More than anything else, it was my subscription to FLYING Magazine, beginning with the January 1955 issue, that created a thirst for additional knowledge and achievement. I was not alone. A lot of builders and dreamers were entering the private aviation industry in that era, helping transform it from a time of tube-and-rag taildraggers to sleek transportation aircraft.

In the mid-20th century, America was uniquely positioned for the creation of a modern noncommercial aviation system. There was a need for airplanes that could transport families and business people across the vast distances of North America, we had an airport of some sort in nearly every community, and our personal freedom and finances encouraged the utility of light aircraft. The inefficient war-surplus airplanes and vintage taildraggers leftover from the 1940s no longer sufficed. We were ready for easier-to-fly, purpose-built airplanes.

And experienced, visionary heads of aircraft companies were ready to provide them. As with the automotive industry, we had the Big Three—Beechcraft, Cessna, and Piper—plus eager-to-compete smaller companies like Aero Commander, Bellanca, Champion, Maule, and Mooney. As the 1960s arrived, new models and improved veteran designs showed up in the marketplace. Likewise, a new term, avionics, was coined, referring to a fresh crop of highly capable radios for our instrument panels, thanks to transistors and compact power supplies that shrank space requirements. 

• READ MORE: FLYING Magazine Announces 2025 Ultimate FLYING Giveaway

Powerplants also underwent development. Fuel injection and lightweight turbochargers were added to piston engines, small turbojets encouraged the concept of business jets, and new medium-horsepower turboprops filled the gap between 300 hp opposed recips and burly radials. By 1970, GA shoppers were able to buy anything from aerobatic two-seaters to pressurized, cabin-class twins. Available business aircraft ranged from turboprop executive airplanes to fanjet-powered corporate barges. Airports and airspace routings had been improved to accommodate GA’s growth. This laissez-faire ’60s atmosphere kept the industry’s engineering departments working overtime.

The declared goal during the frenetic ’60s and ’70s was to create “gap fillers.” Every company wanted to provide an airplane to suit every need and keep customers loyal to its brand. Piper had a fleet of Cherokee derivatives, from the 2+2 Cherokee 140, the everyday 180 and beefy 235, and the stretched Cherokee Six, leading to retractable Arrows and Lances, and even twin-engine Senecas and Seminoles. Piper’s earlier high-performance Comanche line was retained through 1972 in single and twin versions, with normal and turbocharged engines. And the company also offered heavier twins in various piston-engine Navajo and turboprop Cheyenne models, all while still building the venerable Aztec twin—not to mention the agricultural Pawnee airplanes and an occasional Super Cub.

Beech Aircraft also tried to fill every gap in the market with a Beechcraft. It expanded its line  downward from the three Bonanza models with a lighter Musketeer series, offered in trainer, cruiser, and retractable variants, and it even fielded a light-twin Duchess, all the while offering Baron twins in as many as five styles, plus the sexy Duke and cabin-class Queen Airs. Meanwhile, Beech’s King Air turboprop line grew longer and more capable, even leading into commuter-airliner variations. To round out its offerings, Beech acquired upscale business jets from Hawker and Mitsubishi. 

Cessna, meanwhile, outdid everyone, developing model after model to plug any sales leak in its line. At one time in the ’70s, I counted 22 singles and 13 twins among its offerings, in addition to the burgeoning Citation business jet lineup. Whatever you needed, from two-place trainer to pressurized single, from push-pull “safe twin” to back-door executive twin, agricultural airplanes and bushplanes, Cessna had them all. There seemed to be no end to the swelling Cessna tide, which amounted to 50 percent of the industry’s unit output during the boom times.

At the same time, little Mooney expanded its basic M20 retractable into longer and more powerful models, Rockwell developed single-engine and ag planes to supplement its piston and turboprop twin-engine line, Bellanca/Champion offered a half-dozen two-seat tailwheel airplanes to compliment its Viking retractables, Grumman was making two- and four-seat airplanes plus a twin-engine model, and Maule tweaked and stretched every possible variation from its tailwheel utility aircraft. 

Present Day Flying

Today, we are still enjoying the fruits of these developments in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s.

Refurbished examples of the golden age general aviation airplanes sell for many multiples of their original sticker price, while the limited-production, new single-engine airplanes are astronomically unaffordable. The promised introduction of “light sport” airplanes that would provide economical new aircraft hasn’t worked out. They are priced at about twice the expected figure and often don’t have sufficient payload to accommodate two adults plus full fuel. 

A serious implosion in light airplane production took place during the mid-’80s, closing many production lines and shrinking the supply of available models. This was due to an oversupply of airplanes during economic malaise, coupled with the growth of rapacious product liability lawsuits and concurrent manufacturer insurance costs. Most of GA’s growth shifted into big-ticket aircraft such as turbine-powered business airplanes, utility and owner-flown, single-engine turboprops, and fast-glass, piston-engine singles.

As the new millennium arrived, Cirrus Design brought not only a new sleek composite-construction personal airplane but a fresh approach to marketing it. With its integral emergency parachute, side-stick control, video-screen, GPS-based avionics and automotive interior styling, the Cirrus SR series appealed to a new generation of entrants to GA. The company quickly filled a void abandoned by the traditional airplane companies that had been acquired by corporate conglomerates that were more interested in selling big-ticket business aircraft than entry-level models. 

