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.

Founded by Jim Allmon in 1999, Blackhawk is today an industry-leading aircraft improvement company that for years has made its name doing King Air engine conversions on several different models, all of which enhance the performance and therefore the utility and value of the aircraft. It’s often an extremely cost-effective move for owners, as a coming cost of required engine maintenance can be rolled into their new Blackhawk King Air. The company also does engine conversions on Caravans, and it recently announced a new program to do engine upgrades to Pilatus PC-12s.

In announcing the deal, Allmon wrote, “We are very excited to join New State Aviation Holdings and partner with the folks at AVEX,” said Blackhawk CEO, Jim Allmon. “Our family of companies shares a singular focus: to increase an aircraft’s capabilities to unrivalled heights while maintaining the highest level of safety possible. We look forward to working with Chad [Cundiff] and the rest of the New State Aviation team to further expand our services.”

AVEX is already in that game, for the past year providing sales and maintenance for the Daher TBM turboprop. In a press release announcing the sale, Blackhawk wrote, “AVEX and Blackhawk will continue to operate independently, while working together to expand New State’s aviation offerings. Blackhawk’s management will remain with the Company.” The terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Blackhawk Announces Engine Program for The PC-12

The post Blackhawk Sells Majority Share to Growing Aircraft Upgrade Firm appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

You’ve got the will to get it clean and sparkly again, but the question remains, exactly how do you do that? And is it a job that a do-it-yourselfer can pull off on the weekend, or is it better left to the pros? 

But What Is “Detailing?”

Detailing can mean many different things to many different people. But one thing everyone generally can agree upon is the outcome of your detailing effort will result in the removal of visible and hidden contaminants from the exterior finish, creating a blemish-free shine to the painted surfaces. Detailing the interior deep-cleans the seats, glass and plastics and is just a step below refurbishing, which could include leather replacement, new paint, new avionics, and new panel plastics and the like. 

Refinishing, which is a significant effort undertaken by professionals, begins by removing the aircraft of all its flight controls, prepping the surfaces by stripping them down to the base aluminum (utilizing a chemical called methyl ethyl ketone) and then repainting. Since repainting adds additional weight, the aircraft will need to be rebalanced; everything then gets reassembled and control surfaces tested. Then tested again. This entire process is time consuming, requires skilled technicians and is an expensive proposition. The result, however, is an aircraft that looks like it just rolled off the showroom floor. 

The Pro Treatment

As aircraft owners, we are used to outsourcing many aspects of our ownership experience. Instead of taking the do-it-yourself approach to aircraft detailing, you might want to go the professional route and hire a specialist. You likely do so already with aircraft maintenance as well as fueling, hangar movements and the like. So, why not aircraft cleaning? Doing so on a regular basis will preserve your aircraft finish, always giving you a shiny aircraft to fly, and you might even pick up an extra knot or two of speed without lifting a finger (except while writing the check, of course). 

You may think that outsourcing aircraft detailing is a guilty pleasure. Kind of like listening to Nickelback. But the truth is that some of us do not have the desire, knowledge or time to detail an aircraft. For those who fall into that category, find yourself a reputable aircraft detailer and reap the benefits of professional expertise. 

Additional professional detailing services include paint correction, which effectively removes oxidation, minor scratches and swirl marks. In most cases, this restorative service will also extend the life of the paint. Depending on the condition of the aircraft, expect to invest between $2,000-$3,000 for paint correction services by a professional aircraft detailer. This generally is a one-time cost, typically associated with an aircraft that hasn’t had the luxury of being hangared out of the sun. 

These experts have seen it all and understand the idiosyncrasies of aircraft detailing. From detailing around button-head rivets to working in a well-lit space, their expertise will assure a safe, damage-free outcome that can be easily appreciated. 

Know Your Subject

Most aircraft flying today are comprised of aluminum, composite or fabric. While the latter requires special consideration to maintain the integrity of the fabric, aluminum or composite can generally use the same types of certified cleaning materials without concern. Major certifications for cleaning products are those certified by Boeing, AMS or SMI. Industry experts also recommend referring to your specific manufacturer for any special considerations for recommended cleaning products. 

For those who fly fabric-covered aircraft but still want to keep their bird clean and shiny, it’s recommended to use the least-abrasive cleaners available. Most fabric is painted with a plasticized lacquer, commonly referred to in the aircraft world as “dope.” (Not to be confused by today’s Gen Z definition of dope, which is anything cool and good in life. Although, one could argue that those who fly fabric-covered aircraft are pretty dope as well.) 

By utilizing the least-abrasive cleaners for your fabric airplane, you will minimize the risk of damaging the finish. In fact, many professionals simply wipe down the aircraft with a damp cloth and a mild dish soap like Dawn. Once all the dirt, dust, oil and grease have been removed by this method, then spray on a wash and wax-type product, which will restore the luster to the finish of your fabric airplane. 

No matter what you fly, keep in mind that you will want to tape off some critical areas before beginning the detailing process. Those include static ports and pitot tubes (pros suggest using a large piece of painter’s tape over those ports, which prevents contamination from chemicals and cleaners). It’s also a good idea to tape a long streamer in that place to mark the ports so that those critical areas are not inadvertently left covered after the cleaning process. Not doing so has caused preventable accidents in the past. These “Remove Before Flight” streamers are easily spotted during your walkaround and are a good way to prevent instrument errors caused by covered static ports and pitot tubes when taking the first flight after detailing. 

Most professional detailers will also exclude cleaning under the cowling. There is simply too much that can go wrong while attempting to degrease and clean the engine compartment area. If your engine is dirty and greasy, it is suggested that you speak with an A&P prior to doing any degreasing and cleaning work under the cowl. 

DIY It! 

So, you’ve decided to go the sweat equity route. But where does one start? The good news and the bad news is, there’s more to it than you might think. 

If you are the weekend warrior type, you could break out the proverbial bucket, soap and hose and attempt to do it yourself. Unfortunately, if you treat your aircraft like your car, at the very least, you may be disappointed in the results. 

However, if you approach the do-it-yourself airplane detailing properly, with the proper prep, tools and knowledge, your results will be well worth the elbow grease effort of tackling this as a do-it-yourself task. 

As William Graves from Midwest Aircraft Detailers tells Plane & Pilot, “The do-it-yourselfer should understand the difference between aircraft paint and automobile finishes. It’s important to use the correct cleaning products, along with the correct steps for a positive outcome.” 

Using the dry washing method as outlined provides the most flexibility on where you can undertake the do-it-yourself detailing. Most airports will allow you to do this in your own leased hangar. 

However, if you will be doing “wet washing,” you may find more restrictions on where you are allowed to do so. Each airport has different rules for this type of washing. Some airports have designated areas, referred to as “wash bays,” for wet washing. Others simply prohibit this activity. Check with your airport management for your specific location.

“If you approach the do-it-yourself airplane detailing properly, with the proper prep, tools and knowledge, your results will be well worth the elbow grease effort of tackling this as a do-it-yourself task.”

Inside Clean

When tackling the interior during your detailing journey, you will want to have plenty of microfiber towels, leather cleaner and conditioner, steam, carpet extractor and extractor soap, a detailing brush and a small horse hair brush for getting the dust out of those hard-to-reach places.

