When flying regularly takes a course over inhospitable terrain or open water through instrument meteorological conditions in the dark of night, that’s when many pilots depend on the safety and security of having a second engine in case of trouble. Today’s multiengine piston aircraft are extremely capable, and with advances in both engine and avionics technologies, even an engine failure can be a managed incident with a safe conclusion. Let’s take a look at a few of the twins available in 2020.

If an owner-pilot wants a safe and stable IFR platform with a well-deserved reputation for high quality and a smooth ride, Beechcraft’s Baron G58 is a smart choice. With two Continental IO-550-C engines, Garmin’s G1000 NXi avionics suite, room for six people and convenient aft cargo doors, the Baron 58 provides twin redundancy and high-quality workmanship.

Piper Aircraft’s Seneca is a strong competitor to the Baron G58, delivering similar performance with a pair of Continental TSIO-360-RB engines. Lush club seating for six and the latest G1000 NXi avionics strengthens an already-strong reputation as a leader in the light-twin category. The proven durability of the Seneca over the years has made it popular for multiengine flight training.

Diamond Aircraft builds two very capable, stylish and efficient multiengine aircraft with their DA42-VI and seven-passenger DA62, both burning jet-A in their Austro diesel engines. With a big emphasis on safety engineered into both models, the DA42 and DA62 deliver dependable performance, exquisite interior details, and a panel featuring Garmin’s G1000 NXi flight deck with standard three-axis GFC 700 automated flight-control system. Did we mention both aircraft also have a modern beauty on the ramp as you walk up and climb on board through the large gull-wing doors?

Check out more: 2020 Flying Buyer’s Guide

If multiengine flying on a smaller budget fits your needs, Tecnam’s P2006T may be the perfect choice that delivers the efficiency and safety of two Rotax 912 S3 engines. This high-wing light twin carries four people in style while burning just 9 gph, with good short-field performance. Tecnam’s P2012 Traveller is a much larger model, with two Lycoming TEO-540-C1A engines providing enough power to carry 11 people. Fixed gear and a robust interior cuts maintenance costs, helping to make the P2012 Traveller a great business airplane or short-hop carrier for commercial operators—and a new surveillance version was just announced.

Whether it’s chasing hamburgers in a fun machine, landing on a sandbar to fish for trout, or flying friends, family or colleagues over long distances in comfort, today’s new single-engine and multiengine models serve the entire gamut. All it takes to put yourself in the left seat is to determine your mission, compare the available makes, models and features, and make your decision.

This story appeared in the November 2020, Buyers Guide issue of Flying Magazine

The post Expanding Your Envelope to Multiengine Piston Airplanes appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Cape Air celebrated its 30th anniversary in a special way last week, with the arrival of its first Tecnam P2012. The regional airline signed on to be the launch customer in the United States for the multiengine airplane in a collaborative process that goes back several years.

Cape Air Senior Vice President, Fleet Planning & Acquisitions, Jim Goddard, described in a press conference at NBAA-BACE this week the journey the airline began as it recognized the limited lifespan of its mainstay Cessna 402 twins. “We entered a sustainability program for that aircraft while the search went on for a replacement,” said Goddard. The airline sent out dozens of requests for proposals, and gave Tecnam the nod with an order of 100 airplanes back in 2015 (now 20 firm orders plus options on 90 that they plan to move up).

The teams had spent nearly two years creating a “dream aircraft,” for which Tecnam founder Professor Luigi Pascale was the primary designer. Luigi Pascale passed away last year; Tecnam Managing Director Giovanni Pascale performed the aircraft’s first test flight on July 21, 2016. With 11 total seats that could make a 9 plus 1 or 9 plus 2 crew configuration, and customized baggage access, the P2012 suits the standard Cape Air mission (with 9 passengers) perfectly. The new FADEC-actuated Lycoming TEO540C1A engines are critical to the success of the design, greatly simplifying power management, as they automatically adjust the fuel/air mixture and timing on a continuous basis—and the ability to utilize alternative fuels. The Garmin G1000 NXi stocks the panel with one 14-inch and two 10-inch displays.

Goddard noted the $391 to $405 per hour operating cost sealed the deal for the airline, with the airplane’s ability to complete a 500 nm trip at 155 knots at 10,000 feet, burning 110 gallons with a 3:32 estimated time enroute. Tecnam plans a production rate of 25 in 2020 and 35 in 2021.

The first two P2012s came to Cape Air via a transatlantic flight ending on October 12, with one piloted by Giovanni Pascale and Elio Ruilo, and the second crewed by Vito Preti and Antonio Covino. The second two aircraft will arrive in early 2020. Cape Air crews are currently undergoing training on the new model, with entry into service planned for December.

The post Tecnam Delivers First P2012s to Cape Air appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Get a close-up look at the details of the Tecnam P2006T by viewing the following photo gallery.

The post Tecnam P2006T in Detail appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Other than the slight speed change, there was really just one difference from what I had become accustomed to in the 172. I had to manage two throttles in my hand. I wasn’t flying a single-engine airplane. I was flying the P2006T Tecnam Twin

The Tecnam Twin P2006T is an all-metal, high-wing FAA Part 23-certified airplane powered by two 100-horsepower Rotax 912 S3 engines. The airplane is produced by Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam, based in Capua, Italy — a town founded sometime around 600 B.C. and located less than 14 nautical miles north of the historic city of Naples and about two hours south of Rome. Several aviation universities and a company called CIRA — Italian Aerospace Research Center, Capua — are located in this aviation-saturated region, which also houses some of Tecnam’s subcontractors.