• READ MORE: GA, Private Aviation Dodge Worst of Cyber Outage Impact

The real revolution now stems from the utility gained by effortless navigation provided by GPS data flowing into advanced computing capability, so that panel-mounted displays can not only show current position but flight plan routing, all linked to advanced autopilot technology taking care of most cross-country piloting chores. With uplinked, in-cockpit weather integrated into tablet-based “electronic flight bags” or the avionics suite, there’s no longer any excuse for pressing on into unflyable conditions lurking over the horizon. 

Retrofitting this advanced technology into legacy aircraft is simply a matter of allocating enough money to make the airplane useful. The ADS-B mandate of 2020 has given more flexibility to ATC handling of any size of aircraft—at the cost of privacy and freedom. Yes, we deal with a multitude of airspace rules and restrictions, but we had to negotiate many of those same encroachments in the late 20th century, and with less computing power in the cockpit back then to help us avoid them. 

Airport infrastructure has shifted away from providing accommodations for all comers to building for the biggest user, leaving light general aviation to occupy the corners of the ramp or a remote edge of the airport. Stand-alone, family-operated FBOs have been replaced by chains of opulent palaces catering to the jet set. We can expect to pay for what used to be free services, because our minuscule fuel business is no longer important enough to be willingly subsidized by the big iron customers. 

Expectations are greater in the 21st century—in all aspects of life, not just GA. New entrants to flying expect seamless air conditioning, push-button actuations, plush accommodations, and high levels of service, compared with their more-tolerant parents and grandparents. If passengers can’t have Wi-Fi on board, they don’t want to ride with us. Privileges have their price, reflected in million-dollar sticker prices on new limited-production piston singles and multiple millions for personal turboprops. 

At least we still have options, even though we may have more money tied up in our instrument panel than a first-class traveling airplane cost back in the late 1900s. We’ve lost many airports to housing and industrial developments, but many remain, still giving access to communities via general aviation, providing transportation and utility possible in no other way. 

Flying’s Future

The future, from my jaded perspective, will be different, perhaps not to the tastes of my generation but still suitable and rewarding to those who’ll be doing most of the GA flying.

Accommodations might have to be made for the hyper-promoted electric urban air mobility (UAM) vehicles, manned and unmanned, in various stages of development for a market that may or may not exist. If airspace, bases, and routes have to be carved out for these anticipated thousands of mass-transit conveyances, we may see some disruption of traditional air traffic.

• READ MORE: Hangar Shortage Spurs 2 GA Pilots to Launch Development Project

The big unknown is the impact of governmental and public policy interference on a limited-participation activity like general aviation. Regardless of the facts, the loudest voices get the most attention at law-making levels, and well-meaning but shortsighted regulation can wind up stifling the freedom of flight enjoyed by private citizens. We must continue to support our GA membership organizations, and these associations must link arms with other interests, such as business aviation, helicopter operators, agricultural aviation, flight training, avionics shops, and FBOs, to ward off possible restrictions and bad laws stemming from class-envy and special-interest rhetoric targeting the industry.

I remain eternally optimistic about aviation, because I’ve always observed humankind’s innate desire to fly. From the days of the earliest prehistoric human watching soaring birds, there’s always been something urging us to look skyward, yearning to share the perspective of height. People will always want to fly, and once having tasted the freedom of personal wings, it is difficult to give it up. It behooves us to share flight with as many of our friends and acquaintances as possible, building a coalition to preserve what we’ve been given. 

A love of flying, like all passions, has to be given away if it is to be continuously circulated back to the conferrer.

This feature first appeared in the Summer 2024 Ultimate Issue print edition.

The post Ultimate Issue: The State of U.S. General Aviation appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On Monday at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Piper announced that it renewed its distribution partnership with the aerospace titan, making Boeing its exclusive distributor for key parts and components through 2029.

“We are thrilled to grow this partnership with Boeing,” said Ron Gunnarson, vice president of sales, marketing, and customer support at Piper. “In the coming year, look for improved response time and dedicated, Piper-specific CSR assistance.”

Piper has relied on Boeing as its primary spares depot since 2010. The latter maintains an inventory of Piper parts worth over $22 million and, according to the company, has a fill rate north of 98 percent on forecasted parts. Boeing’s Dallas-Fort Worth warehouse complements Piper depots around the world, including in Europe, to enable international shipments.

Separately, Piper on Thursday announced that it delivered four Pilot 100i’s to the Florida Institute of Technology (FIT), part of a previously agreed order for eight aircraft. FIT is a key customer for the manufacturer, operating a fleet of only Piper aircraft: Archers, Seminoles, and Warriors.

“What makes all of this even more meaningful is that a dozen of our alumni working at Piper helped build these planes,” said John Nicklow, president of FIT. “It’s a high-flying example of the power of a Florida Tech education in action.”