It’s best to try to stay away from leather cleaners that contain alcohol or solvents. They can lift the dye and damage the seats beyond repair, especially on those interiors that have been re-dyed. Care must also be taken when using steam to clean. Always test the process in an inconspicuous place on the interior, just to be certain no damage to the original dyed color will occur during the cleaning process.

For fabric interiors, utilize a good-quality fabric cleaner while using a medium bristle brush to scrub the surface of the seat. Any set-in stains can be lifted by using a stain extractor (similar to removing a stain from your shirt). However, it’s best to avoid aggressive deep cleaning of older fabrics, as damage to the fabric can occur, based on the age and condition of the fabric.

If you’ve never attempted to wash or wax an airplane, it’s guaranteed that you’ll be surprised at the amount of surface area and resultant time that it takes to complete the job. 

So, what steps are best undertaken when washing and detailing your aircraft? It all starts with an oxymoron called “dry washing,” which begins with a degreaser to remove any bugs who had the unfortunate timing to be in the same airspace in all three dimensions at the same time as you. In addition to bug removal, a good-quality degreaser will also remove any heavy dust and hard contaminates from the aircraft surface. 

The next step is the utilization of the dry wash chemical. While the dry wash is not actually dry, it’s a special chemical that is safe on most types of aircraft finishes, with results that leave your aircraft looking clean and spiffy. Spray on, wipe off. Sounds easy. And it is. Mostly. Make sure you have plenty of high-quality microfiber towels available during this process. 

At this point, the dry wash will remove any residual remnants of the degreaser and ready the airplane for the next step in your aircraft spa process, the Clay Bar, which is just what it sounds like, a bar of clay specially designed for detailing: a simple hand-held, old-fashioned, typically synthetic cleaning bar that will lift any remaining contaminates, such as industrial fallout, tree sap and the like from the surface of the aircraft, leaving a contaminate-free, smooth surface. As with every step we describe here, test this on a small, inconspicuous area.

Once you have completed the above steps, your aircraft will have that showroom-shine, new-aircraft look. To preserve that shine, you could put the finishing touches on a job well done by adding a ceramic coating or polyreactive sealant. 

One important thing to remember for any product that you choose to use during your do-it-yourself detailing is to utilize cleaning products certified by an aerospace manufacturer. Most industry experts say the most common and one of the most respected certifications for these products is those “Boeing-certified.” Look at the product label for any approved certifications. If you do not see any certifications listed on the bottle, it is not a certified product.

One safety issue to consider with ceramic coatings is static, which can build up more quickly on some planes with this treatment. Check with your aircraft manufacturer to be sure that a ceramic coating will not create any issues with your avionics. Specifically, trade professionals tell Plane & Pilot that static created by the aircraft with no static wicks, especially those flying in instrument meteorological conditions, may be more prone to avionics issues after a ceramic coating is applied. As always, check your POH or manufacturer recommendations for specifics about your aircraft.

After the initial professional dry wash and detailing, the cost of having this service completed on a regular basis will not only provide the satisfaction of enjoying a clean aircraft but also the payback of completing this cosmetic service will preserve the finish and paint quality, allowing for long-lasting enjoyment and prolonging any need to repaint. Depending on your geographic location, budget between $650-$900 for this professional exterior detail.

How often should you have your aircraft detailed? While it truly depends on the type of aircraft and your mission, most professionals recommend every 25-30 flight hours on a typical single-engine aircraft. For turboprop aircraft on 135 certificates such as a King Air, where they are pampered and wiped down after every flight, the recommendation is an annual full detail, with any necessary paint correction with a ceramic or poly coating.

Keep in mind that some aircraft that have spent their entire decades of life in the hot south or southwest sun may not have enough base paint (as determined by a paint thickness measurement test tool) to allow for paint correction. While this is rare, your detailing expert can make a definitive decision on whether paint correction is a viable alternative to a repaint. 

Like anything else, learning how to best detail your plane takes some practice, and it will almost surely be a frustrating experience at times. However, using the right product in the right environment with plenty of time will most likely assure a nice shiny result, money saved and the satisfaction of knowing that your hard work and elbow grease have very visible results. 

Of course, for the rest of us, hiring the professional aircraft detailer and leaving it to the experts is an alternative that not only will save you time but also will give you the peace of mind knowing that your aircraft investment will be well preserved 

Visit the Ownership section of our website for more tips and advice to keep your plane in top condition.

The post How to Detail Your Plane appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

One of the lesser-known regulations regarding maintenance on pilot-owned aircraft is the ability of the owner to complete certain non-complex, preventive maintenance tasks. This may include changing lightbulbs, tire maintenance, oil changes and other rudimentary, simple tasks. In addition, assisting with annual maintenance by helping your A&P remove seats, access panels and the like could also help your bottom line, if nothing else than by cutting down on shop hours needed to do the inspection.

Other than the potential to save some hard-earned cash, why would an owner want to take on some of the maintenance items? Perhaps the best reason is to learn more about your airplane. Or to give you an insight into the multitude of moving parts that creates a symphony allowing you to defy the laws of gravity and fly safely. Maybe it’s just to be a better pilot leveraging your improved understanding of the intricate operation of your aircraft. Whatever your motivation, here’s a guide to help you navigate the magenta line of pilot owner maintenance.

Show And Tell

Before you throw on your coveralls and start turning wrenches, it’s best to get some advice from your willing A&P on how to perform some basic maintenance on your aircraft. And the best way to do that is to work with your mechanic during your next maintenance cycle. Whether it’s for a routine oil change or more complex work, ask them if they would be willing to allow you the opportunity to observe and partake in the process. 

While some shops, especially those designated as a Repair Station, may be hesitant to allow you this chance, many independent shops will be more than willing to offer this experience. Not only will this provide some important education that can prepare you for your first sortie into the owner-pilot maintenance world, but also it will give you an opportunity to see firsthand some of the complexities that can be associated with aircraft maintenance.

However, keep in mind that in doing so, it’s likely that the effort of labor, and therefore the cost, for this maintenance learning session will increase, since your A&P will likely be spending additional time answering your questions, showing by example, and moving a little slower than they would if they were working in their normal independent fashion. Once completed, depending on your comfort level, you may want to complete a second “show and tell” session prior to beginning any owner maintenance solo. That decision will be entirely up to you, based on your level of comfort and confidence. One thing is certain. This step is critical and should not be taken lightly. The time, effort and additional expense to participate in these maintenance sessions as you ready yourself for owner-pilot maintenance will be returned many times over with confidence and cost savings going forward. 

The Tools Of The Trade

It’s been said that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That analogy is never truer than when you are about to embark on owner-pilot maintenance. Having the right tools for the job not only saves time, money and effort but, in fact, could save your life. In speaking with A&Ps familiar with owner-pilot maintenance, we heard the same theme over and over. Get the right tools for the right job. That is to say, plan on investing in the more popular tools of the trade as you take off on your maintenance journey. 

Depending on the type of maintenance you plan on doing, your tool shopping list should include, at a minimum, a good-quality socket wrench set, various screwdrivers, pliers and related hand tools. In addition, don’t skimp on a good-quality torque wrench, safety wire pliers and safety wire in various gauges, along with mirrors for seeing in those hard-to-reach, hard-to-see places. Plan on budgeting somewhere between $500-$1,000 for the purchase of the requisite tools. And, if you don’t already have one, a good-quality air compressor is a must. For those with higher ambitions, jacks and jack stands with the proper adapters, tail stands, tail weights and the like should be part of your airplane maintenance tool inventory. (Keep in mind, there is a newly published liberal interpretation of the regulations that govern owner-pilot maintenance, which gives you more freedom to work legally on more aspects of your aircraft. More on this later.)

