nine flights and 48 hours coast to coast.

By 1933, the Douglas Aircraft Company had a bonafide success on its hands. The new Douglas DC-2 was a truly modern, 14-seat, narrow-body airliner that offered inflight comfort and amenities that other competitors, such as the Boeing 247, did not provide. With its dual nose-mounted landing lights, slab-sided narrow fuselage, angular vertical tail and reliable Wright Cyclone engines, it sold nearly 200 aircraft, over double its nearest rival. It even made money. However, the dream of true transcontinental air travel persisted, and American Airlines CEO C.R. Smith had a better idea.

In what has been described as a “marathon phone call” to Donald Douglas, Smith laid out a requirement for a derivative of the DC-2 that accommodated passengers in fold-down sleeper berths, as well as convertible daytime sleeper seats. This required a much larger cabin diameter to accommodate the upper and lower berths, as well as larger wings, engines and tail surfaces. With his company doing all it could to keep up with DC-2 orders, Douglas resisted the idea, but once American placed a firm order for 20 Douglas Sleeper Transports, the work began in earnest.

The Douglas Sleeper Transport was designed to cross the country in less than 20 hours with three stops. Fourteen passengers were accommodated in comfortable seats that the cabin crew reconfigured at night to provide upper and lower berths.

Crew changed, aircraft were refueled, but the passengers continued to the destination with little disturbance. The first DST flew on Dec. 17, 1935 (the 32nd anniversary of the Wright brothers’ first flight), and soon entered service. DSTs, by the way, were easily identified by a second row of four small rectangular windows on each side of the fuselage, located above the normal cabin windows. These allowed the upper berths a scenic view outside the aircraft.

The first seven aircraft off the line were DSTs, christened Flagship SkySleepers. While the accommodations were luxurious, the concept never really caught on, and DST production ended in 1940.

This is where the story takes a big turn. The eighth aircraft of the line was actually the first DC-3. Configured to seat 21, the DC-3 became an instant hit based on the economics of more, cheaper seats combined with the plane’s already voluminous interior space. Douglas would see nearly 16,000 DC-3/C- 47 variants in the U.S. and under license overseas. These included 500 Japanese L2D variants, built initially under license, from 1939 to 1945, and nearly 5,000 Soviet Li-2 licensed variants produced through 1952.

Smith’s requirement for a sleeper version of the DC-2 led to the development of a legendary plane. With a cabin nearly a third wider and with much greater interior volume, this was the aircraft that made revenue for the airlines, won wars and became a legend. While the DST concept quickly faded, replaced by multi-class seating and lie-flat seats, the DC-3 became a part of aviation lore. But it hasn’t faded away. Nearly 200 Douglas DC-3s remain in service today, a fitting tribute to Donald Douglas’ outstanding design, C.R. Smith’s persistence, and a big helping of good old-fashioned luck. PP

The post This Incredible Plane: The Douglas Sleeper Transport (DST) “€˜SkySleeper‘ appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

The post The First X Plane: Wright Model R appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

The P-Volt is the electric-powered version of Tecnam’s P2012 piston-powered model. U.S. short-haul carrier Cape Air has six P2012s, with a total of more than 100 on order, though it voluntarily grounded them in August 2020, “!not due to a technical or mechanical issue,” according to a company memo, but pending resolution of a regulatory issue between the FAA and EASA.” Ultimately, Cape Air plans to replace its fleet of aging Cessna 402 piston twins with P2012s.

Since Cape Air specializes in serving short routes, including the 22 nm flight from Hyannis Airport on Cape Cod to Martha’s Vineyard off the coast of Massachusetts, it could be a logical customer for the P-Volt.

Widerøe serves some 44 airports in Norway, with a pre-pandemic schedule of some 400 flights per day. Approximately 300 of those are less than 150 nm The P2012 cruises at 190 knots, which would mean most of Widerøe’s flights would be less than an hour. Tecnam has yet to announce endurance or range figures for the developmental P-Volt, though it is likely to be significantly less than the gas-powered P2012’s 870 nautical miles.

The Norwegian government is supporting the introduction of the P-Volt as part of its initiative to achieve an 80% reduction in emissions by 2040.

The post Electric Airliners Coming Soon, As Scandinavian Carrier Goes With Tecnam P-Volt appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.