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Piper, Boeing Extend Exclusive 5-Year Distribution Deal appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

They were rare in general aviation airplanes until 2014 when the FAA simplified the requirements for installing them. A proliferation of aftermarket AOA systems followed, ranging in price from around $300 to more than $3,000. I don’t know how widely these devices have been adopted, nor do I know whether any study has been made of their impact on the GA accident rate.

Despite its well-known shortcomings as a stall-warning device, the airspeed indicator remains the only AOA reference in most airplanes. It has the advantages of being a mechanically simple system, intuitive, and familiar. Speed is an everyday experience, while angle of attack, for most pilots, remains in the realm of the theoretical.

Theoretical or not, I think, to start with, that we could improve the terminology. “Angle of attack” is really a proxy for something else, namely “the amount of the maximum lift available that is currently in use.” So it would be more meaningful to speak of a “lift indicator,” “relative lift indicator,” or “lift fraction indicator.”

• READ MORE: The Craft of Providing Variety in Airplanes

One of the advantages of thinking in terms of lift fraction is that almost all of the important characteristic speeds of any airplane—the exceptions are the nonaerodynamic speeds, such as gear-and-flap-lowering speeds—fall close to the same fractions of lift regardless of airplane size, shape, or weight. Best L/D speed is at around 50 percent and 1.3 V_s at exactly 60 percent. Stall, obviously, is at 100 percent. A lift gauge is universal: It behaves, and can be used, in the same way in all airplanes.

A few years ago, in a column titled “A Modest Proposal,” I suggested demoting the hallowed airspeed indicator to a subsidiary role and replacing it with a large and conspicuous lift indicator. I borrowed the title from a 1729 essay by Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver’s Travels, in which he satirically proposed that poverty in Ireland might be relieved if the populace were to sell its manifestly too numerous babies to be eaten by the rich. My appropriation of Swift’s title was meant to suggest that I considered my proposal was about as likely to be adopted as his.

At the time I wrote my article, I was not yet aware of a 2018 paper by a team led by Dave Rogers, titled “Low Cost Accurate Angle of Attack System.” Using a simple underwing probe and electronic postprocessing, Rogers and his group achieved accuracy within a fraction of a degree of angle of attack with a system costing less than $100. That’s more accuracy than you really need, but better more than less.

• READ MORE: Looking at the Physics of STOL Drag

The low cost is made possible by the availability of inexpensive small computers— Rogers’ team used a $20 Arduino—that can be programmed to do the math needed to convert the pressure variations read by a simple probe into usable AOA data. Processing is necessary because the airplane itself distorts the flow field around it and makes it all but impossible to read AOA directly with a vane or pressure probe situated close to the surface of the aircraft. Besides, configuration changes, like lowering flaps, alter the lifting characteristics of the wing.

Designing an accurate system is only half the challenge, however. There is also the problem, perhaps even more difficult, of how best to present the information to the pilot. Little agreement exists among current vendors. Some presentations use round dials, some edgewise meters, some various arrangements of colored lights or patterns of illuminated V’s and chevrons resembling a master sergeant’s shoulder patch.

In 1973, the late Randy Greene of SafeFlight Corp. gave me one of his company’s SC-150 lift indicators for my then-just-completed homebuilt, Melmoth. The SC- 150 used a rectangular display with a moving needle. There was a central stripe for approach speed flanked by a couple of dots for climb and slow-approach speeds, and a red zone heralding the approach of the stall. The probe that sensed angle of attack was a spring-loaded, leading-edge tab, externally identical to the stall-warning tabs on many GA airplanes.

Apparently, some people mounted the SC-150’s display horizontally, but that made no sense to me at all. Given that I wanted it vertical, however, Greene and I did not see eye to eye about which end should be up. Greene was a jet pilot used to a lot of high-end equipment (SafeFlight made autothrottles, among other fancy stuff, for airliners). He understood the device as a flight director—as you slowed down, the needle should move downward, directing you to lower the nose.

I, who despite having acquired in my younger days a bunch of exotic ratings, am really just a single-piston-engine guy, saw it as analogous to an attitude indicator and thought that as the nose went up the needle ought to do the same. Greene saw the display as prescriptive; I saw it as descriptive.

Recently, Mike Vaccaro, a retired Air Force Fighter Weapons School instructor, test pilot, and owner of an RV-4, wrote to acquaint me with FlyONSPEED.org, an informal group of pilots and engineers working on (among other things) practical implementation of a lift-awareness system of the type described in Rogers’ paper. The group’s work, including computer codes, is publicly available. Its proposed instrument can be seen in action in Vaccaro’s RV-4 on YouTube. 

The prototype indicator created by the FlyONSPEED group mixes descriptive and prescriptive cues. Two V’s point, one from above and one from below, at a green donut representing approach speed, 1.3 Vs, the “on speed” speed. The V’s are to be read as pointers meaning “raise the nose” and “lower the nose.” An additional mark indicates L/D speed. G loading, flap position, and slip/skid are also shown on the instrument, along with indicated airspeed.