So, now that you have your maintenance training sessions under your belt, and you’ve scoured the earth and purchased the best tools for the job, with your tool chests lined up neatly against your hangar wall, it’s time to get your hands dirty, put those tools to work, and schedule out your first owner-pilot maintenance item.

The consensus among A&Ps familiar with this type of maintenance is that pilots new to the game should start small and work their way up to the bigger jobs. Of course, all of it has to be compliant with Part 43 of the regs (see our partial list of allowable preventive owner-pilot maintenance in the sidebar). 

A good place to start is with an oil change. While the task is certainly more complex than that of changing the oil in your 20-year-old Ford, with the right tools, training and basic mechanical skills, you will be well on your way to being an expert with the black gold, bubbling crude crowd. Whatever your first maintenance task is, by all means, take your time. Like when you eat too quickly, you should get ready for some heartburn if you try to speed through your work. You certainly don’t want to be cruising along, soaring with the eagles, and wondering if you put the safety wire on the oil filter. Taking your time and working with the maintenance checklist you developed during your training sessions will give you peace of mind, without the necessity to chew on an antacid.  

Legal Interpretations

But what are you legally allowed to do with regards to maintenance? Okay, so here is where we list the numeric, alphabet soup legalese that permeates the FAA regulations and is as exciting to read as the ingredients on a bottle of ketchup. According to 14 CFR Part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding and Alteration, the holder of a pilot certificate issued under 14 CFR Part 61 (that’s most of you) may perform specified preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot, as long as the aircraft is not used under 14 CFR Part 121 (Regularly Scheduled Air Carrier, most likely not you). 

In summary, pilot-owned preventive maintenance is allowed. Keep in mind that preventive maintenance cannot involve complex assembly operations. The sidebar illustrates some of the preventive maintenance items that you are allowed to perform. However, just because you can doesn’t mean that you should. Whatever you decide to tackle, it should be well thought out and, at a minimum, preceded by a show-and-tell working session with your A&P, and most importantly, it should fall within your level of expertise, capability and confidence in completing the work at a level that will not compromise safe flight.

Also, keep in mind that once you successfully complete the maintenance, the job isn’t done until you make the requisite logbook entries. The entry needs to include a description of the work performed, the date of completion, the signature, certificate number and type of certificate held by the person performing the work. It’s important to note that your signature constitutes approval for return to service only for the work performed and not for unrelated issues.

Why Do It?

If your primary motivation for embarking on the owner-pilot maintenance journey is to save money, you may want to give pause and rethink it. While you might save some money, thriftiness should be merely a contributing factor and not the primary reason to turn wrenches on your plane. I’d argue that a better reason is getting your hands dirty will give you a greater understanding of your airplane’s systems and how they interact. It might even help you foresee potential catastrophic failures by tipping you off to subtle changes in operation that you might have missed had you not become intimately familiar with your bird. And yes, it might help keep your shop bill a little smaller, too. 

The Assisted Annual

What’s it like to be an assistant and an extra set of hands for your A&P when it’s time for that required annual inspection? In the best of worlds, your presence will provide some of the manual labor to assist your A&P with multiple, repetitive tasks such as removing inspection plates, removing seats for access to pulleys, cables and controls, and the like. 

The keyword here is “assisted.” Your presence during the assisted annual is to provide help and support on the non-complex labor-intensive tasks, not to be the perceived subject matter expert. Let your mechanic utilize their skills and expertise, concentrating on the complex tasks as efficiently as possible, reducing the overall labor hours with your contribution, which, in turn, will allow you to save some greenbacks. 

Read “Owner-Assisted Annual” to learn more about how you can help your A&P.

Is It Worth It?

Only you can answer that question. To most owner-pilots who take on some of the allowable maintenance items, the answer is a resounding “yes.” If you are so inclined, possess a reasonable degree of mechanical aptitude, and have followed these guidelines, you could be that rare pilot who not only can handle a crosswind but can also turn a pretty mean wrench. 

To read more about annual inspections, check out “4 Ways To Avoid A Nightmare Annual” and “Going Direct: Annual Airplane Anxiety (And The Daily Kind, Too).”

The post Airplane Owner-Assisted Maintenance appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

There’s no getting around it, though. We have, and often are required to have, insurance for our cars, our homes, our health and our lives. And for those of us fortunate enough to own an aircraft, we need insurance for our airplanes, too. Until recently, aviation insurance was a blip on the airplane ownership radar, and arranging and paying for it were just part of the noise of ownership costs. We received some quotes (more on this later), chose the desired options, wrote the check, and likely forgot about it until renewal time one year later. Rinse and repeat.

Times have changed, however. In recent years, aviation insurance costs have increased dramatically, especially during the COVID years. In fact, as Ryan Konrath from Wings Insurance told Plane & Pilot, “We are currently in a hard market and have been for a while. The two prominent areas hit hard by this current market are owner-flown, high-value aircraft (think Vision Jet, TBM and similar), along with pilots nearing their 70^th birthday.” And because pilots tend to be older than the population as a whole, the flying community is disproportionately affected by this age-related bump in premiums. 

It gets worse, though. In some cases, not only have costs escalated, but some policyholders, even those who in the past were deemed low risk, are now finding it difficult, if not impossible, to get underwritten at any cost. 

My research into this hard market found that up until about three years ago, aviation insurance was soft, meaning we saw low premiums, fewer exclusions and generally more beneficial terms to the owner-pilot for well over seven years. 

Now, insurance companies are in the business of making money. Imagine that. And the abrupt transition to this difficult market was a perfect storm of circumstances, all of them related to the insurance market getting less profitable for insurers. At the same time, we saw a dramatic increase in the value of used aircraft, along with soaring parts and labor costs for those aircraft damaged and requiring repairs or total loss payouts, part of a crunch in the maintenance marketplace due to a high volume of business and a shortage of workers. Even with the same number of claims, the payouts resulted in a higher cost to the insurance companies and therefore dwindling or loss of profits, as reported in the industry-recognized Milliman Report. Throw in catastrophic weather events, such as the March 2020 tornado outbreak in Tennessee—which resulted in more than $90 million in aviation-related claims at just one airport, John C. Tune in Nashville, one of dozens of GA airports hit by severe weather in the past few years—and the picture doesn’t get any rosier. 

In addition to the loss of profits, the investments that insurance companies use for their reserves have not been profitable in recent years. This sparked a need to increase premiums to the insured. Finally, there have been a few insurance companies as well as reinsurers who withdrew from the relatively small aviation market. This withdrawal was a direct result of a loss of profitability. Therefore, there is reduced competition in the current market compared to the previous soft market cycle. This supply and demand also are driving higher premiums and leading us to our current insurance dilemma.

Industry experts know that most insurance trends are cyclical. Angelo Manuele from Blue Skies Insurance Group predicts that our current cycle will likely continue for the next two to three years. With that said, what can an aircraft owner do to improve their chance of insurability or renewal at more reasonable rates? 

For renewals, first and foremost, build upon your existing relationship with your aviation insurance broker or underwriter. This is especially true if you are nearing that magic anniversary of your 70th birthday. If you have been with a company for the long term and haven’t been one to chase small savings with multiple brokers throughout the years, that loyalty should translate to more competitive rates and more likely to be underwritten than those who have hopped to other companies like a frog on lily pads. This becomes especially critical if you have had an accident in the preceding policy period.