Just as Capua dates far back in human history, Tecnam’s story began comparably early by aviation standards. Tecnam’s president and primary airplane designer, Professor Luigi Pascale, or “Il Professore” as the Tecnam employees amicably call him, began designing airplanes with his brother Giovanni in 1948. Through the decades, the company has been a true family business. Unfortunately, Giovanni died several years ago, but his son, Paolo, serves as managing director of Tecnam.

Tecnam has become known for its very light, single-engine airplanes, but Luigi Pascale is no stranger to twins. He designed the very successful P68 while the family company was known as Partenavia. At first glance, there is no doubt that the six-seat airplane originated from the same genome as the Tecnam Twin. Partenavia was sold to the Italian government in the 1970s, but the P68 is still produced by Vulcan Air, a company located in Naples that bought the rights to the airplane.

For several years, the Pascale brothers focused their efforts on building parts for several airplane manufacturers — Boeing, ATR, Learjet, Falcon and Dornier, to name a few. In 1986 they founded Tecnam and, once again, began designing and manufacturing light, single-engine airplanes.

Why would an airplane manufacturer consider producing a new multiengine airplane when several single-engine airplanes on the market produce the same speed with only one engine to feed and maintain? Operators who prefer the redundancy of having two engines and training facilities with students needing multiengine training and hours to further their flying careers demand twins. But, traditionally, the need for two engines has come at great expense.

Tecnam set out to design an entry-level twin that is more affordable to buy and operate than the fewer than a handful multiengine airplanes in production. It was a great departure from the company’s focus on single-engine, light airplanes — mostly in the light-sport category — to put to market the FAA Part 23-certified Tecnam Twin.

So far, the project appears to be a success. Even though the P2006T is a relatively new airplane, Tecnam has already delivered more than 75 twins to more than 30 countries. There are about 100 orders still to be satisfied, and the production schedule is up to about 50 to 60 airplanes per year.

The Design

In order to be successful, the airplane needed to achieve a good power-to-weight ratio. With a total of 200 hp between two engines, the airplane had to be light. And there is no denying that Tecnam was successful in that regard. In fact, the maximum takeoff weight for the P2006T is only 2,601 pounds — well over 1,000 pounds less than its closest competitors’.

Several design parameters have helped keep the airplane light. The landing gear is attached to the fuselage instead of the wings, enabling a lighter design for the wing structure. But what really makes the Tecnam Twin light is the choice of engines. At only 160 pounds each, including lubricants and coolants, the Rotax 912 S3 engines are at least 25 pounds lighter than other small piston engines.

The Rotax engines’ small size allows for smaller engine cowls, which reduce not only weight but also drag. With total fuel burn of only about 10 gallons per hour, the Rotax option doesn’t demand a large fuel capacity, which provides an additional weight advantage. Nearly 26 gallons of fuel can be stored in each fuel tank, located in the wings outboard of the engines. That makes the total fuel capacity a little over 51 gallons — about half that of other light twins, which is logical since the fuel burn is also about half. More about the engines in a bit.

According to Tecnam, the light but solid construction has earned the P2006T a 140,000-hour life limit on the airframe — a major plus for high utilization environments, such as flight schools.

The airplane flown for this story was an early, pre-certification model with an empty weight of 1,817 pounds. A useful load of 784 pounds doesn’t sound like much, but with a fuel capacity of only 51 gallons, the airplane’s payload is still 478 pounds. Since the fuel burn is only a total of 10 gallons for both engines, you could still fly a family of four with two young children and gear for about 2.5 hours. And the weight capacity is plenty for aerial surveying and flight instruction. The luggage compartment has a weight capacity of 176 pounds and is accessible by moving one of the rear seats and folding it forward.

Though the passenger area is smaller than in typical multiengine airplanes, there is plenty of legroom for the nonflying occupants, since there are only two seats instead of the typical four in the aft cabin. There is also lots of legroom and elbowroom in the cockpit with an impressive 48-inch cabin width. Ingress and egress are quick and easy through a large door on the pilot’s side — a great safety advantage also provided for rear passengers with the additional door in the back.

The elevator and ailerons are controlled by push rods, with internal cabin cables linking the controls to the rods. The same arrangement controls the stabilator. There are no fixed notches for the electrically actuated slotted flaps, but lines on a round gauge indicator show the position for 0 degrees, takeoff and 40 degrees of flaps.

Trailing-Link Gear

I can partially credit my smooth landing to the trailing-link gear — a rare feature for light twins but a common one in jets. The landing gear is electrohydraulic, powered by an electrically actuated, reversible pump, and the main gear rotates 90 degrees inboard during retraction. After the rotation, the wheel is hidden under the flat belly of the fuselage, while the gear struts are housed in unique-looking side pods that could be mistaken for steps. The pods are designed to give the gear a wider stance for improved ground stability.

The gear extension speed is a little on the low side at 93 knots, but Lubore says that figure will be increased. Emergency gear extension is triggered when a handle (hidden behind an access door on the pilot’s side floor) is pulled. The handle activates two valves — one opens the emergency system and the other releases nitrogen from a canister, which blows down the gear. Phil Solomon, CEO of Tecnam North America, says there is sufficient pressure to retract and lower the gear around two or three times.

The nosewheel is steerable through push rods linked to the rudder pedals, making the airplane very easy to steer on the ground.