Importantly, the visual presentation is accompanied by an aural one. As the airplane slows down, a contralto beeping becomes more and more rapid, blending into a continuous tone at the approach speed. If the airplane continues to decelerate, the beeping resumes, now in a soprano register, and becomes increasingly frenetic as the stall approaches. Ingeniously, stereo is used to provide an aural cue of slip or skid—step on the rudder pedal on the side the sound is coming from. The audio component is key: It supplies the important information continuously, without the pilot having to look at or interpret a display.

This system—it’s just a prototype, not a product—is pretty much what my “modest proposal” was hoping for, lacking only the 26 percent-of-lift mark that would indicate the maneuvering speed. Irish babies, beware.

Now I just have to figure out what we’ll do with all those discarded airspeed indicators.

This column first appeared in the Summer 2024 Ultimate Issue print edition.

The post Ultimate Issue: AOA Gets Revisited—Again appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Chinese firm on Monday announced it signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with China Southern Airlines General Aviation (CSGAC), the GA subsidiary of China Southern Airlines, which in 2023 ranked as one of the 10 largest public airlines by revenue. EHang and CSGAC will focus mainly on flight operations, infrastructure support, demonstrations, and the development of new use cases for the former’s flagship EH216-S.

Since the aircraft is self-flying, the partners will not need to worry about pilot training, a common concern among U.S. manufacturers of piloted eVTOL models. Boeing air taxi subsidiary Wisk Aero is one of the few U.S. manufacturers seeking to fly autonomously at launch.

EHang’s model is intended to be a part of China’s low-altitude economy, an analog to the advanced air mobility (AAM) industry taking shape in the U.S. and abroad.

“CSGAC is actively exploring expansion into the emerging low-altitude industry,” said Erbao Li, chairman of CSGAC. “This cooperation will create innovative archetypes for the low-altitude economy, unlocking new growth opportunities for the general aviation industry and driving the high-quality advancement of the low-altitude economy industry chain in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area.”

The companies intend to create demonstration sites at Zhuhai Jiuzhou Airport (ZGSD) and Zhuhai Chimelong Ocean Kingdom, a popular theme park, that will serve as hubs for aerial tourism in Zhuhai and the surrounding Greater Bay Area.

“As a frontrunner in the eVTOL industry, we believe that the safe operations of pilotless eVTOL aircraft is crucial to the industry’s development,” said Zhao Wang, chief operating officer of EHang. “Together with CSGAC, we will establish demonstration sites for pilotless eVTOL operations in the Greater Bay Area and spearhead safe, sustainable, and efficient low-altitude operations.”

The partners will also look at potential island-hopping use cases for the EH216-S, including cargo transport, emergency response, and medical evacuations. CSGAC will help train EHang operational personnel, build vertiport infrastructure, develop a platform for flight services, and define maintenance standards.

The arrangement is somewhat similar to those between Archer Aviation and United Airlines and Joby Aviation and Delta Air Lines, for example.

Unlike Archer and Joby, EHang already has begun delivering aircraft to customers. In December, the EH216-S became the first eVTOL air taxi to complete a commercial flight, a feat made more impressive by the fact that the aircraft flies entirely on its own. It followed that in May with the Middle East’s first passenger-carrying eVTOL demonstration.

The two-passenger aircraft has a range of about 22 sm (19 nm) and cruises at about 80 mph (70 knots), making it smaller and less capable than most piloted eVTOL designs, such as Archer’s Midnight or Joby’s air taxi. While those companies are focused mainly on transportation to and from airports, EHang will prioritize out-and-back aerial sightseeing trips.

A wingless design, the EH216-S deploys a coaxial dual-propeller architecture, with eight foldable arms housing 16 lift-and-thrust rotors.

The Chinese manufacturer has received plenty of help, obtaining financial and regulatory support from local and regional governments, particularly those in the cities of Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Hefei. Unlike the FAA or European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), China’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAAC) wants to get autonomous aircraft in the skies first, perceiving them as safer than their crewed counterparts. EHang’s closest competitor is Autoflight, another manufacturer of self-flying eVTOL air taxis.

In addition to being the first to receive type certification, the EH216-S is also the first aircraft of its kind to be approved for airworthiness and mass production, which began in April. In February, the manufacturer revealed the price tag for the model: around $330,000, which, based on FLYING’s analysis, would make it one of the cheapest eVTOL air taxis on the market.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post EHang Partners With China Southern Airlines GA Arm appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Answer: In general aviation, one of the most cumbersome things to do while in flight is to file a pilot weather report, more commonly known as a PIREP. This has created the unfortunate situation that on any given day 98 percent of the PIREPs in the system are typically describing weather conditions at or above 18,000 feet.

It wasn’t all that long ago that the Enroute Flight Advisory Service (EFAS) was available primarily for pilots to receive weather updates while they were flying to their destination. More importantly, EFAS was the main outlet to file a PIREP such that it was guaranteed to be input into the system and become available for other pilots to see. This service was also called Flight Watch.

Given that EFAS was organized by Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC), you simply put 122.0 MHz into your radio, keyed the mic, and referenced them by a particular center’s airspace you were located within. For example, if you were in the Jacksonville Center’s airspace in Florida, your initial call might have been, “Jacksonville Flight Watch, Skyhawk One Two Three Whiskey X-ray, 30 miles southwest of the Brunswick V-O-R at five thousand five hundred.” Then as long as you were more than 5,000 feet above the ground, someone from Flight Watch came on the frequency, and you engaged in a two-way conversation to file your PIREP.