In addition, if you have thought about adding a rating to your certificate, there is no better time than the present. Industry experts agree that any added rating, whether that is an Instrument Rating, a Commercial Rating or even a Seaplane rating, will illustrate to the underwriter that you want to improve your aeronautical skills continually. It simply makes you more desirable as an insured. 

Even if you do not want to pursue another rating at this time, then consider completing a proficiency check or some relevant online training. When it’s time for your renewal or time to solicit quotes for an aircraft acquisition, any qualified training or ratings that you have completed will be factored into your insurability and the overall policy cost. 

One of the ways pilots attempt to justify and reduce their cost of ownership is to consider taking on partners in an aircraft. If this is something you are considering, please keep in mind that partnerships on high-value aircraft that have dissimilar partner pilot experience may have difficulty finding a company to underwrite that scenario. 

An example of this could be a high-time, experienced 75-year-old pilot with thousands of hours of accident-free time taking on a 40-year-old student pilot partner with little to zero hours. While each of these individuals could likely get insured on their own aircraft, combining them in a partnership coverage would most probably get denied coverage. The solution? Either find a partner with similar experience or reduce the hull coverage by purchasing a less-expensive airplane. 

So, for those who have found their fantasy airplane and are ready to write that check, now it’s time to get some quotes on coverage. 

First, find yourself a reputable aviation broker. Just like a flight plan, going direct is often best. 

Most in the insurance biz will suggest that you should not use your normal property and casualty company (for example, the company that writes your homeowners insurance), as they simply do not understand the market like a specialized aviation insurance broker. 

Instead, find that qualified aviation broker and either request a ballpark quote without going to market or a true quote by going to the market and getting a specific quote on your particular aircraft. 

While requesting a true quote might seem like the best option, keep in mind that once your broker goes out to the market for your quote, you are effectively locked out of the market by those carriers that provide that broker with your quote. And, in most circumstances, you will be locked into that broker. And there’s no gaming the system. An N-number will be required to get a true quote. 

With that in mind, it is imperative that whatever broker or company you utilize, they should have access to all aviation insurance carriers with their associated underwriters. This will ensure that you will have more options for insurance and will not exclude other viable companies. Remember, there are fewer carriers in the market today than in the past, so the more companies you can get quotes from, the better. In fact, it’s more important now than ever. But at some point, you need to do it. Going to market will give you an exact premium price, with specific terms and conditions, along with any exclusions and the ability to bind coverage.

However, if you have not yet selected a specific aircraft or do not wish to tie up your “N” number in the insurance market at that time, then asking your broker for a general guideline quote would be the best approach. Most qualified brokers can review your experience, along with the type of aircraft you are contemplating to purchase, and give you a price range of what type of bite that annual premium will take out of your wallet. When requesting a generalized quote, it is important to specify to your broker that you do not wish this to go to market yet. They’ll understand what that means and why you’re doing it. 

We are in the throes of a difficult aviation insurance market, and we aircraft owners have limited power over the final outcome of our insurance purchase or renewal. But these guidelines will help you get insurance for your plane at the most reasonable rate possible in today’s difficult insurance marketplace. 

The post What’s Happening With Aircraft Insurance? appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Installing an auxiliary fuel system to eliminate the temptation to land “on fumes” or, worse yet, to exhaust one’s fuel supply short of the destination, is not an inexpensive or easy solution. That said, there are proven, well-engineered aux fuel systems to be had for the most popular planes, and you’ll find that some airplanes on the market have already had them installed, should you be shopping for a new ride. We’ll discuss what’s available and how they work.

To Tank Or Not To Tank

Is installing auxiliary tanks a good idea? It depends on your needs and plans for the airplane. How often do you make trips that stretch your available fuel supply, requiring an extra stop to complete the mission? If this occurs only a couple of times per year, you’re probably better off leaving the plane as it is. Frequent cross-country jaunts, on the other hand, can justify adding tankage.

Will add-on fuel tanks increase the airplane’s resale value? In the case of some short-legged designs that came from the factory with insufficient fuel supply, definitely. But if the stock fuel capacity is adequate for the great majority of potential buyers, not so much. In general, I always assume that spending money on improvements to your airplane gains only half the expense in immediate resale value. The rest should be recovered in the satisfaction of flying it for a few years.

No solution is free of consequences. Hauling an extra 40 gallons of gas around means your payload is cut by 240 pounds, unless the tank installation includes an extra gross weight allowance, which, in some cases, it does. And the system itself adds to the aircraft’s empty weight. More weight means less performance, requiring a recalculation of the takeoff distance and time-to-climb charts. I knew of a tricked-out Cessna 340 that could legally carry only two people if all of its add-on tanks were topped off. In addition, the usable cruise altitudes, and the single-engine ceiling, were reduced as it struggled to climb with the extra load.

However, it’s very comforting to know you’ve got plenty of gas to go the distance. IFR flying is predicated on being able to dodge some weather, shoot an approach to unknown conditions that might not work out, and then divert to an alternate to land with fuel enough to reach yet another airport if that one didn’t work out. That often means you’ll need to take off with six hours of fuel on board just to make a three-hour trip. For an airplane to be considered “fully IFR capable,” it needs to have more than a panel full of radios; it needs to have legs.

Even if you’re operating carefully VFR, do you really want to sit in an airplane for over five hours? Most passengers need a break in no more than three hours, so stopping to refuel isn’t necessarily a burden. Spending the money to install auxiliary tanks that aren’t used that often may be a needless extravagance.

Born Short

Some airplanes, however, were short-changed at the factory, particularly if they’ve been modified with larger, thirstier engines. A modified Cessna 152 or Grumman AA-1 with its horsepower boosted from 108-110 to 150 is a two-hour cruiser with standard tanks. A lot of Beech Bonanzas from the 1940s and ’50s have been modified with larger engines but were left with only 39 gallons of standard fuel supply. The early 250-hp Piper Comanches came with the 60-gallon tanks of the 180-hp version, begging for a tip-tank modification.

Beech’s first turbocharged Bonanza A36, the A36TC, had the 74-gallon tanks of its normally aspirated sibling, hardly enough to keep it aloft for four hours. The follow-on B36TC hoisted 102 gallons, so it’s obvious why so many A36TC’s have had tip tanks added to feed the TSIO-520 engine. Turbine-converted airplanes, like the Silver Eagle P210, Soloy 206 and turboprop Bonanzas, will obviously need extra fuel for the thirstier turboprop engine. 

Given the need, there are options in add-on fuel systems. Wingtip fuel tanks are a commonly seen modification, sometimes gaining a takeoff weight increase to offset some of the payload limitations. Putting extra fuel on the tips is a better engineering option than adding weight in the fuselage, allowing the wing’s span to share the load instead of increasing bending movement at the root. The drag of the tip tank may be offset somewhat by its end-plate effect by controlling tip vortexes. Adding a rear fuselage tank, by comparison, will cause the C.G. to move aft, something to be done with caution because it decreases pitch stability. 

In homebuilt airplanes, the designer sometimes starts out with a simple header tank located forward of the cabin but, as bigger engines are installed, will be forced to add wing root tanks to replenish the suddenly insufficient header tank. High-wing EAB types can dump the fuel in by gravity, while low-wing homebuilts will need a pump to lift the gas. Designers of twin-engine airplanes may resort to wingtip tanks to supplement fuel in the wings, or there can be nacelle tanks added aft of the engines. 