The Engines

Part of the reason the Tecnam Twin is so light despite its spacious cabin is its engines. Tecnam stayed with the engine manufacturer that powers most of the certified LSA and ultralight airplanes the company offers — Rotax. Approximately 3,000 Rotax engines have been delivered in Tecnam airplanes, says Christian Mundigler, manager of Rotax Aircraft Engines & Kart Business. Much of the business comes from the ultralight and LSA world, and the company, which is based in Gunskirchen, Austria, claims to have delivered more than 150,000 airplane engines since 1973.

The 100-horsepower 912 S3 engines that power the Tecnam Twin originate from the 80-horsepower 912, which has been on the market for more than 20 years. While the 912 S3 is called a 100-horsepower engine, Lubore says it puts out 98.6 hp for five minutes and 92.5 hp during cruise.

Other than being light, a great benefit of using the four-cylinder, four-stroke Rotax engine, particularly in international environments where 100LL is nonexistent, is its ability to run on either avgas or mogas — even ethanol-based fuel. Auto fuel is cheaper and the Rotax prefers it. The engine requires an oil change only every 50 hours and a gear-box inspection every 800 — intervals that are reduced to 25 and 600 hours if you burn 100LL. Electronic ignitions give the engine its spark, so there is no need for timing adjustments.

The little engine spins as high as 5,800 rpm, but a gear box reduces the rate at which the constant-speed MT propeller spins to nearly 2,400 rpm, which makes the engine more efficient and quieter.

The high rpm generates a lot of heat, but the engine is liquid-cooled. Solomon says the water-cooled heads eliminate potential shock-cooling issues and allow for much shorter fins to cool the cylinders so the barrels can be significantly smaller. This allows for a much smaller engine cowl, which produces less drag.

Solomon also says the small size has tighter tolerances, which reduce the wear on the engine and make it less expensive to overhaul. A typical overhaul on a certified Rotax runs about $15,000. One prior complaint on the Rotax was its low TBO, but with proven reliability, the TBO for the 912 series has been raised from 1,500 to 2,000 hours. More than 40,000 Rotax 912 and 914 engines have been produced to date.

One complaint in the United States has been the lack of Rotax service facilities. The issue is being addressed, and Mundigler says 1,000 independent Rotax maintenance technicians in North and South America were trained just in the past two years.

Avionics

When it comes to avionics, the philosophy at Tecnam is flexibility. In a market where most manufacturers are focusing strictly on glass cockpits, Tecnam leaves the choice up to the customer. The airplane I flew was equipped with Garmin’s G950 — essentially an identical twin of the G1000, the only major differences being the certification (both are certified, but the G1000 is certified as part of the airplane while the G950 is not) and the fact that the integrated GFC 700 autopilot is not yet available for the G950. (It is, however, a work in progress.) In the meantime, the P2006T offers the S-TEC 55X autopilot. An extra benefit of adding the S-TEC 55X is that electric trim is included — an option that can be added without the autopilot. The manual trim control is a large wheel between the seats. Rudder trim is electric — located above and left of the control yoke.

The engine gauges are analog, and customers can choose to go the full analog route for the flight instruments as well. They can even add DME and ADF, if they so choose. “You can get anything you want, within reason,” Solomon says.

The high wing design helps keep the cabin cool, and the elevated engine mount position prevents prop strikes in case of a gear-up landing. However, with the Rotax engines, a propeller strike is not necessarily a costly event. Other than having to replace the propeller, the engine needs only a simple inspection of the gear box for a cost of about $300, Solomon says.

I jumped into the spacious P2006T cockpit, and after running through the pre-start checklist, it took no more than a fraction of a second to get the engines spooled up using the overhead ignition switches and starter buttons. The ease of start-up was both surprising and pleasing, as was the quietness of the cockpit. Lubore attributed the audible comfort to the twin’s insulation and the quiet engines.

The power quadrant contains three sets of controls — throttles, propellers and carburetor heat. Mixture is self-regulating.

With throttles and props forward, we climbed out at around 80 knots — blue line in the P2006T — and saw a nice established climb rate of 1,050 fpm. Lubore explained that there is no performance advantage above 10,000 feet and the airplane’s sweet spot for performance is between 6,000 and 8,000 feet msl, as it is for most normally aspirated airplanes. Once we leveled off, the throttles stayed full forward. With the Rotax, there is no reason to reduce the power during cruise as long as the tachometer reads below 2,265 rpm and the engine gauges stay within safe limits.

Full-power flight with no mixture adjustment makes fuel planning easy as well. While there is no display for fuel burn, Lubore claims it’s unnecessary. He says the airplane burns no more than six gallons per side on the climb and five gallons during cruise. For a total of 10 gallons per hour, you’ll get 145 knots cruise speed. “I have tested the airplane over and over and get consistent fuel burn and speed,” Lubore says.

With push-rod-activated controls, the airplane has a very direct control response, making it a joy to fly. Stalls are at least as uneventful as in any single-engine trainers I’ve flown, with the buffet coming a little over 50 knots with full flaps. Single-engine climb performance in the P2006T is quite impressive at about 250 fpm. Single-engine service ceiling is published as 7,500 feet.

Engine restart requires electrical power. The air force on the propeller is insufficient to overcome the high-compression design of the engine. This fact caused the FAA to require Tecnam to insert a backup battery during the Part 23 certification work — an effort that was concluded on Nov. 10, 2010, nearly a year and a half after the European Aviation Safety Agency certified the airplane. Another change required by the FAA was to move the carburetor heat controls to the right, where the mixtures are generally located. The carb heat controls were originally placed in the middle — as was the case with the airplane I flew for this report.