• READ MORE: The Ins and Outs of Pilot Weather Reports

However, EFAS was terminated on October 1, 2015. This now leaves the arduous task of finding the right Flight Service Station (FSS) frequency, making contact, and hoping someone on the other end responds to your call. The frequency you use to transmit and receive is dependent on your location. Pull out your VFR sectional (paper or electronic version), find the nearest VOR to your location, and look for the frequency located on the top of the VOR information box.

Of course, the correct frequency to use may also be available through your avionics or one of the many heavyweight electronic flight bag apps.

This is the frequency you will use to transmit and receive. Below the box is the name of the particular FSS to use in your initial call. For example, if you are near the Brunswick VORTAC in Georgia, your initial call may be, “Macon Radio, Skyhawk One Two Three Whiskey X-ray, transmitting and receiving on 122.2, over.” This is the easy case.

• READ MORE: How to Wrap Your Head Around Weather

If there’s an “R” shown at the end of the frequency (e.g., 122.1R), then that means FSS will receive on this frequency and you will transmit on this frequency. And you’ll need to be sure you listen for its response over the VOR frequency. Make sure your volume is turned up and not muted on your VOR radio.

This column first appeared in the May 2024/Issue 948 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post How Do I File a Pilot Weather Report Online? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The next day, the wreckage of the 140, its front end crushed, was found a few hundred feet northwest of the pilot’s private strip. Since the flaps were down, it had evidently been approaching to land when it stalled and spun. There was no way to know why the mishap occurred, but the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on the accident noted that conditions were such that carburetor icing was likely.

Stall spins are, and always have been, a common cause of fatalities in general aviation. They often occur during turns at the base-leg end of the pattern. What made this accident a little less usual than most was the history that led up to it.

According to the NTSB, the father, 39, was a student pilot. He had learned to fly from his grandfather, who had no pilot certificate at all. The father began logging time in 2007 and stopped in 2015. He got his last FAA medical in 2014 and his last fight review in 2015. He had a student endorsement for a Cessna 150 but none for the 140. The NTSB estimated his total time as 40 hours, of which 20 were as pilot in command and 20 were in the 140. These estimates were based, apparently, on the fact that the pilot used the 140 to survey local water towers from the air and report levels to their owners.

• READ MORE: Three-Mile Limit: Novice Pilots Succumb to the Perils of Total Darkness

The CFI from whom the pilot had received some flight instruction—and who described him as a “safe pilot”—reported that the pilot knew he was not allowed to carry passengers with a student certificate, but he was “anti-regulation with the government.” The NTSB attributed the accident to the “student pilot’s noncompliance and lack of experience” but noted it was impossible to know who was at the controls at the time of the fatal stall. The father could have been upholding the family tradition by teaching his son to fly.

Three weeks after that accident occurred, a Cessna 421 crashed in a wooded area near the DeLand, Florida, airport (KDED), killing its three occupants. A couple of witnesses saw the airplane flying at low altitude. One, who spotted the airplane on two occasions 10 minutes apart, described the engines on the second sighting as sounding as if they were idling. Another witness reported hearing popping or backfiring sounds. The latter witness also reported the airplane rolled to the left three times before he lost sight of it behind the treetops. It’s not clear whether by “roll” he meant a full roll or, more plausibly, a wing dropping and then coming up again.

The NTSB concluded “it is most likely the pilot lost control of the airplane while maneuvering” and added that the “pilot’s lack of any documented previous training in the accident airplane make and model contributed to his inability to maintain control of the airplane.”

• READ MORE: Fatal Cirrus Accident Shows That Some Knowledge Doesn’t Translate

The pilot of the ill-fated 421 was a 500-hour SMEL CFI. His logbook lacked a “complex airplane” endorsement, but that was probably an oversight. A complex airplane is one with flaps, retractable landing gear, and a variable-pitch propeller. It would be difficult to earn a multiengine rating in an airplane without those features—there aren’t a lot of Champion Lancers left.

As pilots who have flown more than one type of airplane know, the actions required to keep them right side up are alike for all. This 500-hour CFI with 40 hours of logged multiengine time had managed to start the 421’s two GTSO 520s, taxi, take off, and fly for at least 10 minutes. He seemed to have demonstrated an ability to control the airplane.

The 421 had a somewhat checkered recent history. Its last annual inspection had been performed five years earlier, and its Hobbs meter had advanced only four hours in the meantime. Its previous owner had put it up for sale on eBay, and a Texas man had bought it for $35,000, sight unseen, intending to spend a few thousand dollars having it restored to airworthy condition and then resell it. The 50-year-old airframe had, according to aircraft.com, 5,713 hours, and both engines were well short of TBO.

NTSB investigators found nothing to suggest the engines had failed, but the condition of the propeller blades indicated “low rotational energy at impact.” Fire destroyed all fuel tanks, and the NTSB report does not comment on the quantity or quality of fuel residues or the presence or absence of water or other sediment in the engines or what remained of the fuel system.