Tanking The Bonanza

The Beech Bonanza, whose incredible production run is closing in on 75 years, is a particularly fertile field for auxiliary fuel tank installations. The original Bonanza 35’s 39-gallon wing-tank fuel system was soon outgrown as horsepower increased in either stock form or through modification. A factory-installed STC added a 20-gallon rear fuselage tank, available up to the 1954 E35. Some of these older airplanes have even had wingtip tanks installed for a total of five fuel sources. The F35 of 1955 introduced auxiliary wing bladders, used until the 1960 M35, after which the optional-but-always-ordered long-range tanks simplified fuel management.

You can forget about adding an aft-fuselage tank to an old Bonanza that wasn’t built with one, so wingtip fuel is really the only way to go at this point. Even the 74-gallon factory tanks in the more modern Bonanzas aren’t always enough, as we mentioned earlier. Two tip tank options exist; General Aviation Modifications (GAMI), Inc., in Ada, Oklahoma, now offers the 20-gallon tip tanks previously made by J.L. Osborne in Victorville, California, and D’Shannon Aviation, Inc., of Buffalo, Minnesota, sells its own wingtip tank system. Both work well, using electric pumps to move the fuel into depleted wing tanks.

The Osborne by GAMI system uses welded aluminum tanks, while the D’Shannon tanks are made of fiberglass, allowing the incorporation of a sight-gauge window to confirm fuel level in addition to the electric gauges. D’Shannon’s tanks are canted slightly, reportedly improving roll control. If you’re purchasing an existing modified Bonanza, either is worth consideration. 

D’Shannon Aviation has had 50 years of experience with its Bonanza tip tanks, which now have a 20-gallon capacity; older installations offered 15 gallons per side. The latest engineering improvements tailor airflow for maximum efficiency, and an aileron-rebalancing kit is included. Reportedly, the tanks help with the Bonanza’s dutch-roll characteristics. The kit price is $13,850, with installation time requiring about 50 hours, plus or minus; we were told that $1,450 of the cost of the kit is represented by the new AeroLED lights that come with it.

Osborne by GAMI tanks have a long history as well, dating back to the 1950s. They incorporate LED lighting, feature flush filler caps and quick drains, and are said to improve aerodynamic efficiency and stability. The kit price is currently $12,995 and will cost about $20,000 installed. 

Adding tip tanks to a Bonanza can result in an approval to operate at higher gross weights. Both the D’Shannon and GAMI tanks’ extra weight allowance varies by model and, in some cases, requires additional weight to be fuel in the tips. However, the matter of increasing takeoff weight may not be entirely tied to a tip tank installation. D’Shannon offers a Genesis STC to extend gross weight, allowing operation in Normal Category certification instead of the Utility Category carried by most Bonanzas. This resets maneuvering speed and other POH parameters.

Navion Fuel Systems

The J.L. Osborne tip tanks, originally sold under the “Brittain” name, were offered for Navions as well as Bonanzas. The Navion’s unique factory fuel system had two 20-gallon wing tanks filled by a single port, with an optional aft-fuselage tank holding an extra 20 gallons. Without the rear tank option, the addition of 20 gallons per side with the Osborne tip tanks gave a very desirable increase in range. In addition, a 250-pound gross weight increase was part of the Osborne tanks’ approval for the older Navions. A total 108-gallon supply, including tip tanks, was available in the final Navion Rangemaster model. 

Piper Comanche Tip Tanks

The PA-24 Comanche is a fine airplane, but for the first three years of its production, it held only 60 gallons of fuel, not quite enough for the 250-hp version, which is the reason an extra 30 gallons became available in auxiliary wing tanks by 1961. On the early Comanches, one frequently sees Osborne tip tank installations holding 15 gallons each, and they are sometimes found even when the optional 90-gallon fuel system is installed. The Twin Comanche is also a favorite target for adding wingtip tanks. According to GAMI, very few of the Osborne systems for Navions or Comanches were sold in recent years. The new owners will support existing installations with parts and tech support for as long as possible.

More Range For Cessnas

While other options have been pursued for adding fuel capacity to Cessnas, most notably Dave Blanton’s 17-gallon Javelin baggage compartment tank in C-170s, the most successful kits are those from Flint Aero in El Cajon, California. Flint tips, as they are frequently called, have been around since 1967 and are seen on Cessnas all over the world. They mimic the look of standard Cessna wing profiles instead of adding a bubble on the end of the wing. As with other tip systems, an electric pump moves the fuel to the standard tanks after room is obtained.

Flint Aero’s kits result in added wingspan in some cases by locating the tank in an extension of the stock wing, which results in improved climb performance. Many Flint tanks, however, can be internal, preserving the original wingspan by removing the close-out rib and slipping the fiberglass tank inside the wing. 

Approval for legacy Cessnas covers the 150/152, strut-braced 170 and 180 series, and some older 210s. These internal tanks add a total of 23 usable gallons at the cost of 34 pounds of additional empty weight. Estimated time required for the installation is 45 to 60 hours. An average cost of the conversion is around $10,000.

Cantilever-wing Cessna 210s, particularly the turbocharged models, can benefit from the addition of Flint Aeros’ wet wingtips. They add a total of 32.5 gallons and increase overall wingspan by 26 inches, which improves high-altitude performance. Pre-1972 airplanes pick up an extra 400 pounds of gross weight. Kit cost is $19,307, with 55 to 70 hours required for installation.

Cessna 182s and 210s are probably the most likely models to carry Flint auxiliary fuel systems, although bush operators also like more gas for their 206 and 180/185 airplanes. The lighter end of the Cessna line doesn’t see as much need for add-on fuel unless bigger engines find their way into the cowling. That said, Skyhawks with standard 42-gallon tanks, rather than later-optional 52-gallon supply (inherited from the Model 175), do find themselves short-changed in even a light headwind.

Other Aux Tank Options

Ingenuity abounds, it seems, when it comes to putting extra fuel into airplanes. Not all approvals are applicable to other aircraft models in a series, and some of the older STCs are no longer supported. If considering the purchase of an airplane with existing aux tank modifications, be sure to get all the paperwork and check out the availability of parts, if needed. 

In all cases, the value of an auxiliary fuel system will be related to the existence of an STC holder that’s still in business. Orphan equipment adds little to resale worth. Check out the opinions on type-club forums to see what other owners say about their modifications. Extra fuel is worth a lot when you’re struggling to get home against a stiff headwind. 

Facts About Refueling Airplanes

The post Adding Aux Fuel Tanks To Your Airplane appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Here are seven engines—and one motor—that changed the game. 

READ MORE: Rotax 912

Gnome/Le Rhône Rotary

Even by the start of the 1910s, it had long been known that weight is the enemy of flight. Power, conversely, was an airplane’s best friend. So, the quest to build ever-lighter and more powerful engines was the critical pursuit as designers around the world sought to create engines to power new, truly practical aircraft. 

Liberty L-12

The Liberty L-12, which emerged toward the end of WWI as a real player, is a fork-in-the-road product, one that marks the divergence of lower-powered engines from engines that would get bigger and more powerful. The L-12 is actually a family of engines, with six- and eight-cylinder models produced, as well. But it was the L-12, a water-cooled, V-12 engine that opened people’s eyes to the potential of gas piston engines. With an engine able to produce 400 horsepower, nearly four times that of the most popular rotary engines of the day, it became clear to designers that the future of aviation power and, hence, aviation itself, was boundless.  