Among the first to take delivery of a P2006T when the FAA certification was finally completed was Airline Training Solutions, a family-run professional pilot-training facility at Craig Airport (CRG) in Jacksonville, Florida. The school recently opened its door with the concept of training pilots from day one in a multiengine airplane. Program director Hayden Malone says the concept would not have come to fruition without the Tecnam Twin. “We bought the Tecnam Twin because it was the only airplane that would fit our role,” Malone says. “It was strictly a business decision, but once we got it we also found we love it.”

Malone and the students at ATS have put nearly 300 hours on the twin since he took delivery at the beginning of the year. “It’s a well-built airplane and we’ve had no problems with it,” he says.

The Tecnam Twin is likely to be a very successful multiengine trainer. Another good purpose for the P2006T has been aerial surveying. An Austrian company, Airborne Technologies, has developed the Tecnam MMA (multi mission aircraft), which received an STC from EASA earlier this year. A multisensor camera system can be extended through a large hatch in the floor, similar to a bomb bay.

While the seating capacity, useful load and speed limit the practical use of the P2006T today, with a few planned upgrades the airplane could become a winner in other areas of use. The gross weight is expected to increase to approximately 2,710 pounds soon, and the targeted empty weight for a standard equipped airplane is 1,723 pounds. This weight change would give the Tecnam a satisfying useful load of close to 1,000 pounds.

There is no de-ice system, but Tecnam is working with TKS to install its weeping wing system — a process that the company hopes to complete in 2012. Tecnam is also working on a factory-installed air-conditioning system. A portable system is currently available as an option.

With a few improvements in the making, the Tecnam Twin has a good chance to attract customers far beyond the training and aerial surveying market. Its ability to burn any type of mogas gives the airplane an edge in the international market. And with the increased acceptance of the Rotax in the United States, the airplane may do well here too.

Check out our Tecnam Twin photo gallery.

Also check out this digital exclusive for more Tecnam P2006T coverage****.

The post Tecnam P2006T appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

My flying buddy that day was Cessna regional sales manager and central Texas neighbor Chris Lee, who has hundreds of hours in Cessna Corvalis airplanes — for the record, I don’t know what the plural of Corvalis is, either. Even though we both live in Texas, we met down in Orlando, Florida, for the flight, since that’s where the airplane, which needed to be brought back to Texas for some demo flights, was situated. (What we really wanted to do was fly the Corvalis all the way to California, where Chris and I would be attending the AOPA Summit in Long Beach later that week, but we’d be forced to go on the airlines for the second half of our trip.)

Our mission was simple: Fly from Orlando to Houston, just the two of us and a bunch of suitcases and bags of gear, and we wanted to do it when we wanted to and how we wanted to. On our way to the airport we stopped at Starbucks and I grabbed a large coffee, which I simply brought with me aboard the airplane. Yeah, there are cup holders, which, along with countless other smart touches, make a huge difference.

In the broadest terms, our experience was not atypical of GA pilots flying for transportation. We got to pick our airport and our departure time and our routing. We even got to pick our company. To top it off, we got to do the flying. You can’t say any of that for the airlines.

In less broad terms, our experience was special. The Corvalis is a fast, rangy and comfortable airplane, one that is about as good as a nonpressurized single can get.

In fact, one of the typical customers who buys a Corvalis is downsizing from a Baron or a cabin-class Cessna piston twin. While the Corvalis has only one engine, it does offer a great deal of other redundant features, performance that one-ups a new Baron, outstanding cabin comfort, air conditioning, ice protection and more.

Corvalis Lineage
The history of the Corvalis is the stuff of soap operas, with certification drama, takeovers and even hailstorms. Because of the recession, even Cessna’s stewardship hasn’t completely ended the drama. When Cessna purchased the program out of bankruptcy a few years ago for $20 million, it got a tremendous bargain, because that price was a small fraction of what it would have cost Cessna to develop its own composite single — it had, in fact, attempted to do just that with its now-abandoned NG piston program. When it bought the Corvalis, the airplane was being built in Bend, Oregon, and Cessna initially kept production there. Shortly after the acquisition, I visited the factory and got a chance to see how the airplane is built. I was, in short, amazed by the quality of the workmanship and the attention to even the smallest detail.

Unfortunately, a few months after that trip, the global economy went into crisis, and with it, the sales of high-end piston powered singles tanked. Cessna soon closed the Bend factory and moved production to its existing single-engine factory in Independence, Kansas. Today, the Corvalis is assembled there, though some composite components are manufactured in Cessna’s state-of-the-art facility in Mexico.

When it bought the Corvalis program, Cessna got a pair of relatively mature airplanes in the naturally aspirated Columbia 350 and the turbocharged Columbia 400, airplanes that, while conceived differently from any previous Cessna, fit the Wichita airplane maker’s high design standards. The airplane is a light, strong — it’s certificated in the utility category — impeccably engineered airplane that delivers on its performance promises.

Competition
For most folks, choosing a new personal transportation airplane isn’t an easy thing to do. There are, it’s true, far fewer choices than there used to be. Back in the 1970s, there were more airplane companies with more models at just about every price point. Today, there are relatively few airplanes that fall into that category, and very few twin-engine airplanes that do. Moreover, the number of airplanes that fit into the Corvalis TT’s segment — high-performance, turbocharged four-seat singles — has just two main players, it and the Cirrus SR22T. (The Mooney Acclaim, an all-metal single, is a close match too, though it is on a production hiatus.)

Like it or not, the Corvalis has forever been linked throughout its production life with the Cirrus SR22. Today, the airplanes remain the most popular high-performance singles on the market. And they are remarkably similar in features and performance.