The Texas A&P whom the owner had engaged to travel to Florida and restore the airplane to airworthy condition had located a pilot to deliver it for $4,500. That pilot, 32, was in the right seat when the crash occurred. With a private certificate and 155 hours, he was even less qualified than the left-seat pilot to fly the 421. The owner declined the suggested pilot and instead gave the job to a certain instructor whose name he did not recall.

• READ MORE: Only Assumptions Can Be Made About What Took Down a Curtiss C-46 in Alaska

Most likely, this was the instructor who was flying the airplane when the accident happened. At the time of the accident the airplane had not yet been signed off by the A&P, and afterward everyone involved denied having any idea what the two pilots and their passenger were doing flying it. The NTSB speculated that the flight was probably of a “personal” nature—that is, a joy ride.

The NTSB blamed both of these accidents on inexperience. Although the South Dakota pilot owned his airplane and had flown, on and off, for a dozen years, his experience had been intermittent. The least one could say is that when the accident occurred, he was more experienced than he had ever been before. As for the other cause cited, noncompliance, it’s hard to see how it qualifies as a cause.

Plenty of experienced and compliant pilots stall and spin, and nobody says they did so because they were too experienced or compliant. In the case of the Florida crash, the NTSB cited the “pilot’s lack of training and experience in the accident airplane make and model.”

The analysis fails to even suggest the possibility of an external cause, such as, say, a partial power loss in the left engine. In fact, as an online bodycam video of the arrival of would-be rescuers at the accident site shows, the airplane came to rest right side up and was not severely fragmented.

Was it really out of control? Or was the pilot valiantly trying to cope with an emergency not of his own making?

Note: This article is based on the National Transportation Safety Board’s report of the accident and is intended to bring the issues raised to our readers’ attention. It is not intended to judge or reach any definitive conclusions about the ability or capacity of any person, living or dead, or any aircraft or accessory.

This column first appeared in the April 2024/Issue 947 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Two Fatal Cases of the Simply Inexperienced appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1947 Stinson 108-2.

You stand a pretty good chance of spotting a Stinson 108 at a vintage fly-in, on the ramp at a rural airport, or even peeking out of a neighbor’s hangar at your local field. That is because more than 5,000 of the popular, high-wing family transporters were built between the immediate postwar period and the early 1950s. Even though they are antiques, these handsome, substantial airplanes are not as rare as you might think.

The 108 evolved from the prewar Stinson 105 series and grew in popularity as general aviation experienced a boom after World War II. Compared with many of its immediate predecessors, the 108 had a roomy, comfortable cabin, better instrumentation, and a lot more power. Its overall four-seat layout became the template for GA aircraft to come.

Most 108s were called Voyagers, a name carried over from the 105s, while some carried the Station Wagon moniker because of their reinforced rear floors designed for carrying cargo. Today there are a lot of Stinson enthusiasts and an active club maintaining a strong support network for the aged aircraft and making them reasonably practical and economical to operate.

This Stinson 108-2 has 2,400 hours on the airframe and 595 hours on its 165 hp Franklin HC engine. The aircraft has a metal wing, Cleveland brakes, new tires and wheel pants. Its basic VFR panel includes a King KX125 Nav/Com, intercom, and ADS-B Out.

Pilots who are interested in owning a vintage aircraft with roots reaching back to aviation’s golden age, but also want basic modern comfort and practicality, should consider this 1947 Stinson 108-2, which is available for $45,000 on AircraftForSale.

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

• FLYING Magazine: Approachable Aircraft: Stinson 108
• FLYING Magazine: Pilots Gather at the 2022 Stinson Summit
• FLYING Magazine: His and Hers Stinsons
• Plane & Pilot: Rocky Mountain Turbulence in an Old Stinson
• Plane & Pilot: Stinson Reliant
• AVweb: 1947 Stinson 108-2

The post This 1947 Stinson 108-2 Is a Well-Supported Antique ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1947 Piper J-3C Cub.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Civilian Pilot Training Act in 1939 as part of a plan to boost the nation’s overall readiness for potential combat, he gave an opportunity to thousands of aspiring aviators who might never have learned to fly without the government program. The resulting flurry of flight instruction sharply raised demand for trainer aircraft. This was the beginning of the Piper J-3 Cub’s ascendance.

Demand for the simple, rugged taildragger soared, and Piper turned out thousands of them for wartime training. After the war the J-3 continued as the go-to trainer as general aviation grew through the 1950s. Over time, the Cub developed a huge following that continues today, with values climbing for these rag-and-tube classics.

The J-3 is fun to fly. My flying club had one in its fleet several years ago, and I managed to wrangle stick time on a couple of occasions. The Cub’s leisurely cruising speed of about 60 to 70 ktas added to the gentle impression it made in the air. The aircraft was less accommodating on the ground, where it tended to wallow on bungee-damped wheel struts. Still, it was fairly easy to handle and treated me well. 

This 1947 Piper J-3 has 2,000 hours on the airframe and 180 hours on its Continental C-85 engine. The aircraft received new Stitts system covering in 2009.