Wright Whirlwind

In light aviation before the era of the air-cooled opposed aero engine, the radial engine was the dominant engine type. This is in part because United States military planners voted strongly for the type, and their hunch paid off handsomely, as a number of radial engines from relatively compact to staggeringly powerful were installed in aircraft from trainers and personal travelers to the biggest bombers. If you want to understand the difference between the potential of the engine types, just picture a radial-engine-powered Beech Staggerwing of 1945 next to an opposed four-cylinder Beech Bonanza of 1945.  

The radial engine that started a flurry of development of this still-much-beloved-but-now-largely obsolete engine type, the Wright Whirlwind was a radial engine whose development dates back to the early 1920s, when the Navy forced Wright’s hand into developing this type. It started as a nine-cylinder radial, but the company soon started building lower-power, lower-weight models of five and seven cylinders, too, for lighter aircraft. 

The advantage of the radial engine was that it was air-cooled, and with the cylinders right out there in the open, they naturally got plenty of air, which eliminated a dangerous failure mode, the loss of liquid cooling, whereas air cooling had no such risk factor; as long as you were flying, the airflow was there. 

There were disadvantages, too. Radial engines have a big footprint, so they are inherently more draggy than inline or V-configuration engines, and as they got larger and more powerful, they were forced toward larger applications, too.

Radials by Pratt & Whitney (the Wasp Junior), Continental, Jacobs and Wright itself, with its Cyclone series, were all mass produced for aircraft between the wars and, at a lesser rate, beyond, being outfitted into some of the most beautiful and prized light aircraft ever built before giving way to opposed engines and a new, more modern world of light personal flying. 

Continental A40 Piper Cub Engine

The increasingly urgent need for greater speed and payload demanded that commercial and military applications go with large radial engines or, less frequently, inline or V-configuration designs. But for light aircraft, those layouts didn’t translate well, as they were relatively heavy, complex and expensive to produce. The engines that caught on were the series of four-cylinder opposed, air-cooled models built by Continental Motors and based on the Piper (nee Taylor) Cub. The 40-hp, magneto-spark engine weighed around 155 pounds, and its compact shape made it the perfect small engine to power what would be known within a few years as a groundbreaking design, C.G. Taylor’s E2 Cub, which morphed into the much-beloved Piper J-3 Cub. 

It was clear from early on that 40-hp was passable but not ideal, so the A40 grew into ever-increasingly powerful and only slightly heavier versions, the ultimate expression of which were the 90-100-hp C-90 and A-200 models, which produced an additional 50-60 horsepower for only an additional 15-25 pounds of dry weight. 

A very similar engine, the Lycoming O-145, emerged shortly thereafter, and it, like its Continental competitors, was perfectly suited for the light planes of the day, including the Piper Cub, into which the Lycoming was also fitted. It’s hard to find details on how many of these engines were produced during their heyday, but the numbers likely are far greater than 100,000, perhaps, apiece. 

Together, the two companies dominated the light plane engine marketplace for decades, and they still provide most of the engines for new-manufacture light aircraft today, all of which are based on these original designs. 

Lycoming 540/Continental 520/550-Series Engines

It might seem odd to break off the Continental and Lycoming six-cylinder engine models from the four-cylinder air-cooled opposed models they were based upon, but their impact on light aviation has been huge. The two companies’ star engines, the 550-series for Continental Aerospace Technologies and the 540-series for Lycoming, have given developers of high-performance single- and twin-engine aircraft a go-to motor for delivering reliable power for some of the most noteworthy aircraft of the modern era, including the Beech Bonanza, the Cessna 210 Centurion and the Cirrus SR22. While conventional wisdom holds that these engines have stood still as time progressed, that’s not really true. The technology behind them, including turbocharging and greatly improved manufacturing processes, have made them more reliable and powerful over the years. 

Rotax 912

One of the most revolutionary engines in light aircraft history, the Rotax 912 has gone into hundreds of different models of certificated and sport aircraft. A four-cylinder, hybrid cooling (air and liquid) engine, the first 912, introduced in 1989, boasted 80 horsepower of smooth, efficient power that helped catapult sport aviation to another level. Previously, two-stroke engines, many of them manufactured by Rotax, ruled the segment. The company has manufactured an estimated 75,000 aircraft engines, many of them derived from their popular engines for snowmobiles. 

The 912 was launched the same year, 1989, as a new, advanced two-stroke design, the 582, which is still in production. It was the pinnacle of Rotax’s line of two-stroke engines designed for ultralight and very light sport aircraft. It has been standard equipment on more than 225 different ultralight and very light aircraft. 

Producing 65 horsepower, the engine is a tidy fit for two-seat ultralights (most of which are simply small Experimental aircraft and not technically “ultralights” at all). For those who don’t want to mix oil and fuel, the 582 features optional oil injection. The liquid-cooled engine has an integral reduction drive because its normal rpm range of power—max power is delivered at 6,500 rmp—is far too fast for prop efficiency. 

The introduction of the 582 gave developers of very light aircraft a low-maintenance, more reliable and more powerful alternative to existing small engines, and in so doing, it helped launch the Light Sport Aircraft segment and regulations. 

But it was the 912 that helped deliver on the promise of sport aviation. Since 1989, the company has developed follow-on models, including more powerful naturally aspirated and turbocharged models that today with the 915 iS go up to around 150-hp. 

The 912 is around 33% more efficient than conventional gas piston engines, and it can run on auto fuel, as well as 100LL. 

Thielert Centurion 1.7

The latest update to light GA aircraft that has had much impact was the Thielert Centurion 1.7, introduced by Diamond aircraft in its DA42 (then called the Twin Star) in the early 2000s. The engine is an extensive conversion of a Mercedes automobile engine. It was the first successful diesel aero engine, though in this case, “success” is a word to be used with numerous qualifications. 

The four-cylinder, 135-hp, turbocharged, Jet-A-burning engine has numerous advantages, but its most compelling is its great fuel efficiency, in many applications up to 40% more efficient than gas piston engines of similar power rating. It also, as you just read, uses Jet-A fuel, which is widely available around the world and in many places far cheaper than avgas, not to mention that Jet-A is naturally unleaded. And because it’s turbocharged, the engine maintains its rated power to far higher altitudes than its gas piston competitors can. 

But the introduction of the engine was a disaster, with low time-before-overhaul times for critical components, poor reliability on top of that and spotty support, at least initially, from the airframe maker. Thielert itself declared insolvency, and Diamond took the extraordinary step of creating its own engine manufacturing subsidiary, Austro Engines. Thielert engines, now much improved, are produced in the United States by Continental Aerospace Technologies, though they have not had a strong uptake rate in the retrofit market, at least not yet. But given the aero diesel engine’s promise and demonstrated advantages over gas piston engines, many still believe its day will come at last. 

Electric Engines

At least to some degree, it’s not accurate to call electric propulsive devices “engines.” They are actually “motors” because, unlike engines, they don’t produce the energy that they convert into motion. Then again, the terms have become almost interchangeable, to the point that MIT’s guidance on the subject is that the two terms are, for all intents and purposes, interchangeable these days.  