The Corvalis TT is a turbocharged, four-seat, carbon fiber airplane with just about everything on it that you might expect on a no-holds-barred luxury single. It comes with the Garmin G1000 cockpit featuring all the goodies you’ve come to expect, including synthetic vision, the very handy keypad, traffic, terrain, engine monitoring, a sophisticated climate control system and the smooth and capable Garmin GFC 700 autoflight system. You also get built-in oxygen, Cessna’s Evade electro-expulsive deicing system and premium interior details.

The engine in the Corvalis, a Continental TSIO-550, used to be a distinguishing feature, but now Cirrus offers essentially the same engine in its SR22T.

As well-equipped as it is, there are a few noteworthy goodies missing on the Corvalis. The displays in the Corvalis are the 10.4-inch-diagonal screens, which are smaller than the Perspective displays in the Cirrus SR22T by a couple of inches. While the Corvalis is available with two forms of ice protection, the Evade electro-expulsive or the TKS wet wing, neither system is approved for flight into known icing. Nor does the Corvalis have a parachute, though how much of a factor that is, if at all, depends on the pilot.

In all of those areas, the latest SR22 has more options. On the Cirrus, you can get the FIKI anti-ice/deice system. Its Perspective cockpit, a version of the same G1000 system as in the Corvalis, features 12-inch displays, and the Cirrus, you might have heard, comes with a whole-airplane recovery parachute as standard equipment.

The Corvalis is a faster airplane at most altitudes, though not by a lot. They are both roomy airplanes and very comfortable to fly in for long legs. Both have available XM Weather (and entertainment), built-in oxygen and Rosen sun visors.

The side controllers are quite different. The Corvalis has a true side stick, which moves just like you’d expect a joystick to move, while the Cirrus has a side yoke, which moves like a little yoke, with forward and aft and side-to-side pull — placed over against the sidewall. The Cirrus side yoke is second nature to me, since I’ve flown with it for many hundreds of hours, but the Corvalis side stick is a more pleasing device to use. The Corvalis also handles better, with better control harmony and a more fluid feel than in the Cirrus, though to be honest, I don’t typically spend a lot of time hand-flying either airplane.

The Corvalis also has speed brakes, a slightly higher first-notch flap speed and 10 gallons more fuel, for better range than the SR22T by 100 nm or more. I also get the feeling sitting in the Corvalis that it is a well-built machine. This sense is the result of a hundred little things in the interior, the arrangement of the switches, the fit and finish of the panels and the carpeting, and the shape and curve of the glass.

Speaking of doors, the portals on the Corvalis are very nicely executed. They open up on cartridges, and you can taxi the airplane with the doors open for air-cooling. Cessna has leather straps hanging from the door handles so that shorter pilots can still reach the doors to close them from a seated position. Once you pull the door closed, you then secure it by moving the very substantial handle to the closed and locked position. This moves a pair of steel pins into position on either side of the door, giving you a very positive closing indication. In fact, I think it would be impossible to close the door halfway and have it come open again, as long as you seat the handle properly.

The digital environmental-control system on the Corvalis is easy to use. Just pick a temperature and fan speed, and it takes care of the rest. You can keep the air-conditioner running on takeoff and landing, and on our warm fall-weather flight, the AC kept the cabin very comfortable.

Traveling
On the ramp the Corvalis is much sportier than it seems in photographs. In many ways, it’s analogous to a luxury performance automobile: fast, relatively nimble, stylish and still remarkably utilitarian.

Chris and I arrived early on a Tuesday morning to pick up the airplane and take it back to Houston. We threw our bags in back — no need to swipe the card for the extra $50 fee, thank you very much. The rear baggage compartment of the Corvalis — or should I say compartments since there’s a “hat” rack too — is large and can hold 120 pounds, 100 on the main floor and 20 on the hat rack.

We did a thorough walk-around, climbed aboard, donned the Bose and taxied out. The sun had been up for an hour, the pattern was pretty quiet, and before long we were on our way and cleared to 12,000 feet toward the northwest.

On departure, I held runway heading and pointed the nose up to maintain 110 knots, a speed that kept us climbing well in excess of 1,500 fpm as we headed up in steps toward our final altitude, FL 240. The Corvalis doesn’t have a yaw damper, but it does have an electric “rudder hold” feature that will hold the approximate current rudder input in the climb. It’s a nice muscle-saving feature, though I wish there were a yaw damper, even if it would add some weight.

Like any TSIO-550-powered single climbing at full power, the Corvalis TT burns a lot of fuel in the climb, around 35 gallons per hour, and that’s one of the least desirable things about climbing high. You burn a lot of fuel getting up there. A reduced power climb burns less fuel but takes more time. It’s a tradeoff depending on if you’re getting enough of a push, and on that day heading west and with very light winds, there was no good reason to climb to 240, except to see what it was like. Moreover, you probably hate the mask as much as I do, which is a lot, though I’ll put up with it for 70 knots on the tail. On many trips, 20 knots would make it worthwhile. Four knots? Not so much.

In cruise, the Corvalis is a remarkably comfortable platform from which to while away the hours while assessing the progress of the flight. There’s a full contingent of tools for both purposes. The XM Weather is there to get the latest updates on cells, fronts and conditions at the destination, as well as wind reports. Because I fly in the teens a lot, the winds aloft feature on XM has become a favorite of mine, Even in descent, the G1000 comes in handy, allowing me to dial in the desired altitude at any given point in the plan and calculating a rate of descent to that point, or just letting the GFC 700 autopilot do it for me.