Pilots interested in returning to what many consider the beginning of mass-market general aviation should consider this 1947 Piper J-3C Cub, which is available for $39,000 on AircraftForSale.

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

• FLYING Magazine: Piper J-3 Cub’s Heritage of Simplicity, Reliability
• FLYING Magazine: Piper Cub
• FLYING Magazine: A Virtual History of the Piper Cub
• Plane & Pilot: Top 8 Historic American Aircraft
• Plane & Pilot: What Color is Your Cub?
• The Aviation Consumer: Used Aircraft Guide: Piper J-3 Cub

The post This 1947 Piper J-3 Cub Is a Historic, Beloved ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Doroni Aerospace on Friday revealed the sleek-looking H1-X: a two-seat electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) model designed for personal transportation. The company anticipates the first H1-X test flight by the end of 2024.

Doroni could certify the tandem wing design as a light sport aircraft (LSA) under the FAA’s MOSAIC proposal, which would raise the weight limit on such aircraft from 1,320 pounds to about 3,000 pounds. Doing so would lower the model’s barrier to certification and make it more accessible to pilots.

Personal eVTOL aircraft such as the H1-X are expected to hit the U.S. market before electric air taxis, which a handful of manufacturers intend to launch commercially in 2025. The smaller models may give Americans their first glimpse of eVTOL technology.

“The H1-X is not just a vehicle; it’s a leap towards a future where freedom of movement and sustainability coexist,” said Doron Merdinger, CEO of Doroni. “Our dedication to innovation, safety, and the environment is embodied in every aspect of the H1-X, marking a new chapter in transportation.”

Doroni called the H1-X’s unusual tandem wing configuration—which it claims will enhance lift and efficiency—a “leap in aerodynamic sophistication.” It includes integrated wing landing gear, with wing fences to manage airflow.

Another defining feature is the propulsion system. The aircraft receives its lift from four in-wing electric ducted fans, a technology also featured on the Lilium Jet. The fans are designed to reduce noise and improve flight efficiency while keeping the blades enclosed, making the H1-X suitable for urban environments.

Eight vertical electric motors—two each on the aircraft’s four wings—power the fans, enabling quiet and efficient vertical takeoff and landing without a runway. The company said the eVTOL could even land on driveways or roofs.

As two rear-mounted pusher propellers move the aircraft forward, its wings generate lift, conserving power and reducing the amount of lift thrust required from the fans. Doroni said it has patented the combination of tandem wings and electric ducted fans. It added that the design was inspired by jet fighters of the 1950s and 1960s, which blended different wing cambers and sweeps.

The aircraft can fly for about 40 minutes on a single charge, with the ability to charge fully in as little as 20 minutes. Battery packs will be swappable and compatible with standard electric ground vehicle chargers, similar to most eVTOL air taxi concepts.

Combined, the technologies aboard the H1-X give the aircraft a range of 60 sm (52 nm), top speed of 120 mph (104 knots), and payload capacity of 500 pounds, making it ideal for urban or semiurban commutes, Doroni said.

The aircraft was “designed to make flying as accessible as driving,” according to the company. The pilot controls the eVTOL using a single joystick, powering it on and initiating takeoff or landing with a single push of a button. Intuitive precision flight controls do the rest. To store it, owners require only the space of a two-car garage.

The aircraft comes with semiautonomous navigation as well as a self-stabilizing flight system, which is designed to keep the aircraft in equilibrium. Safety features include a built-in ballistic parachute and advanced anti-collision sensors that continuously monitor for obstacles.

The H1-X’s total takeoff weight of 1,850 pounds would qualify it as LSA under the FAA’s MOSAIC proposal, which would expand the definition of LSA to accommodate new aircraft types. Doroni last year said it would consider LSA certification for the H1, its “go-to-market aircraft” unveiled in 2021. It did not mention such plans for the H1-X, but it’s possible the manufacturer has similar intentions.

Doroni said its new model has the potential to transform not just personal travel but also logistics and support services. The company envisions a wide range of applications, including cargo delivery, emergency services, and military operations.

Doroni launched preorders for the go-to-market H1 in 2022. It announced it would accept 36 preorder reservations in the first year of production, “scaling slowly in order to ensure the highest level of quality and safety possible.” Customers will require a valid driver’s license and the completion of a 20-hour training course to fly the H1. The company anticipates the aircraft’s launch later this year.

The predecessor to the H1-X in July completed what Doroni said was the first test flight of a personal two-seat eVTOL in the U.S. It received FAA airworthiness certification in December, at which time the company said it had more than 370 preorders in its backlog.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Doroni Aerospace Unveils H1-X Personal ‘Flying Car’ appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Apparently as a veteran airline pilot, I am a magnet for such exchanges because folks consider the profession an authority on all things aviation. In reality, no pilot is a complete authority, especially me. Maybe some of us just appear to have more credibility than others. It’s been many years since I’ve focused on the opportunity to share the flying experience—one of them being the iconic $100 hamburger, which we all know has probably doubled in price. Most nonpilots are familiar with the concept but have never really experienced it.