The future of flight at this point looks to be electrically driven, so it would stand to reason that electric motors will be the new objects of study and fascination for pilots in the same way that Merlins and Double Wasps have been up to now. But it’s not likely to happen. Electric motors take electricity that’s stored elsewhere and translate it to a spinning prop. They are dirt-simple compared to even the most rudimentary gas piston engine. Maybe the new figureheads of aviation will be awesome new technology batteries? Yeah, that’s not likely to happen either, though it doesn’t mean we won’t be happy to have them in our lives. 

Six Modern High-Performance Piston Singles

The post Our Top 8 Game-Changing Airplane Engines appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

A couple of the most important issues are landing speed, crash worthiness and flight stability.

Often, just looking at the wing will tell you a lot. For instance, a small wing, in span, chord and airfoil thickness, provides higher cruise speed but at the expense of having higher stalling and landing approach speeds.

Under Part 3 of the old Civil Air Regulations, certificated light single-engine airplanes had to have a landing-configuration stall speed no higher than 70 mph, now translated to 61 knots in Part 23 of today’s Federal Aviation Regulations. This figure can be a few knots faster with credit given for crashworthy components, like seats that can take high G loadings. The idea is to make a single-engine airplane that, if that one powerplant gives up the ghost, can be landed somewhere less than ideal at a speed where the occupants are very likely going to walk away, or at least live to tell about it.

Experimental certification removes this and most other limitations, allowing EAB designs to top 300 mph with optimized big-bore engines and whisper-thin wings, but their pilots must accept the reduced crashworthiness of 100-mph landing speeds, which might work fine at your home airport but amounts to rolling the dice when it comes to off-airport landings.

Similarly, the FAR standards for seat structure, cockpit visibility and entry/egress are not mandated for experimental-category airplanes. Such non-conformity is the reason EAB aircraft will have the passenger-warning placard displayed, though in practice the passengers will depend on the pilot to explain what it means.

Stability and spin recovery are other design areas where the FAA’s certification standards are rigorous but can be overlooked by the designer in the name of the desired characteristics, again usually speed. Some very fast homebuilts we’ve flown have little or no pre-stall buffet and behavior where the nose will drop from 10 degrees above the horizon to 50 degrees below in a heartbeat. Some of these very fast designs are also subject to a secondary stall, again something you won’t find on a Cessna 182.

Rather than competing with factory-built airplanes, the custom creations of the EAB category simply represent an alternative path to personal flight. The important thing is that you understand not only the reasons for the tradeoffs but also the nature of the additional risks you and your passengers will need to accept in the process.  It’s probably no surprise that the most successful homebuilt kits are planes that have design and behavior that, if not certifiable, is not far from that mark, so their pilots have the homebuilt advantages and also some reasonable expectation of good handling and reasonably low stall speeds.

Read More: The Homebuilt Aircraft Advantages And Other Considerations

The post Tradeoffs Of Experimental Amateur-Built Aircraft appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

And then someone will say, “What about homebuilts?,” and I feel eyeballs turn toward me, as the aged arbiter of aviation argumentation. Truthfully, I’ve only flown a few dozen homebuilts, out of the hundreds of amateur-built experimental designs out there, so I’m hardly an expert. But I am nevertheless emboldened to render a broad-based opinion, although it’s probably delivered sharply enough to offend some of the hearers in the group.

“Homebuilts are!different,” I’ll begin. “There are no surprises, and very few breakthroughs, when it comes to light aircraft design. Every airplane is a compromise; if you want more of this, you have to give up some of that. Homebuilts simply cut across some of the barriers imposed by mass-market appeal and FAA certification standards.

“The freedom to build and fly something that doesn’t meet standard certification simply means that an airplane licensed in the experimental-amateur-built category (EAB) will probably fly differently than the normal/utility category bus you rent from the FBO. Its performance is usually optimized toward a certain criteria that were important to the designer and builder, and you’ll see sacrifices in other details to achieve that end.

“The go-like-hell crowd will subscribe to the Great Big Engine/Little Bitty Airplane concept, something that would have never been available in the certificated marketplace because not too many people want to go fast at all cost. Or, in other cases, experimental-aircraft builders will shift toward a small, low-cost alternative engine, as a basis for flying reasonably fast and cheap. That engine won’t be seen in a certified airplane, and the plane might be too small to fit much of the population.”

But, They Say It Will!

By now, one of the assemblages will say, “But what about the XYZ SuperFlash? It does 200 knots on 10 gph and is fully aerobatic to boot.” I’ll have to issue some disclaimer about the difference between the 200 mph stated in the brochure and the 230 mph implied by his statement, and then note that we have to analyze what is meant by “fully aerobatic.” Like full-IFR, that claim is frequently subject to interpretation.

At the foundation, I posit, is the whole point of the EAB category. Homebuilding is about freedom; freedom to build what you want, using whatever materials you choose, to achieve whatever point you want to make. The category was established to support building airplanes for personal education and enjoyment rather than commercial practicality. Because homebuilders are free to build, modify and change their uncertified aircraft as they wish, repeatability is not guaranteed. If the advertisement says “200 mph,” it probably means one specimen may have achieved that benchmark at least once, but an average clone, likely modified with extra elbow room and weight, won’t get there. Claims and representations, in EAB aviation, are somewhat speculative targets. It’s not fraud, per se, it’s just that a design’s projected performance, empty weight, build time or cost is based more on best-case intentions rather than an average of numbers achieved out in the field.

In enjoying experimental amateur-built aviation, we are free to exchange our building efforts for a factory’s production line, cutting the cost considerably unless we try to achieve showplane perfection. However, to obtain these savings, one has to discount the hours and years spent building. If you have the time and skills, it’s a great tradeoff.

And then there’s freedom of expression. A homebuilt airplane is like a blank canvas; we can sketch out pretty much anything we want, putting our own stamp on a design, so long as it doesn’t endanger passengers or the populace below. Even CNC-engineered, kit-supplied airplanes are open to modification, within reason, so if we want extra-thick seats, smoke-tinted canopies, drooped wingtips, etc., EAB allows this freedom.

Enjoying this flexible approach to aviation results in aircraft that don’t always fly predictably from one example to another, and they probably work well for one purpose and not for others. Aircraft design, and modification of a design, is all about compromise; as we said, to get more of this, you have to give up some of that.

So, What’s The Difference?

If there is a generalization to be made regarding EAB aircraft, it is that control response will likely be more sensitive than what we experience in standard production planes. Flight controls can utilize unconventional creations like overhanging center-cockpit stalks or side-mounted sticks, with regular joysticks prevailing over control yokes. On the first takeoff in a homebuilt, you should be ready to use light input pressures, anticipating that the controls will be more sensitive and powerful than what’s allowed in certificated airplanes.

Tailwheel landing gear is more fashionable in homebuilts than in airplanes built for the mass market, and typical characteristics like diminutive size and faster touchdown speed result in such homebuilts having runway handling that’s a notch above the Citabria you might have used to get your tailwheel endorsement. Practice some taxiing and braking before you launch off for the first landing.

Don’t expect to find a certified flight instructor ready to do a checkout in your newly acquired homebuilt. The average CFI knows little about the type or category involved and often can contribute nothing but an evaluation of your ability. If the aircraft is a popular kit airplane that has factory support with training available, you’d be well advised to spend the money to travel to the plant or bring the factory pilot to your location. Among unsupported designs, seek the counsel of other owners and builders. Even if the homebuilt airplane has dual controls, there often is only one set of brakes, and rear-cockpit instrumentation may be lacking, further impeding a checkout.