As I said, the airplane hand-flies very nicely. On approach to Houston’s David Wayne Hooks, I flew the approach — we broke out of the broken layer at around 1,500 feet. The Corvalis is a delightful airplane to fly on final, stable and responsive.

And the airplane is just as nice to land. I was aiming for the first turnoff on 17R, which we made easily despite it being just more than 1,000 feet down the runway. And it was my first landing in the airplane in about a year.

The level of performance and style you get with the Corvalis TT comes at a price: around $650,000 very nicely equipped.

What the Corvalis has going for it is a combination of features, from the most sophisticated, like synthetic vision, to ones you’d never notice, like redundant attach points on every control surface, carefully crafted gull-wing doors that close easily and positively, lumbar supports on the seats, push tube controls and the electrically inflatable door seals to quiet the cockpit. Everywhere you look with the Corvalis you see another way that its designers worked in ways both large and small to make it safer, more comfortable and more durable. And for lack of a better word, all of those features add up to an unmistakable sense of quality, which, in my book, is the ultimate feature. For more information on the Cessna Corvalis visit www.cessna.com.

For more photographs of the Corvalis and its redundant systems, download the January iPad editon of Flying available on the App Store.

The post Cessna Corvalis TT appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Mark,
I continue to enjoy reading your newsletter. There’s always good info, including the flying tips.

One of the most critical phases of flight, of course, is on takeoff where an engine failure forces the pilot to make a split-second decision on whether to continue the takeoff or keep it on the ground. The tip I got from FlightSafety International made that decision a no brainer.

The technique they taught was to keep your hand on the throttles until you raised the gear and then to move your hand from the gear switch to the prop controls. If you lost an engine while your hand was on the throttles, you simply pulled both throttles back and got on the brakes. If your hand was on the prop controls when an engine quit, you feathered the offending engine and continued your takeoff. Decision making doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Hope this is a tip you can use in your newsletter. Keep up the good work.

—Wayne

Thanks, Wayne.

Call to action: If you have any tips of your own you’d like to share, or have any questions about flying technique you’d like answered, send me a note at enewsletter@flyingmagazine.com. We’d love to hear from you.

The post Simple Solution for Twin-Engine Phobia appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The post Half a Century of Beechcraft Barons appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I had the chance to fly both airplanes recently at Diamond’s North American headquarters in London, Ontario, Canada, and the airplanes are both clear improvements in numerous ways over the original Thielert-powered twin that Diamond launched in the United States in 2005.

How Diamond arrived at the point that it’s selling not one but two distinctly different versions of its all-composite twin is a complicated tale. But it’s one that speaks volumes about the agility of the Austrian airplane maker when faced with challenges, the risks and rewards associated with riding the cutting edge in airplane design, and the difficulties potential buyers face when assessing those risks.

Twin Star: History of Innovation
In developing its Twin Star light multiuse twin, Diamond created that rarity of rarities: a true, clean-sheet airplane. While the long, high-aspect-ratio wing is similar in spirit to other Diamond designs and in keeping with its sailplane ancestry, there’s nothing derivative at all about the DA42. (The name Twin Star, by the way, is no longer used by Diamond.)

This is why, when it was developing the twin’s design a few years ago, the company seemed torn over the choice of powerplants. The conservative call was the 180 hp Lycoming IO-360 powerplant, a conventional avgas-burning four-banger that Diamond had been using for several years in its DA40 Diamond Star single. The innovative — and somewhat risky — call was to go with a new engine, an automotive turbodiesel powerplant repurposed for aviation use.

As we all know, Diamond went with the diesel, the Thielert Centurion 1.7 liter, a Mercedes conversion done up for aviation use by German company Thielert Aircraft Engines. While the Lycoming was well-known and trusted, the Thielert engine had some irresistible advantages. Despite the fact that it was only a 135 hp engine, compared with 180 hp for the Lycoming, the German diesel was, well, a diesel. And because it burned jet fuel, it could be fueled just about anywhere and, in many parts of the world, for far cheaper than airplanes requiring 100LL. And because it was an engine designed to be computer-controlled on the Mercedes sedans into which it was intended to go, computerized engine control, “fadec” in aviation parlance, was a natural, as well. So pilots would get a number of pluses: easy starting, no-brainer engine management and silky smooth power across the curve.

What sealed the deal, though, was fuel burn. In a day and age when fuel costs drive flight training decisions, the Thielert engines turned back the clock, giving fuel burns of less than 10 gph — combined — for typical training-scenario power settings. When I got my multi ticket in the DA42 at European American Aviation (EAA) in Naples, Florida, a couple of years ago, the flight school had just taken delivery of its second DA42 and was eagerly awaiting a third. The airplanes were flying nonstop, earning money for the school and requiring very little in return. And EAA’s experience wasn’t unique. For a time, Diamond couldn’t make the twins fast enough.

Unfortunately, we all know that that happy scenario quickly devolved into near chaos. The engines turned out to be too good to be true, and the ongoing engine maintenance costs, which few looked at carefully enough, turned nightmarish. In particular, the Thielert’s clutches were problematic. Not only did they require very regular overhaul — every 300 hours, in fact — but owners also had to send them back to Germany for the work, an expensive and time-consuming process.

The final straw came in early 2008 when Thielert, already under investigation from regulators for financial improprieties, declared insolvency, leaving the future of the Thielert engines, and that of the DA42, in jeopardy. The company parted ways with its founder and was taken over by a government insolvency administrator, who as part of the recovery plan declared warranties on existing engines null and void.