So, over my recent retirement years, with the intention of providing insight to my passion, I’ve invited a handful of friends on separate flights to various airport dining destinations. Unexpectedly, the flights have been a learning experience for me as well.

My friend Jack has an engineering background, with the Hubble Space Telescope having been a part of his repertoire. In earlier days, he and his son (now the chief engineer with a major international auto racing organization), invested time and money into amateur racing. He has an above-average understanding of the intricacies involved with reciprocating engines, including almost anything else that can be defined on a spreadsheet.

Having a naturally inquisitive nature, Jack asked intimate questions about airplane performance and operations, and ATC procedures. Our trip down Florida’s east coast through Daytona Beach airspace to New Smyrna Beach (KEVB) for lunch was all of 25 minutes. If I wasn’t responding to a controller, I was answering a question.

I had briefed Jack on the moderate crosswind and potential gusts we would most likely encounter. After applying a noticeable crab angle, the airplane began to buffet in a sea of choppy air. In monotone, I uttered, “Yippee-ki-yay” on short final. A Google search claims that the phrase is of Native American origin, meaning, “This is a good day to die.” It’s been one of my catch phrases for such circumstances over many years of flying. Perhaps I should keep it to myself. Jack remained uncharacteristically silent while I wrestled with the control yoke.

Elated by the entire experience, in addition to his meal, Jack expressed his gratitude. He painted a positive picture of the day to his wife, Kathy, but employed poetic license in describing the “hurricane force” winds that challenged my landing. He claimed it had been my intent to subject him to those conditions. Apparently, it was all forgotten when Kathy herself agreed to a lunch flight, which was flown on a spectacular VFR day without a bump.

Having not so subtly hinted at his desire for a ride, I next invited Ira to lunch. Ira is a colorful character. His background could fill the pages of this magazine. Suffice it to say his intelligence is only surpassed by his wandering attention. He has no patience for you to complete the answer to his question because he’s already armed with the next one.

Oftentimes, Ira is already discussing a new topic within the same sentence. He is a human sponge of information gathering. Beyond Ira’s full-throttle energy level, one of his best attributes is the benevolence of his time for family and friends. Translation: He’s got a big heart.

Needless to say, my takeoff briefing with Ira was slightly more thorough. I placed special emphasis on the need to remain silent when the aircraft call sign was spoken on the radio. Predictably, a raised index finger was the best solution for intercom silence…which wasn’t always successful.

Having spent a career dealing with the distractions of checklists, warning lights, computer entries, navigation, flight attendant interaction, weather deviations, and flying the airplane, I felt up to the task. With Albert Whitted Airport (KSPG) in St. Petersburg as the lunch destination, we would be transiting Orlando and Tampa Class B airspace, which always compels me to file IFR. I’d rather be directed around departure or arrival traffic than risk my analysis of VFR courses and altitudes that might get me in trouble if not cleared to enter Class B airspace, notwithstanding better traffic separation in a very busy area.

From the moment I started the airplane, Ira peppered me with questions. All of his inquiries were intelligent, involving subject matters that were topics my human database had long ago assimilated and now took for granted. His curiosity was insatiable. His questions ranged from, “Do we have to follow ATC instructions?” to “Why are we at this altitude?” and everything in between.

As anticipated for our return home, we began to encounter typical Florida afternoon weather. The ingredients for convection were at the early stages of transforming cumulus into cumulonimbus. Ira asked why we were zigging and zagging. Grinning, I told him that I was saving him the embarrassment of having to scream. He got the message when ATC assigned a mandatory heading that afforded us the opportunity to sample the inside of a cumulus cloud.

Ira had a preconceived notion that pilot tasks were simply to raise the nose off the runway, fly to cruise flight, and then land the airplane. He was astounded how much is really involved.

• READ MORE: Food for Flight Is the Way to Go

Ken was a former B-52 crew chief during the Vietnam era. Among the many hats he has worn was chairman of our city commission. He now focuses on being a feared hunter of fish. Ken enjoys the serenity of watching the scenery pass beneath the wings without uttering a word.

I’ve had the pleasure of Ken’s company at a Mecum car show auction in Kissimmee (KISM), a trip to Arcadia (X06) for “touch-and-go Tuesdays,” a low approach over the space shuttle landing strip that included a breakfast at Vero Beach (KVRB), and an early breakfast at Albert Whitted. A touchdown on Arcadia’s grass runway because of a repaving project on the main runway was one of Ken’s highlights, having never experienced such an operation.

The Albert Whitted arrival included a flat tire on rollout, an event we could have both done without. Following the efforts of an efficient and friendly maintenance shop, breakfast was not jeopardized. We were able to watch the pit stop tire tube change from the outside balcony of the restaurant.

What did I learn on these excursions? Judging by my friends’ continued jubilant accounts of their trips, just one flight can have a lasting impact on someone’s life experience. It was rewarding to be reminded of this again.

Can you actually fly to lunch? Yes, but it’s an even better experience with nonpilot friends.

This column first appeared in the October 2023/Issue 942 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post So, You Can Actually Fly to Lunch? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.