Because of the customized nature of EAB aircraft, it is vital to go over all the paperwork and logs before flying. Operating limitations are issued when the special airworthiness certificate is awarded and, when the initial flight Phase 1 test hours were being flown, documented data should have been gathered to supplement the often-sketchy information in brochures and blueprints. Weight and balance limitations can be critical for a small homebuilt; the specific numbers for the individual airplane should be in the paperwork, providing the basis for working out best and worst cases before flying. Particularly beware of aft-CG loading’s effect on stability.

It’s critically important to watch for “customized” features when flying someone else’s handiwork. Fuel systems seem to be particularly attractive targets for tinkering, as extra tanks and valves are often installed, perhaps requiring transfer pumps or maybe just gravity feed. The gauging and venting need to be understood as well as the order of usage from individual tanks.

Watch out for unlabeled switches and knobs. In vintage homebuilts, a feature may be removed  by simply disconnecting wires or cables, but the old control will be left in place, replaced by a newer one somewhere else. All inoperative items should be so labeled, and every control needs to be identified by title and function (“Cabin Heat-Pull Hot”). Before flying, know what does what and put temporary reminder labels in place to keep things straight. Know which way the trim knob turns for nose-up and what the limiting speeds are for the flaps and gear rather than relying on memories of a briefing.

Keeping The Chain Intact

The original builder knew the characteristics and features of his or her airplane intimately, but this tribal knowledge may have been lost. As the distance of years and ownership changes add layers of insulating confusion to a homebuilt, some test flying may be required to re-establish a basis for safe operation. Document the findings in well-logged entries, both for the airplane’s records and your own notes, as well as for the benefit of whomever you might sell the plane to down the road.

It is important to understand that experimental amateur-built aircraft are individuals. Because they did not flow down a frozen-type production line, each one bears the stamp of its maker as well as the designer. The wonderful freedom to fly a creation of one’s own hands carries with it a responsibility to other persons who may someday fly what began as your personal aircraft.

Tradeoffs Of Experimental Amateur-Built Aircraft

The post The Homebuilt Aircraft Advantages And Other Considerations appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

That question led to another: How could I become knowledgeable enough to make my own assessment? The answer that came to me was to become an Airframe and Powerplane mechanic, or A&P. If I did, then could I not only do my own assessment, but I could perform a lot of the maintenance on my fantasy aircraft. This sort of thinking sat in the back of my mind a few years ago until I actually started to investigate where I might be able to work on an A&P.

I ran across the Gavilan Junior College A&P program at an informational booth at a local airshow. California’s junior college programs offer students low-cost vocational training or academic training covering the first two years of college. Students can earn either an associate degree or vocational certification or transfer to four-year colleges and universities.

Gavilan College is the nearest junior college to me with an A&P program. Its main campus is in Gilroy, and its aviation maintenance program is at the San Martin Airport, a few miles north of the main campus. After attending a pilots’ meeting at their facility and securing my family’s support, I began juggling my work schedule to begin classes in the fall semester.

The Gavilan aviation maintenance A&P program has three basic components that align with the FAA’s requirements in the General, Airframe and Powerplant categories. Certificates of completion are issued for each of these areas that allow the student to ultimately become a licensed A&P. Students normally take General and Airframe during the first year and Powerplant the second year. All of the programs combine formal study and hands-on shop learning on a daily basis.

At the end of the first year, a student can take the FAA General and Airframe written and practical exams and begin working as a certificated Airframe mechanic. The reality of the job market, however, is that the complete A&P is required for most maintenance jobs. The time demands of all courses are precisely recorded daily on electronic and physical time clocks to ensure FAA training requirements are met.

In the first-year General course, I learned to safety-wire, identify and order parts properly, research the AD package for an aircraft, and basic electrical skills. The shop work focused on simple hand-tool tasks, such as cutting threads, tube flaring, precision measurements and other skills that, for me, were either pretty rusty, or I had never seen before.

This past year, I took Powerplant in the fall semester because it accommodated my work schedule. Having now completed the first semester of Powerplant, which covers reciprocating engines, I really feel a sense of accomplishment. The second semester of Powerplant covers turbine engines. The classroom phase covers the fundamentals of reciprocating engine cycles, fuels, lubrication, cooling, spark generation, generators and alternators—all the things that are needed for an engine to run properly.

However, it was the lab work that was quite dramatic and what I really came for. In the accompanying photograph is the Lycoming O-320-D2A engine that was completely mine to tear down, measure, reassemble and get into running status. This project took about six weeks and was followed by teardowns and reassembly of starters, magnetos, generators, alternators, and float and pressure carburetors.

The learning curve was fast and steep, but our instructor’s continuous guidance and hands-on help made it work. All students completely disassembled their own engines. Figure 2 shows my engine with the case split. Inspection according to the Lycoming engine repair manual showed several parts were out of dimensional tolerance. Since these were unairworthy exercise engines, students researched various parts catalogs to determine the appropriate replacement parts that would be needed if restoring airworthiness were the goal. In addition, students determined AD compliance for their engines.

After reassembly, with fortunately no parts left over, I mounted my engine on a test stand. Next, I added spark plugs that I had cleaned and gap checked, bolted on a test prop, timed the magnetos, added oil, and moved the stand to a location where the engine could be safely test run. It actually started as well as similar Lycoming engines I’ve used in rental 172s.

Further short test runs were made to check magneto drops, engine fluids and more. Rolling the test stand back to the hangar was immensely gratifying. This may all sound easy, but not everything went smoothly. On my first remating of the case, I left out one bearing half, necessitating re-splitting the case and going through the remating again. Surprisingly significant amounts of brute force were needed to accomplish some of the reassembly efforts on the cylinders. This was all part of the learning. I was continually afraid to exert a lot of force in tasks I hadn’t tried before. This probably results from a lifelong tendency to overtorque, overtighten and break things. It became an area where the instructor’s guidance was invaluable.

In two years, students become aviation professionals under the guidance of Department Chair Herb Spenner, who instructs the General and Airframe courses, and Powerplant instructor Paul Agaliotis. Both are long-term A&Ps and previous graduates of the Gavilan program. Spenner completed his A&P after significant management positions as an electrical engineer, so he brings an added dimension to electrical work. In addition, Spenner serves as an FAA-Designated Examiner. Agaliotis’ prior career at a major air carrier also adds significantly to the real-world knowledge he brings to the students.

With the current hot job market for A&Ps, there have been recurrent visits to the school by major carriers, helicopter operators and the business aircraft market, which offer great opportunities to the Gavilan graduates for well-paying jobs with good futures. Although Gavilan and other programs make continual outreach efforts, it has proven a challenge to convince high school counselors to help students think outside the typical college track.

So, now I know a lot about what’s under the cowling. More importantly, I’ve gained skills that will make me a better pilot and a much more knowledgeable communicator to maintenance personnel in the future. Whether I can complete the A&P at an extended pace is an open issue, but I am very glad to have come so far with the aid of Gavilan, Spenner and Agaliotis.

If you’re interested in exploring A&P training programs, you can check with your local FSDO, or simply use Google to research what’s available. Like Gavilan, most programs will probably be more than willing to show you their facilities and explain your options.

The post A Pilot Takes An Engine Course appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.