Shortly thereafter, facing an outcry from its DA42 owners, Diamond officially abandoned the Thielert engines, all the while putting pressure on the administrator to help DA42 owners keep their airplanes flying by lowering the prices of spare parts and overhauls.

Around that time, Diamond announced its intention to develop a Lycoming-powered DA42 model, on which it had already completed considerable work during the DA42’s initial development.

However, it was still crisis mode for DA42 owners. The high prices for Thielert’s engine parts, and their poor availability, left many DA42s grounded for lack of parts or parked for economic reasons.

Many DA42 operators called for Diamond to make them whole — either by honoring the engine manufacturer’s original warranty or by paying the cost of converting their Thielert airplanes to alternative power once those conversions were available.

While it was not obligated or able to do either of those things, Diamond has worked, despite the recession, to create new power options, as well as create what it says are attractive purchase options for many operators who want to trade in their Thielert-powered DA42s for newer models.

Some Solutions
What Diamond was able to accomplish in the past 18 months — successfully launching and certifying two new versions of its twin during the worst economic downturn in 80 years — seems nothing short of miraculous.

There’s other good news. The insolvent Thielert company still won’t cover previous engines under warranty, but it has reduced the prices of parts for those engines and cut overhaul costs substantially.

It might be moot. Many owners of Thielert DA42s will surely switch to an alternate engine, as Diamond now has approval to retrofit the Austro or Lycoming engine models into Thielert airplanes.

Classic Gas Piston and New Diesel Engines
Given its disastrous experience with the Thielert diesels, some have asked why Diamond took the remarkable step of deciding to design and produce its own automotive derivative turbodiesel powerplant. The answer is easy. Its owners fell in love with fadec and low-fuel burns and turbo power and jet-A. Diamond always felt that the problem with the Theilerts was not so much in the conception as in the execution. If it could do the next diesel engine right, it would have a winner.

As Thielert did, when Diamond created its own engine — the Austro AE300 engine is technically a product of sister company Austro Engines — it started with a Mercedes automotive turbodiesel but went with a 2-liter model with an iron block and a higher compression ratio. The Austro engine, while heavier than the Thielert by a total of around 175 pounds for the pair, is more powerful, putting out 170 hp up into the flight levels. Austro/Diamond also went a different route with the gearbox, opting for a directly integrated gearbox with a torsional vibration damper, as opposed to Thielert’s clutch mechanism model. The TBO on the Austro engine is initially 1,000 hours; the goal is to increase that to 2,000 hours. Austro’s torsional dampeners have a 300-hour inspection interval, but that procedure takes less time and costs less money than on the Thielerts. Diamond expects the interval to increase over time, as there are no wearing parts in its dampener. The prop is the same three-blade MT prop used on the original.

The two diesels make use of the same fuel cooling system, as well as the same main and auxiliary fuel tanks and lines, though the Austro has fuel pumps for takeoff and landing. Both engines are fadec equipped, and the operation is similar, though the preflight safety checks are slightly different.

You can tell the difference between the three engines simply by looking at them. The Thielert and Austro cowlings have big oval inlets below the prop. The Austro engine has the turbocharger installed along the side, so there’s a noticeable hump on the starboard side. (Because the props on the Austros are conventionally rotating — that is, they both spin the same way — the hump is on the same side on both right and left engines.) The Lycomings, which are mounted farther forward for weight and balance considerations, are completely cowled and have their inlets just along the side of the cowls.

To mitigate the impact of the heavier Austro engines, Diamond increased the max takeoff weight of the NG model by more than 250 pounds, to 4,189 pounds, compared with 3,935 for the L360. The NG’s CG range is fairly narrow too, and flight schools will get used to adding ballast to the rear baggage compartment when flights involve just two front seat occupants. With the weight increase, the NG has a full-fuel payload with standard fuel of 865 pounds and with extended fuel of around 720 pounds — not bad at all for a twin powered by 170 hp engines.

DA42 L360: Surprising Lycomings
After flying the Lycoming-powered DA42 for the first time in September, I can say the Lycs are nothing short of a fantastic fit for the DA42. Flight schools, which have ordered dozens of the twins, apparently feel the same way. The higher power combined with the lighter weight gives you acceleration you can feel in a dramatic way: The L360 has better takeoff, climb and landing performance, and its slow-speed performance — both on one and two engines — is better across the board. And with its counterrotating engines, the L360 has another safety advantage as there’s no critical engine, meaning that regardless of which engine fails, the right or the left, there’s no discernable difference in performance or behavior.

In the pattern, where much of its training duties will be done, the Lycoming-powered DA42’s easy handling, lower weight, improved pitch feel and enhanced power output add up to happier students. You also get lower takeoff and landing distances and better climb, not to mention better landing manners, than the NG or the original.

The L360’s rate of climb is very strong for a light twin, both on two engines and on one. Best rate of climb by the book is better than 2,000 fpm, and cruise climbs are quick affairs, as well. At 5,000 feet with one engine shut down and the prop feathered, we were seeing a 300 fpm climb rate with excellent handling, which is almost twice as good as book figures, though we were admittedly flying on the light side. Still, the power advantage over the original DA42 is evident.

The other huge upside to the Lycoming model, at least in terms of sales appeal, is that it is not a diesel. Burning extra fuel, they reason, is a small price to pay for the kind of operating-cost certainty that comes with the Lycoming engines. For some, however, the higher operating cost is a downside. The 20 to 30 percent higher fuel burn represents several gallons per hour increase over an Austro-equipped airplane. So max range is about 30 percent less than the NG model. And the L360 doesn’t match up in cruise with the NG at higher altitudes, though it is a decent performer. At 8,000 feet, we were looking at nearly 160 knots true on 17 gph total. At that altitude, there was already a dropoff in performance, as the normally aspirated engines can no longer produce full-rated power. At 10,000 feet, for example, we were getting only around 145 knots true on just over 20 gph total.

In terms of equipment, the L360 can be outfitted with just about everything the NG will come standard with, though its Garmin G1000 flat-panel avionics system has yet to integrate the excellent GFC700 autopilot, and it doesn’t yet have Garmin’s SVT synthetic vision displayed on the PFD. Instead, the basic-but-solid Bendix/King rate-based KFC 140 autopilot comes standard. For training, it’s an appropriate choice, though private owners, I’m guessing, will be begging for the Garmin box.

Of course, there are levers galore in the L360, two each for the throttles, props and mixtures. Depending on how you look at it, this is either a good thing or a bad thing. Flight schools will love it, I think, because it will give students the chance to learn about engine and fuel management. Individual owners, I’d wager, will prefer the single-lever fadec power of the Austro diesel.

DA42 NG: New Generation Diesel
The Austro engines have everything the Thielerts had: fadec power control, easy starting, smooth operation, turbocharged performance and excellent specific fuel consumption. And the additional 70 hp, compared with the Thielert model, gives the NG greatly improved takeoff, climb and cruise performance.

Plus, you get updated G1000 avionics, including the GFC700 autopilot. It’s a top-notch panel.

Starting the NG is a one-touch affair — well, it’s a twin, so make that two touches. Turn the key to the on position, and the engine simply spins to life. The electronic engine control units (EECUs) take charge of the prop and engine settings. The single levers are used simply to set the percentage of power.

On runup, you test the EECUs by setting the power levers to idle and depressing the two test buttons. The system automatically increases the rpm to 1900 and runs the engines through a series of tests, verifying the functioning of the EECUs and the prop governors.

On takeoff, the acceleration is clearly more brisk than with the Thielert model, and the initial climb is stronger too. With power set to takeoff (both levers full forward), we were seeing a cruise climb rate of around 1,200 fpm, which we could have increased by several hundred feet per minute by raising the nose a few more degrees.

At cruise, the NG steps away from the L360. We were getting close to 180 knots at 12,000 feet, and at 10,000 feet, we were seeing 175 knots true, all on around 17 gph total. At 8,000 feet, we were truing out at 170 knots at 16.6 gph, compared with 155 knots and 16 gph for the L360. Diamond test pilot Rob Johnson, who flew with me in both airplanes, says he regularly sees speeds in the NG of better than 180 knots at the same fuel flow. For a twin-engine airplane, those are remarkably frugal fuel flows.

The NG, like its Lycoming-powered stable mate, slows down easily, and its low-speed handling (with both engines operating and with one inop) is similar to the original DA42, thanks in part to the addition of VGs on the wing roots and gap seals on the elevator trim tabs. I think it would be a fine training airplane.

But instead, Diamond seems to be positioning the NG as the personal transportation choice. As such, it will come standard with a better avionics package than the L360, and many customers will opt for the platinum trim package, which includes custom paint, upgraded leather interior and premium carpet, electrically actuated adjustable rudder pedals, sun visors and lumbar adjustable front seats. Diamond hasn’t announced the U.S. price of the NG model yet, though it says it will be slightly more than the L360. But with typical options (meaning almost all of them), including Garmin XM satellite weather, TKS known-ice anti-icing system (the biggest ticket item) and Avidyne active traffic, among others, the price will probably be around $750,000, with a list price of around $600,000 for an L360 typically with standard equipment for a training mission.

Considering the nightmare experience of many Thielert owners, will NG buyers be taking another big risk by opting for the Austros? It’s a fair question, and I don’t think anyone has an answer yet. So far, the Austros are performing admirably, but the fleet leader engine (in a DA40) has only around 250 hours on it, so it’s too early to say for sure. But in its design of the AE300, Austro specifically tried to overcome the known issues with the Thielert engines. And it’s important to remember that this time the engine vendor is not a third party but Diamond’s own sister company.

For more information about the new DA42 models, visit diamondair.com.

The post Diamond Twins Reborn appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The post Diamond Twins Reborn appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The AE300 diesel engine will not only go into new-production DA42 Twin Stars, 40 of which were already on the production line at Diamond’s Austria factory, but Diamond and Austro plan to offer a retrofit solution to existing DA42s that are equipped with the Thielert Centurion 2.0 diesels. Thielert declared insolvency last year, throwing Diamond’s Twin Star program into disarray. Diamond has not yet announced the details or timing of any retrofit program, though owners of Thielert-powered airplanes are surely eager to learn of them.

The success of the certification program is a major coup for Diamond. In reaction to Thielert’s woes, Diamond Aircraft Industries, Diamond Aircraft’s parent company, went to work developing a new alternative, its own diesel engine, to power the DA42, bringing the product to market less than a year after the insolvency filing of Thielert.

The new engine, which produces 170 horsepower on fuel burns similar to the 135 hp Thielert diesel, will improve the Twin Star’s performance across the board. It will feature an initial 1,000 hour TBO, with Diamond planning to up that to 2,000 hours as the engines gain experience.

Diamond planned to start deliveries of the new model immediately.

The post New Twin Star Certified appeared first on FLYING Magazine.